Arizona Department of Water Resources May 2009 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 2 Eastern Plateau Planning Area ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Herbert Guenther Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Tom Carr Assistant Director, Statewide Water Conservation and Strategic Planning Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Assistant Director, Water Management Atlas Team Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Kelly Mott Lacroix Joe Stuart Major Contributors John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors Patrick Brand Matt Beversdorf Jenna Gillis Roberto Chavez Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Larri Tearman Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Special note about the Atlas Team Completion of the Atlas would not have been possible without the dedicated professionals that compose the Atlas Team. Most have been involved with the project from its inception in 2003 and their contributions to the success of the project cannot be overstated. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 CONTENTS PREFACE SECTION 2.0 Overview of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 2.0.1 Geography 2.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 2.0.3 Climate 2.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species National Parks, Monuments and Wilderness Areas Unique Waters 2.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 2.0.6 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 2.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 2.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups and Studies Surveys Tribal Issues 2.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics References SECTION 2.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.1 Geography of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.2 Land Ownership in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.3 Climate of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.4 Surface Water Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 1 1 4 6 6 9 11 15 15 19 20 20 22 25 25 25 27 28 30 32 33 36 36 39 44 47 49 49 50 51 52 54 58 64 65 67 70 75 84 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.7 Water Quality of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area through 2008 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans (all values are in acre-feet) APPENDIX C: Surface Water Rights and Adjudications Filings APPENDIX D: Rural Watershed Partnerships Issue Summary for the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (2008) ii 91 109 116 121 136 152 154 158 164 172 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 FIGURES Figure 2.0-1 Figure 2.0-2 Figure 2.0-3 Figure 2.0-4 Figure 2.0-5 Figure 2.0-6 Figure 2.0-7 Figure 2.0-8 Figure 2.0-9 Figure 2.0-10 Figure 2.0-11 Figure 2.0-12 Figure 2.0-13 Figure 2.0-14 Figure 2.0-15 Figure 2.0-16 Figure 2.0-17 Figure 2.0-18 Figure 2.0-19 Figure 2.0-20 Figure 2.1-1 Figure 2.1-2 Figure 2.1-3 Figure 2.1-4 Figure 2.1-5 Figure 2.1-6 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Eastern Plateau Planning Area 3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona 4 Surface Geology of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area  5 Water Bearing Formations of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 6 Eastern Plateau Planning Area USGS Watersheds  10 Average Temperature and Total Precipitation in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area From 1930-2002 12 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 1930-2002 13 Mt. Baldy Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE) for 1983-2006. 14 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 2 (Northeastern Arizona; Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties) Winter (November-April) Precipitation Departures From Average, 1000-1988, Reconstructed From Tree Rings 14 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 16 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Location of Major Wildfires, 20022006  19 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 21 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Protected Areas 23 Water Supply Utilized in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 28 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points 31 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Contamination Sites 35 Cultural Water Demand by Sector in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 36 Irrigation and Non-irrigation Water Demand in the Joseph City INA 46 Average Annual Water Demand by Electrical Generating Stations in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 48 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Geographic Features 66 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Land Ownership 69 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 74 Annual flows (acre-feet) at Little Colorado River at Holbrook, water years 1930-2008 (Station #9397000) 76 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions 83 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 90 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-7 Figure 2.2-8 Figure 2.1-9 Figure 2.1-10 Figure 2.1-11 Figure 2.1-12 Figure C-1 Figure C-2 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs  Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Well Yields Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demands Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points in Arizona iv 95 96 108 115 120 135 167 170 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 TABLES Table 2.0-1 Table 2.0-2 Table 2.0-3 Table 2.0-4 Table 2.0-5 Table 2.0-6 Table 2.0-7 Table 2.0-8 Table 2.0-9 Table 2.0-10 Table 2.0-11 Table 2.0-12 Table 2.0-13 Table 2.0-14 Table 2.1-1 Table 2.1-2 Table 2.1-3 Table 2.1-4 Table 2.1-5 Table 2.1-6 Table 2.1-7 Table 2.1-8 Table 2.1-9 Table 2.1-10 Table C-1 Instream flow claims in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 20 Threatened and endangered species in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 22 Wilderness areas in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 24 2000 Census population of the Eastern Plateau and Indian  Reservations 25 Communities in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 26 Count of surface water right and adjudication filings in the 30 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Contamination sites in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 34 Municipal demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area in 2006 (in acre-feet) 39 Water providers serving 500 acre-feet or more of water per year, excluding effluent, in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 40 Golf course demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (c.2006) 40 Agricultural demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 44 Active agricultural acres in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 45 Industrial demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 47 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 52 Climate Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 72 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 77 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 80 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 81 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 85 Groundwater Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 93 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 110 Cultural Water Demand in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 117 Effluent Generation in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 118 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 122 Count of surface water rights and adjudication filings by planning area 169 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 vi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 2 –EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA PREFACE Volume 2, the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, is the second in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas also indicates where data are lacking and further investigation may be needed. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 2.0-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an executive summary volume composed of background information (Volume 1) and a resource sustainability assessment volume (Volume 9). “Planning areas” are an organizational concept that provide for a regional perspective on supply, demand and water resource issues. A complete discussion of Atlas organization, purpose and scope is found in Volume 1. Also included in Volume 1 is general background information for the state and a summary of water supply and demand data for all planning areas. Appendices in Volume 1 describe data sources and methods of analysis, provide information on water law, management and programs and Indian water rights claims and settlements. the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin. The planning area is relatively high in elevation and is geographically diverse with the highest peaks in the state as well as deep sandstone canyons and large mesas. Almost two-thirds of the land area is under tribal ownership. Elevations range from over 12,600 feet in the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff to 4,200 feet where the Little Colorado River exits the Basin at Cameron. Parts of three counties are contained within the Eastern Plateau Planning Area: Apache (90% of the county), Coconino (41%) and Navajo (89%) counties. All or parts of three Indian reservations are located within the planning area – the Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni reservations. San Juan Southern Paiute tribal members occupy lands located within the Navajo reservation. The Joseph City Irrigation Non-expansion Area (INA) was designated west of Holbrook in Apache County due to insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation (A.R.S. § 45-431) (Figure 2.0-2). Much of the planning area is sparsely populated. Flagstaff is the largest metropolitan area with almost 52,900 residents in 2000 and an estimated population of 64,200 in 2007. Other There are additional, more detailed data available to those presented in this volume. These data may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department). SECTION 2.0 Overview of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area The Eastern Plateau Planning Area is unique in that it is composed of one groundwater basin, Navajo Generating Station. The planning area has a large industrial water use sector due to several electrical generating stations, large coal mining operations and a paper mill. Section 2.0 Overview 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 population centers include Show Low/Pinetop/ Lakeside, Winslow/Holbrook, Page, and Tuba City, Window Rock, Chinle and Kayenta on the Navajo Reservation. The 2000 Census planning area population was almost 250,000. An annual average of about 170,500 acre-feet of water per year was used during the period 2001-2005 in the planning area for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand). The water supplies utilized to meet these demands include primarily groundwater (104,800 acre-feet), surface water from the Colorado River and other streams (50,800 acre-feet) and effluent (14,900 acre-feet). The planning area has a large industrial water use sector due to the presence of several electrical generating stations, large coal mining operations and a paper mill. Industrial water use is currently about 83,100 acre-feet per year (AFA). Municipal sector average annual demand is approximately 45,000 acre-feet. Agricultural demand is relatively small-scale with an estimated annual demand of 42,400 acre-feet. Figure 2.0-2 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Section 2.0 Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.0.1. Geography1 The Eastern Plateau Planning Area encompasses 26,700 square miles (sq. mi.) in the northeastern portion of the state. The planning area consists of one groundwater basin, the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin. Counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 2.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the Arizona-Utah border, on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico border, on the south by the Mogollon Rim, and on the west by the Coconino Plateau Basin and Paria Basin in the Western Plateau Planning Area, whose boundaries coincide closely with U.S. Highway 89 (Figure 2.0-1). The Mogollon Rim is an escarpment almost 2,000 feet high in some places, extending from central Arizona to the Mogollon Mountains in New Mexico. It forms a hydrologic boundary between the Eastern Plateau Planning Area and the basins of the Central Highlands and Southeastern Arizona planning areas. The Eastern Plateau Planning Area includes parts of four watersheds, which are discussed in Section 2.0-2. All of the Hopi Indian Reservation (2,534 sq. mi.), approximately 56% (14,680 sq. mi.) of the Navajo Indian Reservation, 2% of the Zuni Reservation (16 sq. mi.) and less than 0.2% of the Apache Reservation are located within the planning area. Ninety percent of the Navajo lands in Arizona are located in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Many members of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe reside in several distinct communities located on the Navajo Reservation. The San Juan Southern Paiute is a relatively small tribe of approximately 265 members. The largest community is located at Willow Springs near Tuba City (ITCA, 2003). Figure 2.0-3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona Data source: Fenneman and Johnson, 1946 stratified sedimentary rocks that have been eroded into canyons and plateaus, and by some high mountains. Major mountain ranges are the San Francisco Peaks near Flagstaff, the White Mountains in the southeastern portion of the planning area and the Chuska and Lukachukai mountains located along the Arizona-New Mexico border (Figure 2.1-1). The Chuskas reach an elevation of almost 10,000 feet and much of the rain and snow that falls in the Chuskas drains westward into Canyon de Chelly. The Hopi Reservation is characterized by three mesas that rise to an elevation of 7,200 feet. Elevations vary from 12,633 feet at Humphreys Peak near Flagstaff, the state’s highest point, to 4,200 feet at Cameron. The average elevation of the planning area is 6,061 feet. As shown in Figure 2.0-3 the planning area is almost entirely within the Colorado Plateau physiographic province, which covers the Unique geographic features of the planning northern two-fifths of Arizona. This province area include its relatively high elevation is characterized by mostly level, horizontally plateaus and mountains, steep cliffs, deeply 1 Except as noted, the information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume II, ADWR, August 1994. 4 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 incised sandstone canyons, and the painted desert consisting of multicolored badland hills and mesas that stretch across much of the midsection of the planning area. The southern boundary of the planning area marks part of the southern extent of the Colorado Plateau that occupies northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, eastern Utah and western Colorado. The Colorado Plateau is at least 500 million years old and has remained “structurally intact” while the surrounding Rocky Mountains and basin and range province were being formed. Huge amounts of sediment were deposited in the region which hardened into sedimentary rock several miles thick. (Grahame and Sisk, 2002) Another geographic feature of the planning area is the relatively large number of volcanic cinder cones and peaks. Mt. Baldy in the White Mountains and the San Francisco Peaks are volcanic in origin and the San Francisco Peaks are considered potentially active. Sunset Crater northeast of Flagstaff erupted as recently as 1065 AD (Parra and others, 2006). Figure 2.0-4 shows the location of volcanic rocks in the vicinity of Flagstaff and the White Mountains, as well as other geologic information. Much of the planning area is arid with few perennial or intermittent streams; however a significant number of perennial streams and lakes are found at higher elevations along its Figure 2.0-4 Surface Geology of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (Based on Reynolds, 1988) Section 2.0 Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 southern boundary, and the Colorado River and C-aquifers. Each has a very large areal defines the extreme northwestern boundary of extent within the basin and except for the D- and the planning area (Figure 2.1-5). N- aquifers, there is little vertical hydrologic connection between them. These water-bearing 2.0.2 Hydrology2 formations gain thickness towards the center of the basin resulting in artesian conditions. Groundwater Hydrology Primary recharge areas are along the southern and eastern periphery of the planning area. It is A significant portion of the planning area is estimated that there are about 508 million acreunderlain by Mesozoic to Paleozoic sedimentary feet (maf) in storage in Little Colorado River and volcanic rocks (Figure 2.0-4) that form the Plateau aquifers (ADWR, 1990a). Figure 2.0-5 area’s regional aquifers. The sedimentary rocks shows a generalized cross-section of the waterconsist of sandstones and limestones stacked on bearing formations of the planning area. In top of one another that are generally separated addition to these regional aquifers, several local by low permeability shales and siltsones. The aquifers are important groundwater sources. One three largest regional aquifers are the D-, N-, of the most extensive is the Bidahochi aquifer Figure 2.0-5 Water Bearing Formations of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS ALLUVIUM 8000 ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE DATUM 7000 4000 QUATERNARY AND TERTIARY TERTIARY Includes zones of non-water-bearing shaly siltstone MESA VERDE GROUP Water-bearing CRETACEOUS Black, shaly siltstone and gypsum DAKOTA SANDSTONE MORRISON FORMATION 5000 Water-bearing in places Volcanic rock Volcanic rock BIDAHOCHI FORMATION MANCOS SHALE 6000 GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE MAJOR AQUIFERS Non-water bearing DAKOTA/COW SPRINGS AQUIFER (D-Aquifer) COW SPRINGS SANDSTONE ENTRADA SANDSTONE CARMEL FORMATION JURASSIC NAVAJO SANDSTONE NAVAJO/LUKACHUKAI AQUIFER (N-Aquifer) KAYENTA FORMATION Luckachukai Member 3000 2000 WINGATE SANDSTONE Rock Point Member CHINLE FORMATION SHINARUMP CONGLOMERATE MOENKOPI FORMATION KAIBAB LIMESTONE 1000 Reddish-brown shaly siltstone Varicolored shaly siltstone, mudstone and claystone Reddish siltstone and gypsum COCONINO-DE CHELLY AQUIFER (C-Aquifer) COCONINO SANDSTONE SUPAI FORMATION TRIASSIC PERMIAN Red siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone and gypsum 0 2 Ibid 6 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 in the east central part of the planning area, composed of tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks (See Figure 2.1-7 for the location of large local and regional aquifers). The C-aquifer is the largest and most productive aquifer in the planning area with an areal extent of 21,655 square miles. It is named for its primary water-bearing unit, the Coconino Sandstone. The C-aquifer extends from the Mogollon Rim in the south to an area west of the Little Colorado River and northeast into New Mexico. Water flow in the aquifer is generally in a westnorthwest direction. Recharge to the aquifer is along the Mogollon Rim and on the Defiance Plateau (Hart and others, 2002). The major discharge from the C-aquifer is at Blue Springs along the lower Colorado River. ADWR (1990) estimated there was about 413 maf of C-aquifer water in storage in the planning area. miles. The Navajo and Wingate Sandstones are the main water-bearing units in the N-aquifer. Groundwater flow direction varies as shown in Figure 2.1-7 and is generally south and west or north and west. The aquifer is generally unconfined but there are artesian conditions in the Black Mesa area and near Window Rock and much of the aquifer underlying the Hopi Reservation is unconfined (ADWR, 2008a). Natural recharge to the N-aquifer has recently been estimated at 2,600 to 20,246 AFA (OSM 2008). Water is discharged via springs, baseflow to streams and as underflow to drainages. N-aquifer storage estimates vary from 166 maf to 526 maf (ADWR, 1989; ADWR, 2008a). Water levels measured in selected wells drilled in the N-aquifer vary in depth from 17 feet to 851 feet bls as shown in Figure 2.1-8. Water level changes between 1990-1991 and 20032004 varied in these measured wells (see Figure Water levels measured in selected wells drilled 2.1-7). Recent adjudication investigation on the in the C-aquifer varied in depth from 37 feet Hopi reservation showed median well depths of to almost 2,000 feet below land surface (bls) 745 feet for claimed wells (ADWR, 2008a). (Figure 2.1-8). Of the 24 wells measured in 2003-2004, 14 wells showed water level declines N-aquifer water quality is generally good and since 1990-1991. Most declines were between is a source of supply for the Navajo and Hopi -1 to -15 feet, however declines of more than 30 Reservations. However, there are sites of feet were measured near Springerville and St. uranium and heavy metal contamination due Johns in the vicinity of power plants, and near to past uranium mining and milling operations. Flagstaff in the Lake Mary wellfield. Groundwater remediation activities are underway near Tuba City where a plume of The C-aquifer is utilized as a water supply groundwater contamination extends south and south of the Little Colorado River and along the southeast of an uranium ore mill operation and southern edge of the basin by Flagstaff, Heber, 37 extraction wells convey water to an onsite Overgaard, Show Low, Snowflake and Concho. treatment plant (DOE, 2008a) North of the river the C-aquifer is too deep to be economically useful, or is unsuitable for most The N-aquifer is utilized for mining operations uses because of high concentrations of total at the Black Mesa Coal Mine operation. Until dissolved solids. In general, the water quality of 2005, N-aquifer water was also used for the the C-aquifer degrades with increasing distance Black Mesa Coal Mine slurry pipeline that from recharge areas and at increasing depths delivered coal to the Mohave Generating (USBOR, 2006). Station at Laughlin, Nevada. From the premining period to 2003, the median water level The N-aquifer occurs north of the Little Colorado decline was more than 23 feet in 26 wells and River and has an areal extent of 6,250 square declines were approximately 72 feet for 12 Section 2.0 Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 wells in the confined part of the aquifer. (Truini, et al., 2005) To relieve impacts on the N-aquifer from pumping at Black Mesa, a proposal to use C-aquifer water withdrawn near Leupp was considered and a study undertaken that was completed in 2005 (Leake, et al., 2005). The Mohave Generating Station suspended operation in 2005, which has significantly reduced the need for N-aquifer withdrawals. washes (ADWR, 2008a). ADWR (1989) estimated that there are 15 maf in storage in the D-aquifer. Water level data from a well collected in 20032004 in the D-aquifer showed a depth to water at 271 feet bls and no water level decline since 19901991. Median water levels at 48 claimed wells on the Hopi reservation were 268 feet (ADWR, 2008a). Water quality is marginal to unsuitable The D-aquifer overlays portions of the N- and for domestic use due to high concentrations of C-aquifer in the planning area and is the smallest dissolved solids. Nevertheless, it is utilized in of the three regional aquifers. It covers about the north-central parts of the planning area for 3,125 square miles under the Navajo and Hopi domestic use. reservations. The D-aquifer is composed of the Dakota, Cow Springs and Entrada sandstones. Local aquifers are important for domestic uses Flow direction is toward the southwest in the where the regional aquifers are too deep or have southern part of the aquifer and toward the unsuitable water quality. Local aquifers include northwest in the northern portion (Figure 2.1-7). alluvial deposits that occur along washes and Annual recharge is estimated at 5,392 acre-feet stream channels, including along the Little (GeoTrans and Waterstone, 1999). Recharge Colorado River and its tributaries, sedimentary probably occurs along the eastern slope of Black and volcanic rocks of the Bidahochi and Mesa where units of the aquifer outcrop (Lopes other formations and some sandstones. The and Hoffman, 1997), and also locally along Bidahochi formation forms a local aquifer in washes. There is some connection between the the central part of Apache and Navajo counties D-aquifer and the underlying N-aquifer and and south of Sanders. Most recharge to the D-aquifer discharge also occurs via springs, Bidahochi aquifer probably occurs from direct baseflow to streams and as underflow along precipitation. In the southeastern part of Navajo County, saturated basaltic rocks together with underlying sedimentary rocks are locally known as the Lakeside-Pinetop aquifer, which is an important supply for the area. The aquifer covers an area of about 16 square miles and is composed of two distinctive but hydrologically well-connected water-bearing zones (Overby, 2007). Undifferentiated sandstones west of Show Low along the Mogollon Rim and in the Springerville-Eagar area form aquifers that are also locally important supplies. Little Colorado River near Springerville. Local aquifers include alluvial deposits that occur along washes and stream channels, including along the Little Colorado River and its tributaries. 8 The City of Flagstaff has become more dependent on groundwater from several distinct aquifers. The aquifer in the vicinity of Flagstaff is complex and composed of sandstones, siltstones and limestones. Groundwater flow in the aquifer is poorly understood because Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 of its depth and complex geologic structure. Recent geologic mapping indicate structural features such as faults and fractures that have important effects on the occurrence and flow of groundwater in this aquifer. Unconsolidated sediments and volcanic rocks in this area may also be waterbearing, but their areal extent is limited and yields are generally low. The Woody Mountain and Lake Mary well fields extract water from this aquifer. Water levels in these well fields show seasonal fluctuations and long-term declines due to pumping. (Bills and others., 2000) The San Francisco Peaks caldera, known as the Inner Basin, contains an aquifer that historically supplied much of the municipal water for the City of Flagstaff (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). In the Fort Valley area northwest of Flagstaff, a perched aquifer at a depth of a few hundred feet is utilized by individual land owners (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). As shown in Figure 2.1-9, well yields are typically low (<100 gpm) north of the Little Colorado River, and higher in the south-central and southeast part of the planning area where wells encounter the C-aquifer. D-aquifer well yields are comparatively low, with yields up to 20 to 25 gpm reported (ADWR, 1989). subdivides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units based on hydrologic features. These units are classified into four levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level in the system is used to identify hydrologic area (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-unit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. There are portions of five watersheds in the planning area at the accounting level: the Little Colorado River, the Lower San Juan River, the Upper Colorado River-Lake Powell Area, the Upper San Juan River and a very small portion of the Lower Colorado River-Lees Ferry to Lake Mead (see Figure 2.0-6). The two largest watersheds, the Little Colorado River and the Lower San Juan River are discussed briefly below. The Little Colorado River is the main drainage for the planning area, flowing from the White Mountains area and leaving the basin at Cameron. The northeastern part of the planning area drains northward toward the San Juan River as part of the Colorado River Watershed. In this area, Chinle Creek collects the majority Groundwater quality data from selected of the surface water runoff. The southern twosampling sites are shown in Table 2.1-7 and thirds of the basin are within the Little Colorado mapped on Figure 2.1-10. The most frequently exceeded constituents, measured in order of greatest occurrence, were arsenic, radionuclides, thallium, lead and total dissolved solids (TDS). North of Highway 264, thallium and radionuclides were most frequently reported. Between Highway 264 and Interstate 40, the parameter most frequently exceeded at measured sites was arsenic. South of Interstate 40, arsenic and cadmium were the most frequently exceeded constituents. Surface Water Hydrology The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides and Little Colorado River near Greer. The river was formerly perennial throughout its length but it now flows perennially only in some areas. Section 2.0 Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.0-6 Eastern Plateau Planning Area USGS Watersheds (Data Source: USGS 2005) River watershed. Streams and runoff in this miles and covers about 19% of the state (Parra area generally flow toward the Little Colorado and others, 2006). The Little Colorado River is the major surface drainage in the watershed, River. originating in the White Mountains and flowing northwest to the Colorado River. The river was Little Colorado River The Little Colorado River Watershed covers formerly perennial throughout its length but it most of the planning area and extends west now flows perennially only from its headwaters into the Coconino Plateau Basin where it drains to Lyman Lake, north of Springerville (Tellman to the Colorado River. The eastern part of the and others, 1997), below its confluence with watershed extends into New Mexico. The Silver Creek and below Blue Springs near watershed area is approximately 27,051 square its confluence with the Colorado River in the 10 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Western Plateau Planning Area. Elsewhere it is intermittent due primarily to impoundments, diversions and falling groundwater levels (Tellman and others, 1997). A number of perennial and intermittent streams occur at higher elevations in the watershed, including Silver Creek and Chevelon Creek (see Figure 2.1-6). Ninety-six percent of the streams in the watershed are ephemeral or intermittent (Parra and others, 2006). impaired water quality due to levels of turbidity, lead, copper and silver in excess of use standards. In addition, eight lakes are impaired due primarily to concentrations of mercury exceeding use standards (see Table 2.1-7). Most of the 70 major springs in the planning area are located in the Little Colorado River Watershed. Approximately a quarter of the major springs have discharge rates of 100 gpm or more. Discharges from most springs were measured during or prior to 1990 and may not be indicative of current conditions. There are clusters of major springs near Tuba City, in the vicinity of Pinetop-Lakeside and in the Saint Johns-Concho area. The largest spring, with a measured discharge of over 3,600 gpm is Silver Springs (Table 2.1-5). Silver Springs discharges water from the volcanic portion of the PinetopLakeside aquifer and maintains perennial flow in Silver Creek. Historically, Silver Springs provided the majority of the surface water supply for the Silver Creek Irrigation District. White Mountain Lake is the major water storage reservoir for the District (ADWR, 1990b). There are 94 large reservoirs in the planning area. Information on their storage capacity or surface area, type of use and owner/operator are listed in Table 2.1-4. Only one of the four streamgages shown on Figure 2.1-5 is currently active; a real-time gage at Chinle Creek near Mexican Water close to the Utah border. The others were discontinued during 2005-2006. The maximum recorded flow in the watershed was measured at this remaining active gage with a flow of almost 67,700 acrefeet in 1982. Median flow at this gage is about 15,500 AFA (see Table 2.1-2). Lower San Juan River The Lower San Juan River Watershed drains most of the northeastern portion of the planning area. Chinle Creek is the major drainage, collecting most of the surface water runoff in the area that There are currently 21 active streamgage stations originates primarily in the Chuska Mountains in the watershed. The maximum recorded annual and the Defiance Plateau (Grahame and Sisk, flow in the watershed was 587,869 acre-feet at a 2002). The watershed drains northward toward discontinued gage on the Little Colorado River Utah and the San Juan River which in turn is at Grand Falls located downstream of Leupp. tributary to the Colorado River. Chinle Creek is The median flow at this station was 162,171 perennial for approximately six miles near the Utah border (ADWR, 1994a). acre-feet (see Table 2.1-2) There are seven major springs identified in the watershed. The largest is an unnamed spring west of Kayenta with a discharge rate of 30 gpm. There are seven large reservoirs in the watershed including the fourth largest in the planning area, Many Farms Lake. The dam was constructed in 1937 for irrigation purposes at the community of Many Farms north of Chinle. 2.0.3 Climate3 The Eastern Plateau Planning Area is a semiarid, relatively high elevation region with cooler average temperatures than in other Within the watershed, reaches of the Little parts of Arizona. Average annual maximum Colorado River and Nutrioso Creek have temperatures in the planning area range from Information in this section was provided by Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), May, 2006 3 Section 2.0 Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 61˚F at Greer to 82˚F at Cameron. Annual average temperature is 50.8°F, compared to the state-wide average of 59.9°F. Eastern Plateau temperatures display a long-term warming trend (Figure 2.0-7), as in other parts of Arizona. August when the area receives over 43% of yearly precipitation, while the driest months on average are April, May and June. Average annual precipitation ranges from about four inches at Monument Valley in the far northeastern part of the planning area to 36 inches in the White Mountains, Mogollon Rim and San Francisco Peak areas. Most of the Navajo and Hopi Reservation lands receive less than 10 inches of rainfall a year. The highest precipitation on the Navajo Reservation is in the Chuska Mountains with an average annual precipitation of 25 inches (Navajo Nation, 2001). Parts of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area downwind of high elevation mountains along its southern boundary receive diminished precipitation due to the “rain shadow effect.” As moisture-laden air flows over topographic features such as mountain ranges, the air is lifted and cooled, resulting in greater precipitation on the windward side of the mountain. In contrast, the leeward side of mountain ranges receive Much of the state’s snowfall occurs along much less precipitation as the air sinks, warms, the Mogollon Rim and White Mountains in the Eastern Plateau and Central Highlands and dries, creating a “rain shadow.” Planning Areas. Snowfall is an important water Precipitation in the Eastern Plateau Planning source and is often defined in terms of snowArea is characterized by a multi-peaked water equivalent (SWE). SWE is dependent distribution similar to much of Arizona (Figure on snow density and describes the amount 2.0-8). Precipitation is highest during July and of liquid water present in a melted sample of Figure 2.0-7 Average Temperature and Total Precipitation in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area From 1930-2002. Horizontal lines are average temperature (50.8 °F) and precipitation (13.0 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from selected Western Regional Climate Center cooperative weather observation stations located south of the Little Colorado River. (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html). Figure author: CLIMAS 12 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.0-8 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 1930-2002. Data are from selected Western Regional Climate Center cooperative weather observation stations located south of the Little Colorado River. (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html). Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS. snow; light, powdery snow yields less water than dense wet snow. Observations recorded March 1st from 1983 to 2006 at Mt. Baldy in the southeastern portion of the planning area show SWE variations from 1983 to the present (Figure 2.0-9). The Mt. Baldy record shows relatively high snow pack during the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s, followed by substantially lower snow pack since 1999. Two important features of precipitation in this region are variability between individual years, and shifts between wetter and drier than average periods on longer, 10-20 year (decadal) time scales (Figure 2.0-7 and Figure 2.0-10). Winter precipitation records dating from 1000 A.D., estimated from tree ring reconstructions for Arizona climate divisions, show extended periods of above and below average precipitation in every century. A climate division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona has been divided into seven climate divisions. Climate Division 2 (Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties) includes the entire Eastern Plateau Planning Area and extends west and south. There have been multiple extended periods of above and below-average winter precipitation in the planning area during every century since 1000 A.D. (Figure 2.0-10). The 1200s, 1500s, and 1700s were notably dry; in contrast, the mid-1000s, early 1300s and early 1900s that were notably wet. More recently, the 1950s were relatively dry, whereas the 1980s received above-average precipitation (Figure 2.0-7). These decadal shifts are related to circulation changes in the Pacific Ocean. On time scales of 2-7 years, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific Ocean, with its phases of El Niño and La Niña, is associated with precipitation variations in the region, most notably during winter months (NovemberApril). During El Niño episodes, there is a Section 2.0 Overview 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.0-9 Mt. Baldy Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE) for 1983-2006. Observations were recorded March 1st for each year except 2006, where February 15 was used. The horizontal, bold line is average SWE from 1983-2006 and highest SWE years (1993) and lowest SWE years (1999 and 2006) are highlighted. Figure author: CLIMAS Figure 2.0-10 Winter (November-April) Precipitation Departures From Average, 1000-1988, Reconstructed From Tree Rings - Arizona NOAA Climate Division 2 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 2 (Northeastern Arizona) includes Coconino, Navajo and Apache counties. Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. The average winter precipitation for 1000-1988 is 6.1 inches. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: CLIMAS. 14 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 greater likelihood of increased precipitation; nevertheless El Niño winters can produce below-average precipitation. Generally, La Niña conditions are associated with drought in the region. distinguishable on Figure 2.0-11). Only specially adapted species can survive the harsh climate including small, ground-hugging mosses, lichens and herbs. An area of the San Francisco Peaks has been closed to travel to protect an endemic groundsel (Senecio franciscanus), a threatened 2.0.4 Environmental Conditions species. Areas of subalpine grassland are found at high elevations in the White Mountains, in Environmental conditions reflect the impacts the Chuska Mountains and on the San Francisco of geography, climate and cultural activities Peaks. (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development. High-elevation subalpine conifer forests are Discussed in this section is vegetation, riparian limited to relatively small isolated mountaintop protection through the Arizona Water Protection stands on the San Francisco Peaks, White Fund Program, instream flow claims, threatened Mountains and Chuska Mountains at elevations and endangered species, public lands protected of 8,500 to almost 12,000 feet with annual from development as national parks, monuments precipitation from 30 to 40 inches a year. These and wilderness and unique waters. forests consist of dense stands of fir, spruce Vegetation Information on ecoregions and biotic (vegetative) communities in the planning area are shown on Figure 2.0-11. Most of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area is located in the Colorado Plateau Shrublands ecoregion while higher elevation areas are located in the Arizona Mountains Forests ecoregion. Biotic communities range from Great Basin desertscrub at lower elevations to areas of subalpine grassland. Plains and Great Basin grasslands are the predominant biotic community in the planning area. Due to grazing and fire suppression efforts, presettlement environmental conditions have been permanently altered in the region. Woodland communities have expanded considerably and the increase in ponderosa pine density has led to both an increase in the severity and size of wildfires, and to a decrease in stream and spring flows due to less soil absorption of precipitation (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). In Arizona, alpine tundra is found only at the highest elevations on the San Francisco Peaks, generally over 12,000 feet. (This small area is not Aspen forest on Escudilla Mountain in the White Mountains. High elevation subalpine conifer forests are limited to relatively small isolated mountaintop stands on the San Francisco Peaks, White Mountains and Chuska Mountains at elevations of 8,500 to almost 12,000 feet with annual precipitation from 30 to 40 inches a year. Section 2.0 Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 16 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 and aspen trees. Much of the precipitation is snow, but summer rainfall is also a substantial component of annual precipitation. Bristlecone pine stands occur at elevations around 11,000 feet on the San Francisco Peaks (Brown, 1982). Significant stands of aspen occur in places, especially in areas that have been burned. Natural fires are relatively uncommon in subalpine conifer forests (Graham and Sisk, 2002). Recent surveys of aspen sites show that low-elevation dry sites on the Coconino National Forest (<7,500 feet) experienced 95% mortality since 2000. Sites surveyed on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest above 7,500 feet showed 40% mortality in both midand high-elevation sites. Researchers found that while insects and disease were associated with the mortality, they appeared to be secondary agents on already drought-stressed trees. (USDA, 2008) Great Basin Conifer (piñon-juniper) woodlands cover large areas below the ponderosa pine forest at elevations between about 5,000 and 7,500 feet that receive about 10 to 20 inches of annual precipitation. Extensive stands exist throughout the planning area as shown on Figure 2.0-11. Bark beetle infestations have affected large areas of piñon pine and juniper on the Navajo reservation and in the White Mountains in recent years although activity decreased in most areas in 2007 (USDA, 2008). Plains and great basin grasslands, primarily composed of mixed or short-grass communities, are widespread in the planning area at elevations above about 4,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches of annual precipitation. These grasslands extend almost unbroken through the entire length and width of the planning area. Native bunchgrasses have been largely replaced by Eurasian annual species such as cheatgrass Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean and shrubs have invaded the grasslands due to Montane conifer forests commonly occur grazing and fire-suppression practices (Grahame between about 7,200 to 8,700 feet. Above and Sisk, 2002). 8,000 feet, in areas that receive from 25 to 30 inches of annual rainfall, the forest contains a Great Basin desertscrub occurs in northern mix of conifers that may include Douglas-fir, Arizona mostly at elevations of 4,000 to 6,500 white fir, limber pine, blue spruce, and white feet where an average of about 7 to 12 inches of pine, with ponderosa pine on warmer slopes. rainfall occurs. This vegetative community is Aspen and Gambel oak are prominent in these dominated by multi-branched, aromatic shrubs forests following disturbances. Below 8,000 with evergreen leaves, primarily sagebrush, feet, in areas that receive about 18 to 26 inches blackbrush and shadscale. Great Basin of annual precipitation, the mix of species give desertscrub is found throughout the planning way to almost pure stands of ponderosa pine. The forest stretching from near Flagstaff along the Mogollon Rim to the White Mountains region is the largest ponderosa pine forest on the continent (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). About half of the precipitation occurs during the growing season, which permits forests to exist on less than 25 inches of annual rainfall, making them some of the driest forests in North America (Brown, 1982). In the planning area these forests extend across the entire southern boundary and are also found along the northeastern boundary Great Basin desertscrub near the base of the Lukachukai Mountains. in the Chuska and Lukachukai Mountains and the Defiance Plateau. Section 2.0 Overview 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 area but primarily in the western portion. In addition to shrubs, vegetation consists primarily of grasses. Grazing has heavily impacted native grasses in this community, which have been replaced by exotic species including cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is highly flammable, and where it is a significant component of sagebrush stands, the incidence of fire is greatly increased (Brown, 1982). Riparian vegetation has been mapped along East Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, the Little Colorado River, Chinle Creek and at a number of other locations in the planning area (see Figure 2.0-13). Using Arizona Game & Fish Department data, Parra and others (2006), identified approximately 5,226 acres of riparian vegetation and ten different riparian types in the Little Colorado River watershed. Wet meadow, conifer oak and tamarisk groups comprised the largest amount of riparian vegetation. The Little Colorado River headwaters area had the greatest amount of wetland vegetation. Less abundant were mixed broadleaf, mountain scrub and mesquite (Parra and others, 2006). In the other planning area watersheds Russian olive and tamarisk are widely found. At higher elevations and along streams draining the Chuska Mountains and Defiance Plateau, conifer oak, wet meadow and mixed broadleaf occur (AZGF, 1997 & 1993). Webb and others (2007) studied changes in riparian vegetation along a number of watercourses in the Southwestern United States. Watercourses studied in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area include the Little Colorado River and Moenkopi Wash. They noted that reaches of the Little Colorado River historically supported groves of cottonwood trees although the spatial distribution was not known. A series of floods and downcutting, and drainage of the alluvial aquifer, resulted in removal of most of this riparian vegetation. Woody riparian vegetation, primarily tamarisk but some native species, now populate terraces and parts of the channel. 18 Tamarisk on Chevlon Creek. Moenkopi Wash was a wide, barren channel in the early 1930s but development of a low floodplain during the 1940s has allowed establishment of tamarisk and scattered cottonwood groves. Several major wildfires occurred in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area during the severe drought years between 2002 and 2006 (see Figure 2.012). The Rodeo-Chedeski fire in 2002, Arizona’s largest-ever, consumed about 462,600 acres in the Eastern Plateau and Central Highlands planning areas. The Jacket Fire, southeast of Flagstaff and the largest recorded fire in the Coconino National Forest, burned over 17,200 acres in 2006. In the Southwest, fire can be among the most significant watershed disturbance agents, particularly to peak stream flows. In areas severely burned by the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire, peak flows were as much as 2,350 times greater than previously measured peak flows, the highest known post-fire peak flow in the Southwest. Increased peak flows can degrade stream channels and make them unstable, increase sediment production and cause flood damage. (Neary and others, 2003) Drought, wildfire and long-term climate change involving warmer temperatures with earlier Spring season and less snow cover could result in vegetative changes in the planning area with implications on runoff, infiltration and water supplies. Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.0-12 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Location of Major Wildfires, 20022006 (Source: USFS 2007a) Extended drought combined with high tree densities resulted in the largest outbreak of pine bark beetle populations ever recorded in Arizona during 2002 – 2004 with massive mortality, particularly in the Kaibab National Forest in the Western Plateau Planning Area (USDA, 2006). By 2007, bark beetle activity in Arizona had decreased substantially with the exception of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, much of which is located in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Also noted in 2007 were large outbreaks of pine sawflies in several locations. This outbreak defoliated ponderosa pines in an area between Pinedale and Overgaard where many trees had been previously damaged in the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski fire, and on Navajo tribal lands. Study plots were established in Arizona in 20032004 to monitor the impacts from bark beetle infestations on fuel loading and fire behavior. Preliminary analysis shows that mortality plots have significantly higher fuel loads than areas with no mortality (USDA, 2008). Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Fire damage from Rodeo-Chedeski fire near Show Low. Photo taken in 2009. The objective of the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program (AWPF) is to provide funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. Thirty-two projects were funded in the planning area through 2008. Many of these were for the purpose of fencing and for stream and watershed restoration. A list of projects and types of Section 2.0 Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 projects funded in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area through FY 2008 is found in Appendix A of this volume. A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Volume 1 and on the Department’s website. Instream Flow Claims An instream flow water right is a nondiversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. Four applications for instream flow claims have been filed in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, listed in Table 2.0-1. All applications are currently pending. As shown in Figure 2.0-13, the length of the instream flow claims for Chevelon Creek and East Clear Creek/Clear Creek are extensive. All claims are located in creeks south of the Little Colorado River. Threatened and Endangered Species Nutrioso Creek at EC Bar Ranch. One of the AWPF projects in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. A number of listed threatened and endangered species are present in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of 2008 are shown in Table 2.0-2.4 Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development in a particular area. The USFWS should be contacted for details regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), designated critical habitat and current listings. Table 2.0-1 Instream flow claims in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Map Key Stream 1 Billy Creek 2 Billy Creek 3 Chevelon Creek 4 Clear Creek/East Clear Creek Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 33-94853.0 Pending Pending 9/14/1989 33-94847.0 Pending Pending 9/14/1989 ApacheSitgreaves National Forest 33-96707.0 Pending Pending 2/13/2002 Coconino National Forest 33-90107.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 Applicant Cartier, David N. Walker, F. Duane An “endangered species” is defined by USFWS as “an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” while a threatened species” is “an animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 4 20 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Overview 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-2 Threatened and endangered species in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Common Name Threatened Endangered Elevation/Habitat Apache Trout X >5000 ft./cold mountain streams Bald Eagle X Varies/large trees or cliffs near water Black-footed ferret X <10,500 ft./grassland plains California Brown Pelican X Varies/lakes and rivers California Condor X Varies/high desert canyonlands and plateaus Chiricahua Leopard Frog X 3,300-8,900 ft./streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds, stock tanks Little Colorado Spinedace X 4,000-8,000 ft./moderate to small streams in pools & riffles Loach Minnow X <8,000 ft./benthic species of small to large perennial streams Mexican Gray Wolf X Mexican Spotted Owl X Navajo Sedge X Peebles Navajo Cactus San Francisco Peaks Groundsel X X Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Zuni Fleabane 10,900 ft+/Alpine tundra X X Sources: AZGF 2008, USFWS 2008 4,000-12,000 ft. /chapparal, woodland, forests 4,100-9,000 ft./canyons, dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure 5,700-6,000 ft./silty soils at shady seeps and springs 5,400-5,600 ft/gravely soils of the Shinarump conglomerate <8,500 ft./cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams 7,300-8,000 ft./selenium-rich red or gray detrital clay soils derived from the Chinle and Baca formations National Parks, Monuments and Wilderness Areas ly 436,600 acres of protected federal lands, accounting for 2.5% of the land area. The Eastern Plateau Planning Area contains relatively few federally protected areas considering its large size. (see Figure 2.0-14) It contains one national park, five national monuments and five wilderness areas. In total there are approximate- Petrified Forest National Park encompasses approximately 218,533 acres. Originally established in 1906 as a national monument to protect fossilized wood deposits, the addition of mostly Painted Desert land in 1932 helped 22 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 to upgrade the national monument to national park status in 1962. In 1970, over 50,000 acres of the park were designated as wilderness. In 2004, an additional 125,000 acres of land were added to the park, more than doubling its size. Over 250 fossil plant, invertebrate and vertebrate sites have been identified in the park (NPS, 2008a). and Walnut Canyon National Monuments. The 3,040 acre Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument was established in 1930 to protect its volcanic formations. Nearby, Wupatki National Monument was established in 1924 to preserve Citadel and Wupatki pueblos. Monument boundaries have been expanded several times to include additional pueblos and other archeological resources to a Several national monuments exist near Flagstaff total of 35,422 acres.  East of Flagstaff, Walnut including Sunset Crater Volcano, Wupatki Canyon National Monument was established in Figure 2.0-14 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Protected Areas (Wilderness Data Source: National Atlas of the United States 2005, Land Ownership Data Source: ALRIS 2005) Section 2.0 Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Painted Desert, Petrified Forest National Park. The Eastern Plateau Planning Area contains relatively few federally protected areas considering its large size; one national park, five national monuments and five wilderness areas. Trust Land that remains home to the canyon community. The NPS works in partnership with the Navajo Nation to manage park resources and sustain the Navajo community living within the monument (NPS, 2008b). Navajo National Monument, located west of Kayenta, was created in 1909 to protect 13th century cliff dwellings and other archeological resources. Currently monument boundaries include 600 acres encompassing three distinct and non-contiguous sections, Betatakin, Keet Seel and Inscription House. Monument lands are inholdings within the reservation. Local Navajo are integral in supporting the park and participating in its activities and the monument is an important socio-cultural and economic component of the region (Rothman, 1991). 1915 to preserve ancient cliff dwellings. The All or portions of five wilderness areas, monument contains a variety of archeological encompassing 91,568 acres, are located within and natural resources on approximately 3,600 the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Wilderness acres. areas are designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect the designated area Canyon de Chelly and Navajo National in its natural condition. Designated areas, their Monuments are located within the Navajo size and a brief description of the area are listed Reservation. Canyon de Chelly, located east in Table 2.0-3. The Eastern Plateau Planning of Chinle, was initially established in 1931 to Area contains the smallest number of wilderness protect the canyon’s archeological resources. acres, by far, compared with any of the state’s At approximately 83,840 acres in size, it is planning areas. unique among National Park Service (NPS) units as it is comprised entirely of Navajo Tribal Table 2.0-3 Wilderness areas in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Wilderness Area Acres Description 5,200 (Partial) 18,615 (Partial) Mountain meadows and Escudilla Mountain (10,912 ft) Mt. Humphrey's (11,500 ft) and only arctic-alpine vegetation in the state Mount Baldy 7,079 (Partial) Mixed conifers and ponderosa pine to fir and spruce. Petrified Forest* 50,260 Shortgrass prairie, colorful mesas, buttes and badlands Strawberrry Crater 10,414 Volcanic cinder cone and lava flow formations Escudilla Kachina Peaks Source: BLM 2006, USFS 2007b *Wilderness areas within the boundaries of a National Park 24 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-4 2000 Census population of the Eastern Plateau and Indian Two “unique waters” occur in the planning Reservations area, designated by the Arizona Department 2000 Census Basin/Reservation of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) pursuant Population to A.C.C. R18-11-112, as having exceptional Little Colorado River 249,545 recreational or ecological significance and/or 104,565 Navajo providing habitat for threatened or endangered Hopi 6,946 San Juan Southern Paiute 265 species. Surface water must be of good water NA Zuni quality, free flowing and perennial to be classified as a unique water. In the planning area, a portion Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 of the West Fork of the Little Colorado River above Government Springs (located in the Salt high growth rates in a number communities River Basin), and Lee Valley Creek from its including Kaibito, Lukachukai and Pinon. headwaters to Lee Valley Reservoir have been Population Growth and Water Use classified as unique waters. Unique Waters 2.0.5 Population Census data for 2000 show a total of almost 250,000 residents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Arizona Department of Commerce population projections forecast a population of more than 378,000 by 2030. The 2000 Census populations for the planning area and Indian reservations are shown in Table 2.0-4. In 2000 about 55% of the planning area population resided in the non-reservation portion. The Navajo Reservation population comprises approximately 42% of the planning area population. Shown in Table 2.0-5 are incorporated and unincorporated communities in the planning area with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 and growth rates for two time periods. Communities are listed from highest to lowest population in 2000. Flagstaff is by far the largest community in the planning area with 38% of the non-tribal population. There are a number of rapidly growing larger communities including Flagstaff, Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside and Taylor. Some communities grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2006 than during the previous ten year period. There are also rapidly growing communities on the Navajo Reservation, with Arizona has limited mechanisms to address the connections between land use, population growth and water supply. A legislative attempt to link growth and water management planning is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) which requires that counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) include planning for water resources in their comprehensive plans. In 2000, none of the counties in the planning area had populations greater than 125,000 residents. The Act also requires that twenty-three communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. In the Eastern Plateau Planning Area this requirement applies to the communities of Flagstaff, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake and Taylor, which have all completed plans. Plans must consider water demand and water resource availability in conjunction with growth, land use and infrastructure. Completed plans are listed in basin references in this volume and may contain useful information for water resources planning. Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state were required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to Section 2.0 Overview 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-5 Communities in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000. Communities Flagstaff Winslow Tuba City Show Low Window Rock/ Fort Defiance Page Chinle Kayenta Holbrook Snowflake Eager Pinetop-Lakeside Taylor St. Johns Heber-Overgaard Springerville Kaibito LeChee Lukachukai Many Farms Ganado St. Michaels First Mesa/Polacca Dilkon Pinon Tsaile Total > 1000 Remainder of Planning Area Total Planning Area 1 1990 Census 2000 Census Percent Change Pop. Pop. 1990-2000 2006 Pop. Estimate1 Percent Change 2000-2006 Projected 2030 Pop. 45,857 9,279 7,323 5,020 52,894 9,520 8,225 7,695 15.3% 2.6% 12.3% 53.3% 62,030 9,945 8,899 10,555 17.3% 4.5% 8.2% 37.2% 83,746 11,706 10,572 19,625 7,795 7,120 -8.6% 7,120 0.0% 7,120 6,598 5,059 4,372 4,686 3,679 4,025 2,422 2,418 3,294 1,581 1,802 641 NA 113 1,294 1,257 1,119 1,108 NA 468 1,043 122,253 6,809 5,366 4,922 4,917 4,460 4,033 3,582 3,176 3,269 2,722 1,972 1,607 1,606 1,565 1,548 1,505 1,295 1,124 1,265 1,190 1,078 144,465 3.2% 6.1% 12.6% 4.9% 21.2% 0.2% 47.9% 31.3% -0.8% 72.2% 9.4% 150.7% -1284.9% 19.6% 19.7% 15.7% 1.4% -154.3% 3.3% 18.2% 7,230 5,524 5,186 5,455 5,180 4,530 4,540 4,270 3,925 3,596 2,125 2,337 2,725 1,669 1,678 1,633 1,386 1,124 1,541 1,543 1,096 166,841 6.2% 2.9% 5.4% 10.9% 16.1% 12.3% 26.7% 34.4% 20.1% 32.1% 7.8% 45.4% 69.7% 6.7% 8.4% 8.5% 7.0% 0.0% 21.8% 29.6% 1.7% 13.4% 8,027 6,086 6,701 7,684 7,048 6,252 6,758 8,210 6,559 6,642 2,485 4,149 5,504 2,041 2,143 2,087 1,708 1,124 2,501 2,772 1,161 230,411 87,201 105,080 20.5% 112,513 7.1% 147,981 209,454 249,545 19.1% 279,354 11.9% 378,392 2006 population shown is the 2006 estimate for incorporated areas and the 2006 projection for unicorporated areas. Source: Department of Commerce 2006, U.S. Census Bureau 2006 drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. In addition, the information will allow the State to provide regional planning assistance to help communities prepare for, mitigate and respond to drought. An Annual Water Use Report must be submitted each year by the systems that includes information on water pumped, diverted and received, water delivered to customers and effluent used or received. The System Water Plan must be updated and submitted every five 26 years and consist of three components, a Water Supply Plan, a Drought Preparedness Plan and a Water Conservation Plan. By January 1, 2008, all systems were required to submit plans. By the end of 2008, plans have been submitted by 61 community water systems in the planning area. Almost all of the larger systems submitted plans and these plans were used to prepare this document. Annual water report information and a list of water plans is found in Appendix B. Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 The Department’s Water Adequacy Program also connects water supply and demand to growth to some extent, but does not control growth. Developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. Legislation adopted in June 2007 (SB 1575), authorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a provision, by unanimous vote, which requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy. By the end of 2008, none of the counties or jurisdictions in the planning area had adopted the new provision. Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water Adequacy Reports), including the reason for the inadequate determination, are provided in Table 2.1-10 and their location is shown on Figure 2.112. Also shown are approved applications for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This application is typically associated with large, master planned communities. As of December 2008, two AAWS applications had been approved in the planning area with a total of 1,936 lots. The service areas of 14 water providers in the planning area have been designated as having an adequate water supply. Designation information and the general location of the service area are also shown in Table 2.1-10 and on Figure 2.112. If a subdivision is served by one of these designated water providers, a separate adequacy determination is not required. As of December 2008 these included: • • • o Town of Springerville o City of Saint Johns Coconino County o City of Flagstaff o City of Page Navajo County o City of Holbrook o City of Show Low o Town of Taylor o City of Winslow o Arizona Water Company, Lakeside and Pinetop o Town of Snowflake o Fools Hollow Water Company (Show Low) o Park Valley Water Company (Show Low) o Pineview Water Company (Show Low) o Voyager at White Mountain Lakes Water Co. (Show Low) 2.0.6 Water Supply Surface water, groundwater and effluent are important water supplies for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. As shown in Figure 2.0-15, groundwater is the principal water supply utilized, meeting 61% of the demand on average in 2001-2005. Due to recent drought conditions, some communities that historically used significant amounts of surface water, such as Flagstaff, have turned to more reliable groundwater supplies. Population growth, supply reliability and the desire for economic development is spurring interest in exploring long-term water supply augmentation options such as securing Colorado River water, constructing water conveyance pipelines and acquiring lands with groundwater supplies. Effluent is also utilized by several communities for golf course, landscape irrigation and for industrial and agricultural purposes. Apache County Section 2.0 Overview 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.0-15 Water Supply Utilized in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Surface Water Surface water is a significant water supply in some areas but is geographically limited. On the Navajo reservation, two-thirds of the average annual surface water originates in the Chuska Mountains and the Defiance Plateau and is locally available for agricultural and domestic use. Surface water at higher elevations in the southeastern part of the planning area is used primarily for agricultural use, although the Town of Eagar uses a small amount of surface water from Coon Springs (Town of Eagar, 2008). Colorado River water is the water supply for Page and neighboring LeChee. When there is sufficient rain and snow, surface water is stored in lakes near Flagstaff and used for municipal purposes. feet, but due to evaporation and seepage losses, the average availability is approximately 2,250 acre-feet (USBOR, 2006). Because surface water is drought sensitive, it can be unreliable, which has stimulated interest in additional well drilling and development of groundwater supplies in the Flagstaff area. In wet years, Lake Mary has provided 70% of the City’s water supply (Pinkham and Davis, 2002); however in 1990, 2000 and 2002, there was very little inflow into Lake Mary. Recently, groundwater use has increased and supplies about 70% of the annual demand (Reed, 2005). The Salt River Project acquired the rights to the surface water in the C.C. Cragin Reservoir, formerly the Blue Ridge Reservoir, from the Phelps Dodge Corporation in February 2005 as part of the Gila River Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. In addition to satisfying obligations to the Gila River Indian Community, the reservoir will be used to supplement Salt River Project shareholders’ water supply and as a water supply for northern Gila County (SRP, 2006). Located near the southwestern boundary of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area on East Clear Creek, this supply is not available to users in the planning area. The domestic water supply for the City of Page and the neighboring Navajo Nation Chapter of LeChee is obtained from Lake Powell through pumping and conveyance facilities first constructed in 1957. This water is available pursuant to a Colorado River Upper Basin allocation of 2,740 acre-feet of consumptive use.5 The existing raw water supply facilities marginally meet the current peak demands of the two communities during summer months. A new lake intake to increase capacity, a new Surface water from the Lake Mary reservoir pipeline to LeChee and groundwater well system is an important municipal supply for the development are being considered to provide City of Flagstaff. The 30-year median inflow to a more reliable supply (TETRA TECH RMC, the system from January to May was 5,000 acre- 2003). In addition, the City of Page has 5 Consumption of water brought about by human endeavors….along with the associated losses incidental to these uses.” USBOR, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. 28 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Right (CWR) may be issued if the terms of the permit to appropriate water (3R, 4A, or 33, and in certain cases 38) are met. CWRs retain the original permit application number. Surface water rights may also be determined through judicial action in state or federal court in which the court process establishes or confirms the validity of the rights and claims and ranks them according to priority. Court decreed rights are considered the most certain surface water right. Major court determinations in the planning Lake Powell. The domestic water supply for the area are the Norviel and Concho decrees. The City of Page and the neighboring Navajo Nation Norviel Decree is comprised of four judicial Chapter of LeChee is obtained from Lake Powell actions (between 1914 and 1923) determining through pumping and conveyance facilities first rights of landowners to divert surface water in constructed in 1957. and around Saint Johns to the headwaters of requested an additional allocation of Colorado the Little Colorado River. The Concho Decree River water. (1927) determined the relative rights to use surface water from Concho Springs and Concho Springs are an important water supply for Creek in Apache County. habitat, wildlife, domestic and cultural/religious purposes in parts of the planning area. On tribal Arizona has two general stream adjudications lands, the communities of Tuba City, Moenkopi in progress to determine the nature, extent and Ganado rely on springs for domestic and and priority of water rights across the entire agricultural uses. river systems of the Gila River and the Little Legal availability of a surface water supply is also an important consideration. As described in detail in Appendix C, the legal framework and process under which surface water right applications and claims are administered and determined is complex. Rights to surface water are subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation which is based on the tenet “first in time, first in right”. This means that the person who first put the water to a beneficial use acquires a right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date. Under the Public Water Code, beneficial use is the basis, measure and limit to the use of water. Each type of surface water right filing is assigned a unique number as explained in Appendix C and shown in Table 2.0-6. The act of filing a statement of claim of rights to use public waters (36) does not in itself create a water right. A Certificate of Water Colorado River. Pertinent to the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, the Little Colorado River (LCR) Adjudication is being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Apache County. The LCR Adjudication was initiated by a petition filed by Phelps Dodge Corporation in 1978. It now covers 27,000 square miles and includes three watersheds (Lower Little Colorado River, Upper Little Colorado River and Silver Creek), 5 Indian reservations (Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, Fort Apache and San Juan Southern Paiute) and over 3,000 parties. All parties who claim to have a water right within the river system are required to file a statement of claimant (SOC) (39) or risk loss of their right. This includes reserved water rights for public lands and Indian reservations which for the most part, have not been quantified or prioritized. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication filings are presented in Section 2.0 Overview 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs). Within the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, HSRs have been published for the Silver Creek Watershed (1990), Indian Lands in the Little Colorado River System (1994) and the Hopi Indian Reservation (2008). Table 2.0-6 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication filings in the planning area. The methodology used to query the Department’s surface water right and SOC registries is described in Appendix C. Of the 19,529 filings that specify surface water diversion points and places of use in the planning area, 797 CWRs have been issued to date. Figure 2.016 shows the general location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points reflect the large number of stockponds and reservoirs that have been constructed in the planning area as well as diversions from streams and springs. Locations of registered wells, many of which are referenced as the basis of claim in SOCs are also shown in Figure 2.0-16. Groundwater Groundwater is withdrawn from both large regional aquifers and from local and perched aquifers. The location of registered exempt and non-exempt wells is shown in Figure 2.016.6 Flagstaff pumps groundwater from perched water bearing zones within the upper 500 feet or in the deeper C-aquifer (Woody Mountain and Lake Mary wellfields and inner city wells) and from shallow volcanic aquifers in the Inner Basin. Depth to water in C-aquifer wells ranges from approximately 1,200 to 1,600 feet bls. In 2005, Flagstaff purchased the Red Gap Ranch east of the city as a potential source of groundwater supplies. The USBOR (2006) reported sustainable or safe yield volumes from the city’s various groundwater supplies as follows: Woody Mountain wellfield, 3,500 AFA; Lake Mary wellfield, 2,500 AFA; inner city wells, 1,300 to 2,800 AFA; and inner basin wells, 542 AFA. Table 2.0-6 Count of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area1 Type of Filing Basin Little Colorado River Plateau BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 134 163 196 373 3,289 3,275 12,099 Total 19,529 Notes: 1 Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) and/or Place of Use (POU) to be mapped within the basin. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a given basin, it is only counted once in the table for that basin. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here 2 3 due to unsufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD/POU are counted. Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). 4 Statement of claimant of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 6 The term “exempt-well” is used to describe any well having a pump with a maxiumum pumpiing capacity of 35 gallons per minute or less. The term “non-exempt well” refers to a well having a pump with a capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. 30 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Overview 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 The cities of Holbrook and Winslow rely entirely on groundwater pumped from the C-aquifer. Groundwater from the C-aquifer and from local aquifers (Bidahochi, Lakeside-Pinetop and White Mountain aquifers) is the principal water supply for municipal use in the Mogollon Rim region, including the communities of Heber, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake, Springerville, Eagar, Saint Johns and Greer. Approximately 200 of the GWSI sites are designated as automated wells. These systems measure water levels four times daily and store the data electronically. Automated groundwater monitoring sites are established to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data are lacking. These devices are located based on areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, proximity to river/stream channels, proximity to water contamination North of the Little Colorado River, including sites or areas affected by drought. on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, the N-aquifer, which is of good quality, is the Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of primary water supply. In this area the C-aquifer index wells and automatic water-level recording is generally too deep and saline to be used. sites as of January 2009. At that time there The D-aquifer underlies much of the Hopi and were a total of 94 index wells and four ADWR Navajo reservations and is utilized in some automatic water-level sites in the Eastern Plateau areas; however water quality is marginal due Planning Area. The automated sites are located to elevated concentrations of dissolved solids. at Flagstaff, Joseph City, east of Holbrook and The community of Cameron pumps highly south of Saint Johns. The most updated maps saline groundwater from wells near the Little may be viewed at the Department’s website. Colorado River and treats it for use. Information on major aquifers, well yields, The Department’s Groundwater Site Inventory estimated natural recharge, estimated water in (GWSI) database, the main repository for storage, aquifer flow direction and water level statewide groundwater well data, is available on changes are found in groundwater data tables, the Department’s website (www.azwater.gov/). groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and The GWSI database consists of over 42,000 well yield maps in Section 2.1.6. records of wells and over 210,000 groundwater level records statewide. GWSI contains spatial Effluent and geographical data, owner information, well construction and well log data and historic More than 36,500 acre-feet of effluent is groundwater data including water level, water estimated to be generated annually in the quality, well lift and pumpage records. Included planning area (Table 2.1-9). The communities are hydrographs for statewide index wells of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Ranch, Holbrook and and automated groundwater monitoring sites, Page use effluent for golf course and landscape which can be searched and downloaded to irrigation. In 2006 and 2007 over 2,300 acreaccess local information for planning, drought feet of effluent was used in the Flagstaff area. mitigation and other purposes. Approximately Reclaimed water is produced by both of the 1,700 wells are designated as index wells city’s wastewater treatment plants. A total of 10 statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI sites. schools, eight parks, two cemeteries, three golf (GWSI sites are primarily well sites but include courses and a playing field at Northern Arizona other types of sites such as springs and drains). University receive treated effluent. In addition, Typically, index wells are visited once each year a large industrial user, SCA Tissues, which had by the Department’s field staff to obtain a long- been Flagstaff’s second largest potable water term record of groundwater level fluctuations. user, converted to 100% reclaimed water use Section 2.0 Overview 32 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 in 2005, resulting in a potable water savings of more than 300 AFA (SCA, 2007). Flagstaff also has a reclaimed water hauling program that makes Class A+ and Class B reclaimed water available for non-potable uses at four sites located throughout the city (City of Flagstaff, 2008). A proposal to use Flagstaff effluent to make snow at the Snowbowl ski area has resulted in a multi-year court battle between a coalition of tribes and environmentalists and the owners of Snowbowl and the Forest Service that remains unresolved. Contamination Sites Approximately 11,900 AFA of industrial wastewater is generated by the Catalyst Paper Mill (formerly Abitibi) near Heber and discharged to a dry lake where it is used to irrigate pasture. Effluent generation location, volumes and disposal method are shown in Table 2.1-9. There are three active VRP sites with soil and groundwater contamination. PCE, TCE and fuel oil are found in groundwater at the Arizona Public Service (APS) Cholla Power Plant site. At Winslow, soil contamination is found at the La Posada Hotel site, located adjacent to a railroad station and equipment yard. The Georgia-Pacific Corporation site in Flagstaff is also a railroad site; the particular contaminants at this site are not known. The VRP is a state administered and funded voluntary cleanup program. Any site that has soil and/or groundwater contamination, provided that the site is not subject to an enforcement action by another program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a single point of contact for projects that involve more than one regulatory program (Environmental Law Institute, 2002). Environmental contamination sites may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (state designated WQARF sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP), Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the Other communities in the planning area planning area. Of these various contamination discharge effluent to fields for agricultural sites, VRP, UMTRA and LUST sites are found irrigation or to support wetlands (see Table in the planning area. Table 2.0-7 lists the 2.1-9). The Town of Eagar provides treated contaminant and affected media at UMTRA and wastewater at no cost to local hay farmers (Town VRP sites. The location of all contamination of Eagar, 2005) and all Snowflake’s effluent is sites in the planning area is shown on Figure applied to a local rancher’s hay field. 2.0-17. View of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. In 2006 and 2007 over 2,300 acre-feet of effluent was used in the Flagstaff area. 33 Two UMTRA sites are located on the Navajo Reservation at Tuba City and Monument Valley. The former Monument Valley mill and tailings site covers approximately 83 acres. Surface remediation was completed in 1994. A nitrate Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-7 Contamination sites in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Sites Tuba City Disposal Site Monument Valley Processing Site Groundwater - Molybdenum, Nitrate, Selenium, Uranium and Sulfate Groundwater - Uranium, Ammonium, Nitrate and Sulfate Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) Sites APS Cholla Power Plant Groundwater - Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Fuel oil Soil - Fuel Oil La Posada Hotel Soil - Diesel fuel and Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) Georgia-Pacific Corp. Flagstaff Facility Soil and Groundwater - Unknown Sources: ADEQ 2002, ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b plume with concentrations ranging from 44 to 1,030 mg/L extends approximately 4,500 feet north of the site. Uranium concentrations exceed the UMTRA standard of 0.044 mg/L at a site in the alluvial aquifer and in a well completed in the De Chelly formation that was contaminated from the overlying alluvium. Approximately 540 million gallons of groundwater in the alluvial aquifer are contaminated. The Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct pilot studies and continue with remediation, monitoring and enforcement strategies until contaminant concentrations have been reduced to acceptable levels. (DOE, 2007) The Tuba City site, located five miles east of Tuba City is a former uranium mill that created radioactive mill tailings that were conveyed to evaporation ponds at the site. Surface remediation was completed in 1990. Seepage from the evaporation ponds contaminated groundwater in the N-aquifer. The original volume of contaminated groundwater was between 1.5 and 3 billion gallons. Contaminants include molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, uranium and sulfate. Active groundwater remediation is underway at the site using extraction wells and removal of contaminants (DOE, 2008b). Widespread mining and milling of uranium ore on the Navajo Reservation beginning in the 1940s also resulted in a large number of abandoned uranium mines (AUMs) and dispersion of radiation and heavy metal contamination in soil and water. In 1993, the Navajo Nation brought concerns about health risks associated with these mining activities to the EPA, DOE and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In response, EPA initiated a study through the Superfund Program to assess human exposure to radiation and heavy metals from each known AUM on the Navajo Nation. By August 2007, EPA completed a study identifying 520 AUMs. In June 2008, the EPA, in partnership with DOE, BIA, the Indian Health Service and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, finalized a five-year plan for cleaning up the abandoned uranium mining sites on the Navajo Nation. (EPA, 2008) Section 2.0 Overview 34 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 35 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 There are 260 active LUST sites in the planning area. Fifty-seven sites are located at Flagstaff, 53 at Winslow, 37 at Holbrook, 29 at Show Low/ Pinetop/Lakeside, 28 at Springerville/Eagar, 18 at Page, 11 at Heber and eight at Snowflake. Catalyst Paper Mill northeast of Heber. Surface water is the largest component of agricultural supply, meeting about 42% of the agricultural demand. Tribal water demand is included in these totals. 2.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Cultural water demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area averaged approximately 170,400 AFA during the period from 2001 to 2005. Water demand by each sector and water source is shown in Figure 2.0-18. The industrial demand sector is the largest user with 83,100 AFA of water demand, 49% of the total. About two-thirds of the industrial demand is met by groundwater. The municipal sector accounts for about 26% of the cultural demand with almost 45,000 AFA. Most of the municipal demand is met with groundwater. Agricultural demand is approximately 42,400 AFA, 25% of the total. The agricultural sector utilizes comparable volumes of groundwater, surface water and effluent. Most of the agricultural effluent use is at one location and source, the Tribal water demand is about a tenth of the overall cultural water demand in the planning area (not including the pumpage by Peabody Western Coal Company at Black Mesa). The Navajo Reservation is the largest and most populated with an estimated annual demand of 11,700 acre-feet and an Arizona population of about 105,000 in 2000. Demand on the Hopi Reservation is approximately 1,000 AFA. With a 2004 on-reservation population of about 8,000, Hopi people have continually occupied the area since 500 A.D. The community of Old Oraibi, established as early as 1100, is considered the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the United States (ADOC, 2008). Figure 2.0-18 Cultural Water Demand by Sector in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Section 2.0 Overview 36 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Navajo Nation Major municipal demand centers on the Navajo Nation include Chinle, Kayenta, Tuba City and Window Rock/Fort Defiance. Specific amounts used in each community are not known. According to a 2002 Navajo Department of Water Resources (NDWR) report, approximately 40% of the population routinely hauls water for domestic and stock uses. According to the report, the Navajo Nation has the highest percentage of its population lacking potable water systems compared to any other region in the United States. Most municipal water supplies are groundwater (NDWR, USBOR & USIHS, 2002). The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) is the largest public water provider for the Nation, which extends into New Mexico and Utah. The NTUA operates more than 90 public water systems with approximately 24,000 connections throughout the entire reservation, supplying more than 12,000 acre-feet of residential and 3,300 acre-feet of commercial water per year. It is estimated that smaller operators (NDWR and BIA) serve about 10,000 people and convey about 1,500 acre-feet of water annually. The USGS estimates that approximately 10,500 acrefeet of water was used for municipal purposes in the Arizona portion of the Navajo Reservation in 2006 (USGS, 2008). About 500 acre-feet of wastewater is used for dust abatement and construction. Other major uses are associated with coal mining on Black Mesa and electrical generation (NDWR, USBOR & USIHS, 2002). Navajo reservation irrigation consists of Ak Chin (dryland farming) and small irrigation projects. Between 1910 and the late 1950’s the U.S. Government built and expanded dozens of small irrigation projects amounting to about 46,200 acres reservation-wide. Because of inadequate management and funding for operation and maintenance, these small systems have deteriorated and by 1986, a Soil Conservation Service survey found only 16,670 acres still were farmed, a decrease of 64% (NDWR, 2002b). A field examination by Department staff and Navajo Nation representatives in the Upper Colorado River Basin portion of the planning area found approximately 400 acres of active surface water irrigation in 2005. The total water requirement for the crops grown on these acres was estimated at approximately 600 acre-feet (USBOR, 2007). The report did not include an irrigation efficiency estimate. The survey also found another 500 acres in the Upper Basin that were dryland farmed. The extent of recent irrigation activity elsewhere on the Arizona portion of the reservation (Little Colorado River) is not well known but appears to be limited. The Hydrographic Survey Report for Indian Lands in the Little Colorado River System (ADWR, 1994b), reported approximately 3,000 irrigated acres in that portion of the reservation. An analysis of recent aerial images show approximately 200 acres irrigated in this area, resulting in total reservation acreage of roughly 600 acres, or 1,200 AFA on the Navajo Reservation (ADWR, 2008b). Field in Canyon del Muerto, Navajo Reservation. Navajo reservation irrigation consists of Ak Chin (dryland farming) and small irrigation projects. 37 An additional 4,400 acre-feet of groundwater was withdrawn annually from tribal lands for the Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Black Mesa and Kayenta coal mines and slurry pipeline. With closure of the Mohave Generating Station at Laughlin, Nevada in 2005, the slurry pipeline that deliverd coal from the Black Mesa mine is not operating. As a result withdrawals dropped to 1,500 acre-feet in 2006. small plots of land. The predominant crop grown is corn, with smaller percentages of orchards, beans, melons and squash. The Hopi HSR identified approximately 5,000 traditionally irrigated acres scattered throughout the reservation. These areas are irrigated through a combination of dryland farming, Hopi Tribe rainwater harvesting or surface water diversions Major municipal demand centers on the Hopi during rainfall events. The survey also found Reservation include Polacca, Kykotsmovi, approximately 180 acres of non-traditionally Shungopavi, Hotevilla and Moenkopi. The irrigated lands at Pasture Canyon near N-aquifer is the only aquifer of sufficient quality Moenkopi, 155 acres of which were irrigated and accessibility to supply reliable drinking in 2005. These acres are irrigated using nonwater to the Hopi villages on the three mesas traditional (“modern”) irrigation methods at an (Hopi Tribe, 2005). The village of Moenkopi estimated rate of 2.0 acre-feet per acre or about uses approximately 160 acre-feet of water from 310 AFA (ADWR, 2008a). N-aquifer springs. Zuni Heaven Reservation The Department completed the Preliminary The Zuni Heaven Reservation was established Hydrographic Survey Report for the Hopi by Congress in 1984 through Public Law 98-498 Indian Reservation (Hopi HSR) in December and expanded in 1990 through Public Law 1012008, which contains detailed water demand 486 to further the religious and cultural needs information. The report found that public water of the Zuni Tribe. Zuni Heaven is a religious systems delivered 445 acre-feet of groundwater pilgrimage site from the main reservation in in 2006 (ADWR, 2008a). The USGS estimates New Mexico and was a lush riparian habitat with that an additional 100 acre-feet of groundwater springs, streams and a sacred lake (Hadin Kyaya) is annually used for domestic purposes (USGS, as late as the 1930s. Surface water depletions, 2008). dams, groundwater pumping and incisement of the Little Colorado River through the Zuni Agriculture on the Hopi Reservation consists lands resulted in loss of the springs, lake and primarily of traditional farming activities on riparian habitat. The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement of 2002 provides sufficient water for the reservation including reestablishment and maintenance of the wetland environment. A minimum wetland restoration volume of 5,500 AFA from various sources was identified, including unappropriated surface water flows reaching the reservation, water from Zuni Lands upstream of the reservation, acquired surface water rights and underground water. The agreement allows pumping of up to 1,500 AFA from the Zuni Pumping Lands for restoration of the wetlands and to provide water to the sacred lake. In 2008, the Tribe withdrew approximately 157 acre-feet of water from wells Dry land farming of corn on the Hopi Reservation. on the Zuni Pumping Lands. Section 2.0 Overview 38 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Municipal Demand The primary municipal water demand centers in the planning area are located at Flagstaff, Winslow/Holbrook, Page and in the White Mountain/Mogollon Rim communities of Eagar, Pinetop-Lakeside, Heber-Overgaard, Show Low, Snowflake, Springerville, Saint Johns and Taylor. Demand centers are discussed briefly below. Estimated water demand served by public and private water providers is shown in Table 2.0-8 for each water demand center. Reported water withdrawals and deliveries for all community water systems in the planning area in 2006 and 2007 are found in Appendix B. Effluent is used for municipal purposes by Flagstaff, Page and Holbrook for golf course, urban irrigation and for industrial purposes. unincorporated areas around Flagstaff and on the Navajo Reservation. Municipal water demand is primarily residential and commercial. Demand varies seasonally in some communities due to tourism and summeronly landscape watering. Because of the higher elevation, shorter growing season, higher rainfall and rural nature of many parts of the planning area, outdoor landscape watering is typically lower than that in the lower elevation, drier parts of the state. There have been significant conservation efforts in the Flagstaff area. Some of these programs target outdoor water use and landscape design, e.g., rebates for replacement of high water use landscaping. Estimated per capita usage in Flagstaff is 116 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is lower than many cities in Arizona (City of Flagstaff, 2009). An estimate of water demand associated with Public municipal systems serve the majority of domestic/self-supplied wells is also listed water demand in the planning area. Non-Indian in Table 2.0-8. This demand is difficult to large utility systems that served more than 500 estimate. A population-based estimate rather acre-feet of water in 2006 are listed in Table than an estimate based on the number of 2.0-9. domestic wells was used due to uncertainties regarding whether wells drilled are currently Estimated demand and water supply for all golf functioning. Water hauling is also common in courses in the planning area is shown in Table Table 2.0-8 Municipal demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area in 2006 Municipal demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area in 2006 (in acre-feet) (in acre-feet) Groundwater Surface Water Effluent Municipal Demand Served by a Water Provider Flagstaff Area 7,700 1,600 2,300 Heber-Overgaard/Forest Lakes 900 0 0 Page 0 2,250 770 Saint Johns/Concho 800 0 0 Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside 4,200 0 0 Snowflake-Taylor 2,400 0 300 Springerville/Eagar 900 100 0 Winslow/Holbrook 2,600 0 185 Total Water Provider 19,500 3,950 3,555 Domestic/Self-supplied 7,000 0 0 Hopi Reservation 540 160 0 10,500 NR 0 Navajo Nation Total Municipal 37,540 4,110 3,555 Source: ADWR Community Water Systems 2006 Annual Reports, USGS 2008 39 Total 11,600 900 3,020 800 4,200 2,700 1,000 2,785 27,005 7,000 700 10,500 45,205 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-9 Water providers serving 500 acre-feet or more of water year, excluding the Eastern Plateau PlanWaterper providers serving effluent, 500 af orin more, excluding effluent, in 2006 ning Area 1991 2000 2006 (AF) (AF) (AF) Arizona Water Company-Lakeside 597 897 792 Arizona Water Company-Overgaard 183 337 503 Doney Park Water 455 737 781 Eager Municipal Water 680 781 700 Flagstaff, City of 8,172 9,927 8,485 Holbrook, City of 1,166 956 790 Page Municipal 2,740 2,740 2,250 Show Low Municipal 830 1,205 1,485 Saint Johns Municipal 558 757 662 Snowflake, Town of 872 1,323 1,416 Taylor, Town of 445 721 871 Winslow Municipal 2,000 1,863 1,744 Source: Community Water System 2006 Annual Reports, USGS 2007 Water Provider 2.0-10. Golf course demand is estimated to be approximately 4,500 acre-feet a year, of which approximately 2,700 acre-feet of groundwater, surface water and effluent is served from the Flagstaff municipal system comprising approximately 6% of the total municipal demand. Four golf courses, Aspen Valley, Continental and Pine Canyon in Flagstaff, and Hidden Cove Country Club in Holbrook use 100% effluent from a municipal source. The remaining 1,800 acre-feet of golf course demand is served from a facility well or surface water diversion and is considered an industrial demand in the Atlas. Flagstaff Area A number of water systems serve the Flagstaff area including the City of Flagstaff, Doney Park Water and Flagstaff Ranch. The nearby Table 2.0-10 Golf course demand Eastern Plateau Planning Area (c.2006) Figure 2.0-8 Golf course demand in in thethe Eastern Plateau Planning Area Facility Aspen Valley and Continental Golf Courses (Flagstaff) Bison Golf Course - Show Low 1&2* Concho Valley Country Club* Flagstaff Ranch Greer Lakes Golf Resort* Hidden Cove (Holbrook) Juniper Ridge RV Resort* (Show Low) Lake Powell National Golf Club (Page) Pine Canyon (Flagstaff) Pine Meadows Country Club (Overgaard) Pinetop Country Club* Pinetop Lakes Golf & Country Club* River Run Golf Course* (Eagar) Silver Creek Golf Club* (Show Low) Snowflake Municipal Torreon Golf Club* (Show Low) White Mountain Country Club* (Pinetop) Source: ADWR, 2008c # of Holes Demand (acrefeet) 36 1078 18 18 18 18 9 9 18 18 9 18 18 18 18 27 36 18 150 88/87 88/22 150 75 75 719/46 330 75 150 125 150 441 225 300 150 Section 2.0 Overview Water Supply Effluent Groundwater Groundwater/Surface Water Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater Effluent Groundwater Effluent/Surface Water Effluent Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater 40 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 communities of Kachina Village, Mountainaire, and Forest Highlands are located in the Verde River Basin. The City of Flagstaff is by far the largest provider in the entire planning area, with a potable demand of 8,500 acre-feet in 2006. It also delivered another 2,300 acre-feet of effluent for irrigation and industrial use. 50 acre-feet of groundwater. Separate wells provide irrigation water to the golf course, which is supplemented with effluent. (Pinkham and Davis, 2002) Heber-Overgaard/Forest Lakes The adjacent, unincorporated communities of Heber and Overgaard, with a combined population of approximately 3,600, are located in southern Navajo County along Highway 260. In 2007 Arizona Water Company withdrew about 500 acre-feet of groundwater from five wells to serve Overgaard. In 2007 Heber Domestic Water District withdrew about 140 acre-feet of water from three wells to serve Heber. Neither community has a centralized wastewater treatment system. The Bison Ranch master planned community east of Overgaard is served by a private wastewater treatment plant. As mentioned previously, the water supply for Flagstaff has become more diversified, with recent investment in additional groundwater development. It also continues to expand its reclaimed water system and recruit new reclaimed water customers. The city offers reduced water rates for reclaimed water use, rebates for the cost of a connection to the reclaimed system and provides reclaimed water hauling locations to users in several areas. Northern Arizona University is the largest water customer in Flagstaff, comprising about 8-10 percent of the annual demand (Pinkham and Forest Lakes is a primarily summer/vacation Davis, 2002). home community located west of HeberOvergaard. In 2006 the Forest Lakes Water The other large provider in the Flagstaff area is Improvement District pumped 235 acre-feet of Doney Park Water, which serves groundwater water to serve over 800 single-family residences to unincorporated communities known as and a small number of commercial customers. Doney Park, Timberline and Fernwood located primarily east of Highway 89, and Cosnino Page and Winona located southeast of Doney Park The City of Page began as a housing camp along the Townsend-Winona Road. Doney Park in 1957 for the construction of Lake Powell. Water also provides standpipe services. The Incorporated in 1975, its population is now Doney Park Water service area is not expected over 9,000. The city provides all water services to expand significantly. Water users in the area to Page and to the adjacent community of are not connected to a centralized wastewater system and use on-site wastewater treatment such as septic systems (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). In 2006, Doney Park Water served almost 800 acre-feet of groundwater pumped from six wells to primarily single family residences (97% of deliveries). Flagstaff Ranch is a growing, 850-acre development west of Flagstaff that includes a residential community, golf course and a business park. Flagstaff Ranch Water Company serves the residential development and provides standpipe services. In 2006 it withdrew about 41 City of Page and the Lake Powell National Golf Course. In 2006, 719 acre-feet of effluent was delivered to this golf course. Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 LeChee on the Navajo Nation. All water used is from Lake Powell through a contract with the USBOR. Considering return flow credits to the Lake, Page is entitled to about 3,300 AFA. Water is withdrawn via intakes on the dam and pumped 1,200 feet uphill to the city’s treatment plant. Some untreated water goes directly to the 27-hole municipal golf course. Page plans to increase its water storage capacity and is looking to improve system reliability since it relies on a single pipeline from the Lake Powell intakes. It is also considering well development to provide backup to the surface water system. Most of Page is served by a centralized wastewater treatment system (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). In 2006, the City of Page received 2,250 acre-feet from the USBOR and delivered 1,898 acre-feet to Page and 97 acre-feet to LeChee. In addition, 719 acre-feet of effluent was delivered to the Lake Powell National Golf Course. Saint Johns/Concho Saint Johns is the Apache County seat and home to over 3,800 residents. It is served by the Saint Johns Municipal water system, which withdrew about 660 acre-feet of water from two wells in 2006, and by the Saint Johns WWTP. The nearby Coronado Generating Station, a coal fired power plant operated by the Salt River Project, is a major employer. The unincorporated community of Concho is located about 18 miles west of Saint Johns. It consists of the original town of “Old Concho” and the master planned community of Concho Valley, which includes the Concho Valley Golf Course and Concho Lake. Livco Water and Sewer Company provides water and sewer service in Concho Valley. In 2006 it delivered about 100 acre-feet of groundwater to Concho Valley and 12 acre-feet to Old Concho Water Users, which serves Old Concho. Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside The second largest demand center in the planning area with an annual demand of 6,500 acre-feet, the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside area had a combined population of about 15,100 residents in 2006. The area is a popular tourism and recreation destination. The primary water providers in Show Low are the City of Show Low, Pineview Water Company and Fools Hollow-Park Valley Water Company. The City of Show Low water utility serves about 80% of the city’s approximately 11,000 residents. It withdraws water from the C-aquifer at depths of between 540 to over 600 feet bls (City of Show Low, 2007). In 2006 it withdrew almost 1,500 acre-feet of groundwater from eight wells and delivered three acre-feet to Pineview Water Company. About 900 acre-feet of effluent was treated at the Show Low Wastewater Treatment Plant and delivered to a series of created wetlands including Pintail Lake, Redhead Marsh and Telephone Lake. In 2006, Pineview Water Compnay withdrew about 335 acre-feet of water from four wells for single family and commercial uses. Fools Hollow-Park Valley Water Company withdrew about 185 acre-feet from two wells to serve primarily single-family customers. It also serves Fools Hollow State Park. The communities of Pinetop and Lakeside incorporated as one in 1984. The town of about 4,600 residents (2006) is primarily served by four water providers; Arizona Water Company-Lakeside, Ponderosa Domestic Water Improvement District (DWID), Pinetop Water Community Facilities District (CFD) and Arizona Water Company-Pinetop Lakes, that together served almost 2,000 acre-feet of groundwater in 2006. Arizona Water CompanyLakeside withdrew 792 acre-feet from five wells to serve primarily residential customers. The next largest provider, Ponderosa DWID withdrew 484 acre-feet of water from seven wells to serve primarily single family customers and turf. Turf deliveries were 86 acre-feet in 2006 and 176 acre-feet in 2007. Pinetop CFD serves almost equal volumes of water to residential and commercial users. In 2006 it withdrew 468 acre-feet of groundwater from five wells. Arizona Water Company-Pinetop Section 2.0 Overview 42 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Lakes serves residential customers from two wells. In 2006 it withdrew 208 acre-feet of water. The communities are also served by a number of small water providers. Area wells tap both the deep Coconino aquifer and the shallower Pinetop-Lakeside aquifer. New water provider wells are generally developed in the Coconino aquifer while the shallower aquifer is a substantial source of domestic water (PinetopLakeside, 2004). Snowflake/Taylor Snowflake and Taylor are adjacent, incorporated towns located along Silver Creek in southeastern Navajo County. Each is served by municipal water and sewer systems. The largest industry in the area is the Catalyst Paper Mill located about 15 miles west of Snowflake/Taylor. Other local industries include a large hog feedlot operation, a 20-acre hydroponic tomato greenhouse, cattle grazing and farming. The population of Snowflake was about 5,180 in 2006 when the city utility served 1,416 acre-feet of water from four wells to about 1,640 connections. Wells are located in the C-aquifer with water levels generally between 100-400 ft bls. Reportedly, expansion of both the water and wastewater systems is needed. Treated effluent from the Snowflake WWTP is stored in a pond for irrigating agricultural fields. In 2006 about 300 acre-feet of effluent was delivered to a hay field (Town of Snowflake, 2007). Taylor, with a 2006 population of 4,270, withdrew 871 acre-feet from two active wells. Of this total, 222 acrefeet was delivered to turf and “other” including parks and streetscapes. Springerville-Eagar The incorporated communities of Springerville and Eagar are located in Round Valley at the edge of the White Mountains in southern Apache County. They have a combined population of over 6,600 with 4,530 residents in Eagar and 2,125 residents in Springerville in 2006. Both communities are served by municipal water and wastewater utilities. The nearby Tucson 43 Round Valley, Arizona. In 2006 Springerville served 291 acre-feet of groundwater and Eagar withdrew 595 acre-feet of groundwater and diverted 105 acre-feet of surface water. Electric Power Springerville Generating Station is a major area employer. Springerville served 291 acre-feet of groundwater to residential and commercial customers from seven wells in 2006. Eagar’s water supply comes from seven wells and a spring. Water use averages 150,000 gallons per day in the winter to one mgd in the summer. Peak demand exceeds well pump capacity and the town is planning construction of two new wells. Approximately 60% of the town is connected to a centralized sewer system. Wastewater from the Eagar WWTP is provided for crop irrigation (Town of Eagar, 2002). In 2006, Eagar withdrew 595 acre-feet of groundwater from six wells and diverted 105 acre-feet of surface water. It delivered 98 acrefeet of effluent for agricultural use. Winslow-Holbrook These two relatively large communities are located in the Little Colorado River Valley in Navajo County. Holbrook, with a 2006 population of about 5,600, is the county seat. Both communities are served by municipal water systems. The Arizona Public Service Cholla Power Plant is located near Holbrook and is a major area employer. Holbrook withdraws water from the C-aquifer from six wells. In 2006 it withdrew 790 acre-feet of groundwater. Holbrook’s sewer system serves Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 customers in and around the city. The Painted Mesa WWTP treats an average of 0.5 mgd and effluent is reused for agricultural irrigation and for irrigation of the Hidden Cove Golf Course. Located west of Holbrook, Winslow is larger, with a 2006 population of over 10,100. Municipal groundwater is pumped from six wells located southwest of the city. In 2006 it withdrew 1,744 acre-feet of groundwater and diverted 2,000 acrefeet from Clear Creek. Diversions from Clear Creek are for non-municipal uses, primarily recreation. Another approximately 1,000 acrefeet of effluent from the Winslow WWTP was delivered for agricultural irrigation of a farm leased by the city for non-dairy forage crops. Agricultural Demand precipitation are needed for success. It is estimated that approximately 8,800 acres in the planning area are actively irrigated with a combination of 42,950 acre-feet of surface water, groundwater and effluent. Agricultural demand is summarized in Table 2.0-11. Described below is historic agricultural irrigation information from investigations conducted by the Department in 1990 and 1994. In the summer of 2008, staff from the USGS conducted a survey of agricultural lands in the planning area. Preliminary information from this survey is also discussed below and summarized in Table 2.0-12. The survey found approximately 8,000 active (not fallow) acres irrigated during the 2008 growing season on non-tribal lands in the planning area. Agricultural demand on non-tribal lands has significantly declined from historic levels. Cessation of some agricultural irrigation has occurred recently in the Hunt Valley area and near Saint Johns due to purchase by the Zuni Tribe to preserve tribal water resources at Zuni Heaven, a historically riparian area sacred to the Zuni. Silver Creek Watershed-Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake, Taylor Several irrigation companies historically supplied agricultural irrigation water in the Show Low/ Pinetop-Lakeside area. These included the Show Low, Pinetop-Woodlands, Woodlands and Lakeside Irrigation Companies. The irrigation season is limited and irrigated lands Areas of greatest non-Indian agricultural were used for pasture, orchards and gardens. The irrigation are near the communities of Saint Silver Creek Irrigation District operates in the Johns, Springerville, Snowflake/Taylor, Joseph communities of Shumway, Taylor and Snowflake. City and Holbrook. In some areas, particularly Historically, Silver Springs provided the majority Snowflake/Taylor, the proportions of Table 2.0-11 Agricultural demand in the Eastern Plasurface water and groundwater used Average annual agricultural demand in the Eastern Plateau Pla teau Planning Area varies significantly from year to year with fluctuations in precipitation. 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Agriculture on the Navajo and Hopi 51,200 37,700 41,400 reservations is served primarily by Non-Indian Total Surface Water 14,700 15,400 17,000 surface water and land is also dryland Groundwater 36,500 22,300 13,100 farmed (“traditional” farming). As Effluent UNK UNK 11,300 mentioned above, “non-traditional” Indian Total 1,550 1,550 1,550 Indian agricultural demand is Navajo 1 estimated to be about 1,550 acreSurface Water 1,200 1,200 1,200 feet. Dryland farming utilizes water Hopi Surface Water 350 350 350 harvesting techniques to catch and 52,750 39,250 42,950 direct runoff to crops. Because there TOTAL Source: ADWR 2008b, USGS 2007 is no supplemental irrigation, both 1 Navajo irrigated acreage estimated based on 2005 aerial data spring soil moisture and late summer UNK= Unknown Section 2.0 Overview 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-12 Active agricultural acres in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Area Heber Source REUSED WATER (CATALYST CORP) Subtotal Holbrook GROUNDWATER HOLBROOK RECLAIM WATER Crop Type 1,691 272 75 60 54 2,152 41 13 ALFALFA SORGHUM TREES CORN BARLEY FLOODED RYE GRASS CORN/GRASS MIX FLOODED 62 ALFALFA FLOODED Subtotal 115 Joseph City INA 153 47 22 23 88 17 32 1 GROUNDWATER Subtotal Show Low SURFACE WATER (SHOW LOW CREEK) GROUND WATER / SURFACE WATER (SILVER CREEK LAKE) Subtotal SURFACE WATER (OTHER) SURFACE WATER FROM GREER RESERVOIR Subtotal GROUNDWATER Saint Johns SURFACE WATER (LYMAN LAKE) Subtotal Woodruff CORN GRASS FLOODED FLOODED BARLEY FLOODED SPRINKLER CENTER PIVOT FLOODED CORN RYE GRASS 4 259 263 GROUNDWATER Springerville/Eager VEGETABLES FLOODED SPRINKLER CENTER PIVOT FLOODED FLOODED SPRINKLER CENTER PIVOT FLOODED ALFALFA 383 Subtotal Snowflake Irrigation System Acres GROUNDWATER SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER Subtotal TOTAL 44 35 4 289 95 203 45 41 1,526 2,281 119 2 29 1,101 2 1,253 101 94 32 19 17 257 580 87 1,187 243 162 SOD ALFALFA BERMUDA GRASS CORN GREENHOUSE OATS RYE GRASS RYE GRASS VEGETABLES ALFALFA RYE GRASS FLOODED FLOODED FLOODED VEGETABLES SOD OATS ALFALFA RYE GRASS ALFALFA RYE GRASS SUDAN GRASS SPRINKLER CENTER PIVOT FLOODED FLOODED ALFALFA FLOODED RYE GRASS FLOODED 405 8,041 Source: USGS 2009 45 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 of the cultivated lands at the current rate of withdrawal” A.R.S. § 45-402(22). Within an INA, irrigation with groundwater is restricted to lands that were irrigated prior to establishment of the area. Groundwater withdrawals by irrigation and large non-irrigation users, such as cities or golf-courses, must be reported annually to the Department. Irrigation and non-irrigation uses (primarily the Cholla Generating Station), are shown in Figure 2.0-19. Irrigation use in In 2008, the USGS observed 263 acres of the INA had generally been between 2,000 and primarily grass irrigation with water diverted 4,000 acre-feet a year, served by the Joseph from Show Low Creek in the Show Low area. City Irrigation Company. Irrigation use was not In the Snowflake, Taylor, Shumway area, reported for 2006 and 2007. approximately 2,281 acres were irrigated with surface water from White Mountain Reservoir In 2008, the USGS observed about 383 acres of and with groundwater. The primary crop was active irrigation, primarily alfalfa, in the Joseph City INA. rye grass. of the surface water supply for the District. White Mountain Lake is the major water storage reservoir for the District. The area is within the Silver Creek Watershed for which a Hydrographic Survey Report was filed with the Adjudication court in 1990. At that time, almost 6,300 acres were irrigated with surface water and groundwater, using a total of almost 29,000 acre-feet per year (ADWR, 1990). Joseph City Irrigation Non-Expansion Area (INA) The Joseph City INA was established in 1980 by the Arizona Groundwater Management Act. The area had previously been designated as a Critical Groundwater Area in 1974. Designation of an area as an INA recognizes that there is “insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for the irrigation Upper Little Colorado River-Springerville, Eagar, Nutrioso, Greer, Vernon, Saint Johns, Concho, Woodruff The Department conducted an inventory of irrigation use in the Upper Little Colorado River watershed and published a report in 1994 (ADWR, 1994c). The inventory divided the area into ten regions: Nutrioso; Greer; Round Valley, including the Round Valley Figure 2.0-19 Irrigation and Non-irrigation Water De- Water Users Association (Eagar) and Springerville Water Rights mand in the Joseph City INA and Ditch Company; Vernon; Saint Johns including Lyman Water Company and the Saint Johns Irrigation Company; Concho, including Concho Water Company; Hunt; Hay Hollow; Woodruff, including the Woodruff Irrigation Company and Sanders. At that time, 18,980 acres were irrigated with a total surface water and groundwater use of almost 35,000 acre-feet. The biggest volumes of water use were in the Saint Johns area (6,600 acrefeet) and in the Hunt Valley area, located west of Saint Johns (3,800 acre-feet). The cropped acres were Section 2.0 Overview 46 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 primarily pasture. No use was reported in the Sanders region. As mentioned previously, the Zuni tribe has recently purchased and retired agricultural lands in the Hunt Valley area and near Saint Johns. By the summer of 2008, the USGS observed irrigation of approximately 2,271 acres in the area. In the Springerville/Eager area 1,252 acres of primarily rye grass was irrigated with surface water. Irrigation water used at Eagar is conveyed via pipeline from the Greer Lakes. That summer, 1,187 acres of primarily rye grass and alfalfa was irrigated in the Saint Johns area with a combination of groundwater and surface water from Lyman Lake. Southeast of Holbrook at Woodruff, another 405 acres of alfalfa and rye grass was observed irrigated with groundwater and surface water. Lower Little Colorado River-Winslow, Holbrook, Heber, Flagstaff By the summer of 2008, the USGS found that irrigation had ceased at Winslow, although in 2007 the City of Winslow reported that 1,000 acre-feet of effluent was applied to forage crops at a farm leased by the city. At Heber, 1,691 acres of alfalfa, 272 acres of sorghum and 189 acres of trees, corn and barley were irrigated with water discharged from the Catalyst Paper Mill. Irrigation had diminished in the Holbrook area with about 115 acres of rye grass, corn and alfalfa irrigated with a mix of groundwater (53 acres) and effluent (62 acres). Industrial Demand Industrial water demand in the planning area includes mining, electrical power generation, paper production, dairies and feedlots and golf course irrigation served by a facility water system. This demand is summarized in Table 2.013 for selected time periods. Industrial demand, particularly for power generation is a large cultural demand component in the planning area, The Department conducted an Table 2.0-13 Industrial demand in the Eastern Plateau Average annual industrial demand in the Eastern Plateau Plan inventory of irrigation use in the Lower Planning Area Little Colorado River watershed and 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 published a report in 1994 (ADWR, Water Use (acre-feet) Type 1994d). Similar to the Upper Mining Total 11,144 11,445 6,241 Little Colorado River watershed 6,984 7,005 1,441 Surface water1 inventory, the area was divided into 4,160 4,440 4,800 Groundwater2 Power Plant Total 52,918 56,943 63,279 four regions: Winslow, Holbrook, Surface water 23,418 24,843 27,179 Heber and Flagstaff. At the time of Groundwater 29,500 32,100 36,100 the inventory, (excluding the Joseph Golf course Total 1,266 1,326 1,596 City Irrigation Company located in Surface water 87 87 87 the Joseph City INA), about 3,700 Groundwater 1,179 1,239 1,509 acres were actively irrigated with a Dairy/Feedlot Total 472 524 546 combination of 10,600 acre-feet of Groundwater 472 524 546 surface water and groundwater. Use Paper Mill Total 17,092 15,530 11,452 was reported in three of the regions: Groundwater 17,092 15,530 11,452 4,380 AFA at Winslow; 3,300 AFA at TOTAL 82,892 85,768 83,114 Heber; and 2,900 AFA at Holbrook. Sources: ADWR 2008c, USGS Pasture and alfalfa were the primary 1 Diverted pursuant to an exchange agreement between Phelps Dodge crops grown. No irrigation was Corporation and the Salt River Valley Water Users Association. Phelps Dodge provided water to SRP from Show Low Lake but this water was accounted for as reported in the Flagstaff region. water used by the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. This agreement and associated diversions ceased in 2002. 2 47 Includes water withdrawn from tribal lands leased by Peabody Coal. Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 representing about 49% of the total planning area located six miles northeast of Saint Johns, demand during the 2001-2005 time period. the Springerville Station located northeast of Springerville and the Cholla Generating Mine water use includes sand and gravel Station near Joseph City. The NGS uses water operations, coal mines on Black Mesa south of from Lake Powell pursuant to an Upper Basin Kayenta and historically, surface water diversions Colorado River contract which entitles it to from Show Low Lake and Blue Ridge/C.C. receive up to 34,000 acre-feet of water per year. Cragin Reservoir for mining use outside the In recent years about 27,200 AFA has been planning area. These diversions ceased in 2002 diverted for use at the NGS. All other facilities and Phelps Dodge Corporation relinquished pump groundwater. Average annual demand by its certificated rights to both water sources power plants for the period 2001-2005 is shown in 2005. Peabody Western Coal Company in Figure 2.0-20. (PWCC) operates two mines on Black Mesa: the Black Mesa Coal Mine and the Kayenta In addition to coal-fired power plants, the Mine. Until recently, these mines annually planning area has a solar system at the shipped approximately 12 million tons per year Springerville Generating Station, a biomass of low-sulfur subbituminous coal and pumped power plant that began operation in June 2008 approximately 4,400 AFA. Over 3.8 million at Snowflake and a second proposed biomass gallons of groundwater per day were required facility at Eagar. A previous biomass plant at to slurry coal to the Mohave Generating Station Eagar was closed in 2008. The Snowflake White (MGS) near Laughlin, Nevada. Coal is also sent Mountain Biomass 24-megawatt power plant to the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) at Page uses woody waste and recycled paper fibers by rail (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). By 2005, from the adjacent Catalyst Paper Co. paper mill the 273-mile slurry pipeline ceased operation, (formerly the Abitibi paper mill). Sources of in part because of Southern California Edison’s woody waste are from forest thinning projects, failure to upgrade pollution control devices at the MGS, as required by a lawsuit brought by Figure 2.0-20 Average Annual Water Dea consortium of environmental groups. As a mand by Electrical Generating Stations result of the closure, PWCC amended its mining in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, permit application to the Office of Surface 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Mining (OSM) and a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued in November 2008. The proposed project would consolidate the operations of the Kayenta Mine and the adjacent Black Mesa Mine, which previously supplied coal to the MGS, under a single permit. Water use at the Black Mesa Complex would be reduced to an average of 1,236 acre-feet of N-aquifer water per year (OSMRE, 2008). In December 2008, OSM approved the project and issued a life-of-mine permit that would allow operations to continue until 2026. This decision is being appealed. Power plants include the Navajo Generating Station (Page), the Coronado Generating Station Section 2.0 Overview 48 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 small-diameter trees burned in the RodeoChedeski fire and leftover wood from sawmills. The plant supplies power locally and has longterm power-purchase agreements with Arizona Public Service Co. and Salt River Project. The water demand of the plant is not known. There are ten industrial golf courses in the planning area, including seven in the Pinetop-Lakeside/Show Low area. An annual average of about 1,600 acre-feet of primarily groundwater was used for industrial golf course irrigation during 2001-2005. Because of cooler temperatures, higher precipitation and short growing season, relatively little water is required for golf course irrigation at most locations. and water quality problems. There are also infrastructure deficiencies that influence access to water supplies. A number of communities lack financial resources for infrastructure development or repair and drought has impacted surface water supplies. The ability to meet future water demands is a concern for many communities. The North Central Arizona Water Supply Study (which includes Flagstaff and the western portion of the planning area and the Western Plateau Planning Area) concluded that by 2050 the region’s groundwater pumping would not be sustainable and that unmet demands will be more than 7,000 acre-feet annually. Many Navajo communities also currently face critical water shortages. Water hauling is commonplace on the reservation, in part because widely scattered housing makes direct water delivery impractical in many areas. Hauling is also common at some locations outside of the reservation. During 2001-2005, an estimated 124,000 swine were raised annually at four feedlot facilities near Snowflake. These feedlots have been in existence since the early 1980s. In addition, a small dairy is located near Taylor. Combined water demand by the dairy and feedlots is Planning and Conservation estimated at between 450 to 600 acre-feet of groundwater a year. Many communities in the planning area are rapidly growing and physical and legal Located about 23 miles southwest of Holbrook, availability of water is a challenge in some places. the Catalyst Paper Co. purchased the Abitibi As mentioned previously, the communities paper mill in April 2008. Waste water from of Flagstaff, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, the operation is discharged to Dry Lake and Snowflake, and Taylor are required to include is used to irrigate primarily pasture east of SR a water resources element in their general plans 377. In 2005, approximately 11,900 acre-feet because of their size and/or rate of growth. of effluent was generated while 14,000 acre-feet Although not required by law to include a water of groundwater was pumped. This suggests that resources element in the county’s comprehensive about 85% of the annual groundwater withdrawal plan, Coconino County has done so. The County is recovered and used for irrigation. Plan emphasizes conservation in tandem with resource development and recognizes the 2.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the importance of incorporating climatic variability Eastern Plateau Planning Area into water resource planning (Coconino County, 2003). A number of water resource issues have been identified in the planning area by community The City of Flagstaff adopted a Regional Plan groups through the distribution of surveys with a Water Resources Element in 2002. The and from other sources. Primary issues are water resources element includes information the accessibility of groundwater supplies on the water and wastewater system and an in some areas due to hydrologic conditions analysis of future growth and water requirements 49 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 (City of Flagstaff, 2001). Flagstaff has an Watershed Groups and Studies active conservation program that includes an extensive reclaimed water system, education, Several watershed groups have formed in the and a staggered landscape watering schedule. Eastern Plateau Planning Area to address a variety of water resource issues. Some groups The Natural Resources Conservation Service encompass areas outside of the planning area. (NRCS) has produced rapid watershed Groups that are currently active in various assessments (RWA) for the Silver Creek, locations within the planning area are the Chevelon Canyon and Little Colorado River Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council, Headwaters Watersheds. A RWA is a concise Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users report containing information on natural Association, Little Colorado Watershed resource conditions and concerns at the 8-digit Coordinating Council (formerly the Little HUC level. They are intended to provide Colorado River Multi-Objective Management sufficient information and analysis to generate Partnership (LCRMOM)), Pinetop-Lakeside an appraisal of the conservation needs of the Watershed Enhancement Partnership, the Silver watershed as well as serve other uses (NRCS, Creek Watershed Partnership, the Upper Little 2008, 2007a, 2007b). Colorado River Watershed Partnership and the Navajo Nation. A complete description of As mentioned previously, all community water participants, activities, reports and issues is systems in Arizona are required to submit found in Appendix D. Primary issues identified a water system plan as part of the State’s by these groups that apply to the Eastern Plateau Drought Preparedness Plan. The system water Planning area can be summarized as follows: plan includes a water supply plan, water conservation plan, and drought preparedness Growth: • Excessive growth in some areas plan. Water providers are required to develop • Proposed development in Greer and the plan to ensure they reduce their vulnerability impacts on the Little Colorado River to drought and prepare to respond to potential • Unregulated lot splits water shortage conditions. As part of implementation of the State Drought Plan, Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) are being formed, as necessary, at the county level. LDIGs are voluntary groups that will coordinate drought public awareness, provide impact assessment information to local and state leaders and implement and initiate local drought mitigation and response actions. These groups are coordinated by local representatives of Arizona Cooperative Extension and County Emergency Management and supported by ADWR’s Statewide Drought program. Information on LDIGs may be found at the department’s website. To date, the only LDIG in the Planning area is in Navajo County. Water Supplies and Demand: • Limited and deep groundwater supplies • Drought sensitive supplies • Numerous water haulers and few hauling stations that are sometimes cutoff during drought • Limited surface water supplies for Page • Limited groundwater data for entire region • Potential impacts on groundwater system from power plants • Seasonal demands impacting ability to meet peak demands • Competition for supplies Legal: • Potential limitation of groundwater usage resulting from Indian reserved groundwater rights • Uncertainty of Indian water right settlements (Little Colorado River & Colorado River) Section 2.0 Overview 50 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 • Access to water development activities on public lands • Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water • Upper Basin/Lower Basin Colorado River issues affecting potential for use • Unresolved surface water adjudication • Current definition of an adequate water supply with passage of SB 1575 Water Quality: • Minor arsenic issues in Woody Mtn. Well field (9-14 ppb) • Arsenic and TDS in some areas Environmental: • Endangered Species Act implications on groundwater usage and impacts on perennial streams • Potential for groundwater development impact on threatened and endangered species, springs and riparian areas • Impact of invasive species (tamarisk) Funding: • Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies • Extremely high cost of water augmentation projects • Funding for Colorado River water infrastructure • Funding for water delivery infrastructure Drought: • Drought impacts on surface water supplies and springs resulting in impacts on agriculture and cattle ranching • Potential impacts on tourism due to drought Other: • Political differences between some communities • Perception of no real water supply problem • Several high hazard unsafe dams Arizona Water Supply Study was completed in 2006. All the proposed alternatives to address shortfall included a pipeline to deliver Lake Powell water to various demand centers (USBOR, 2006). A number of other hydrologic and planning studies have been conducted in the planning area, especially in the Flagstaff area. The Department completed a Hydrologic Map Series Report of southern Navajo County in 2007 which covers the area south of the Navajo Nation to the Mogollon Rim. The NEMO Watershed Based Plan for the Little Colorado Watershed was completed in 2006. NEMO (Non-point Education for Municipal Officials) is intended to help communities protect their natural resources while still accommodating growth. Other planning area studies are found in the reference sections of this volume. Surveys The Department conducted a rural water resources survey in 2003 to compile information for the public and help identify the needs of communities. This survey was also intended to gather information on drought impacts to incorporate into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes. A report of the findings from the survey was completed in 2004 (ADWR, 2004). Thirty-seven water providers and jurisdictions in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area responded to the survey and of these, 23 ranked 18 issues. In the planning area, infrastructure and water supply issues were ranked among the top five Potential future and current water supply issues by a many respondents. In a separate shortfalls have lead to discussions among the question, a majority of respondents noted at least Coconino Plateau Advisory Council regarding one drought impact. Primary drought impacts water supply development/augmentation noted were increased demand, increased peak alternatives (Heffernon and Muro, 2001). A demand and lowered groundwater levels. study to identify potential supply alternatives for the area was completed by the Bureau of The Department conducted another, more Reclamation in 2005 and the North Central concise survey of water providers in 2004. 51 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.0-14 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Issue Percent of 2003 Percent of 2004 respondents respondents that ranked reporting issue was a moderate issue as one of the top 5 or major concern (of 18) Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand 39 31 Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand 26 28 Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand 17 13 Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand 39 31 Infrastructure in need of replacement 52 49 Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements 43 56 Drought related water supply 35 26 problems Note: 2003 respondents included 17 water providers and 6 jurisdictions. 2004 respondents included 39 water providers. This was done to supplement the information gathered in the previous year in support of developing the Arizona Water Atlas, and to reach a wider audience by directly contacting each water provider. Through this effort, 44 water providers in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, with a total of approximately 46,500 service connections, were willing to participate and provide information on water supply, demand, infrastructure and to rank a list of seven issues. In the 2004 survey, water providers were asked to rank issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. Of the 44 water providers that responded to the survey, 39 ranked issues. These respondents include most of the largest water providers in the planning area including City of Flagstaff, City of Holbrook, City of Show Low, Town of Snowflake, Winslow Municipal Water and Doney Park Water Company. Although responses to the 2003 questionnaire are not directly comparable to the 2004 survey due to differences in the form and wording of the surveys, responses to the same issues are similar as shown in Table 2.0-14. Tribal Issues Water supply availability is an issue on tribal lands in the planning area. A Navajo Department of Water Resources (NDWR) White Paper identified the need for an increased water supply to help support needed basic services on the reservation (NDWR, 2002). The tribe is investigating the feasibility of transporting water by pipeline to several areas and is conducting groundwater development investigations. This included a plan to investigate the alluvial aquifer in the Bird Springs area located east of Leupp at the southern edge of the Navajo Reservation Boundary northwest of Winslow, to analyze the feasibility of well field development (NDWR, USBOR & USIHS 1999). Subsequently, the USGS issued a report in 2005 evaluating the C-aquifer in this area as a potential supply Section 2.0 Overview 52 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 for Peabody Coal and the Navajo and Hopi (Hoffman and others, 2005). The Hopi Tribe is also engaged in supply development activities and recently purchased off-reservation ranches near Winslow and Springerville for potential irrigation development or other purposes (HKM Engineering, 2005). (OSMRE, 2008). The draft EIS received over 18,000 comments, largely related to concerns about groundwater use. After the draft EIS was issued, attempts to reopen the MGS were suspended and PWCC amended its Office of Surface Mining (OSM) permit application accordingly (OSMRE, 2008). In November 2008, the final EIS for the Black Mesa Project was released. The proposed project would consolidate the operations of the Kayenta Mine, which supplies 8.5 million tons of coal per year via a 75-mile railway to the Navajo Generating Station, and the adjacent Black Mesa Mine, which previously supplied coal to the MGS, under a single permit. Water use at the Black Mesa Complex would be reduced to an average of 1,236 acre-feet of N-aquifer water per year for mining-related and domestic purposes (OSMRE, 2008). In December 2008, OSM approved the project and issued a lifeof-mine permit that would allow operations to continue until 2026. A coalition of tribal groups and conservationists appealed the decision In addition to the aforementioned issues, the in January 2009 citing, among other factors, Hopi and Navajo are concerned about the impact concerns over groundwater depletion (Arizona to their water supply by Peabody Western Coal Republic, 2009). Company (PWCC) extracting N-aquifer water for coal mining activities at the Black Mesa Project. The N-aquifer is the primary source of drinking water for the Hopi. This pumping is believed to be affecting water supplies in some areas (Hopi Tribe, 2005). Approximately 4,400 acre-feet of water per year had been extracted from the aquifer to transport coal through a slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa Coal Mine to the Mohave Generating Station (MGS) at Laughlin, Nevada. The MGS suspended operation in December 2005. As originally proposed in early 2004 and analyzed in a draft EIS in November 2006, the Black Mesa Project included construction of a new water-supply Reservoir on the Navajo Reservation. Additional system and a 108-mile long water-supply regional water planning, investigation of a regional pipeline from a new well field in the Coconino conveyance system, improving water service to aquifer near Leupp, Arizona, to the mine domestic water haulers and water conservation complex to replace/reduce N-aquifer pumping and reuse were identified as needs by the Navajo One of the water development challenges on the Navajo Reservation is that resolution of problems requires the coordination of multiple agencies and private resources. In addition, the population has limited economic resources that make large capital investments difficult and the widely dispersed population results in large distances between water sources and water users. Although the Navajo Nation has adopted a Drought Plan and conducts numerous planning activities, additional regional water planning, investigation of a regional conveyance system, improving water service to domestic water haulers and water conservation and reuse were identified as needs. (NDWR, 2002) Department of Water Resources. 53 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a critical issue in the planning area. The Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Zuni Tribe and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe have been negotiating with non-Indian water users in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin, the State of Arizona and the federal government for several years in a settlement committee appointed by the LCR Adjudication Court (Court). 2.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics Section 2.1 presents data and maps on water resource characteristics of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin, the only groundwater basin in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Appendix A of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly The non-Indian parties reached agreement with describes general information that applies to the the Zuni Tribe over protection of its Zuni Heaven basins and the purpose of the information. This lands in Arizona, resulting in congressional information is organized in the order in which approval in 2003. On December 31, 2008 the the characteristics are discussed in Section 2.1. Department released a preliminary catalog of non-exempt registered wells in the Eastern Geographic Features Little Colorado River Basin for inspection The geographic features map is included to and comment. The catalog was compiled in present a general orientation to principal land accordance with the Zuni Indian Tribe Water features, roads, counties and cities, towns and Rights Settlement, approved by the Court on places in the groundwater basin. November 27, 2006. Land Ownership Talks have continued with the Navajo Nation The distribution and type of land ownership and Hopi Tribe about possible settlement of has implications for land and water use. Large their Little Colorado River Basin water right amounts of private land typically translate claims. The Department released a preliminary into opportunities for land development and Hydrographic Survey Report (Hopi HSR) for associated water demand, whereas federal lands the Hopi Reservation on December 31, 2008, are typically maintained for a purpose with little prepared as part of the LCR Adjudication, associated water use. State owned land may be which is pending before the Superior Court of sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing Arizona in Apache County. The purpose of the and farming. A key land ownership feature in Preliminary Hopi HSR is to provide the Hopi, the basin is the significant amount of private the United States and interested parties with the lands interspersed with state trust lands and to opportunity to inspect the information that the a lesser extent federal lands in a checkerboard Department has gathered and to file comments pattern south of the Navajo Reservation. Prior with the Department. The Navajo Nation filed to 1871, federal land grants of alternating onea lawsuit in April 2003 against the Secretary of square-mile sections of land along the right-ofthe Interior over the operation of the Colorado way were given to railroads to promote railroad River. A Federal judge has entered a stay in expansion. In addition, the State Enabling Act of that case to allow negotiations with the State 1910 and the Act that established the Territory of Arizona and non-Indian water users about of Arizona in 1863 set aside sections 2, 16, 32 possible Navajo Nation claims to the Colorado and 36 in each township to be held in trust by the River. state for educational purposes. Other legislation authorized additional state trust lands. Where the “school” section lands were previously claimed or on federal reservations, national forest, park Section 2.0 Overview 54 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 or Indian reservations, the state was given the right to select an equal amount of acreage of Federal land. The state is also allowed to trade lands for other federal lands or private lands to block up Trust land holdings (ASLD, 2006). These decisions have resulted in the pattern observed in the basin. Climate Climate data including temperature, rainfall, evaporation rates and snow are critical components of water resource planning and management. Averages and variability, seasonality of precipitation and long term climate trends are all important factors in demand and supply planning. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be a potential supply in a basin. Stream gage, flood gage, reservoir, stockpond and runoff contour data provide information on physical availability of this supply. Seasonal flow information is relevant to seasonal supply availability. Annual flow volumes provide an indication of potential volumetric availability. Criteria for including stream gage stations in the basin table are that there is at least one year of record, and annual streamflow statistics are included only if there are at least three years of record. There are different types of stations and those that only serve repeater functions were not included. Flood gage information is presented to direct the reader to sources of additional precipitation and flow information that can be used in water resource planning. Large reservoir storage information provides data on the amount of water stored in the basin, its uses, and ownership. Because of the large number of small reservoirs, and less reliable data, individual small reservoir data is not provided. The number of stockponds is a general indicator of small scale surface water capture and livestock demand. Runoff contours 55 reflect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication of the amount of runoff that can be expected at a particular geographic location. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major Springs A map of perennial and intermittent streams is provided utilizing more than one source of information. Stream designations may not accurately reflect current conditions in some cases. Spring data was compiled from a number of sources in an effort to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. Spring data is important to many researchers and to the environmental community due to their importance in maintaining habitat, even from small discharges. Groundwater Conditions Several indicators of groundwater conditions are presented for the basin. Aquifer type can be a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield information for large diameter wells is provided and is generally measured when the well is drilled and reported on completion reports. It was assumed that large diameter wells were drilled to produce a maximum amount of water and, therefore, their reported pump capacities are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield water to a well. However, many factors can affect well yields including well design, pump size and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity and specific information is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. Natural recharge is typically the least well known component of a water budget. Many of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from studies of larger geographic areas and all deserve further study. Similarly, estimates of storage are based on rough estimates and Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 considerably more studies are needed in most basins. Components of storage include aquifer depth and specific yield. general trend information without focusing on potentially inaccurate annual demand estimates due to incomplete data. Water level data is from measured wells, usually collected during the period when the wells were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown on mapped wells if there was a measurement taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs show water-level trends for selected wells over the 30-year period from January 1975 to January 2005. Locations of major cultural water uses are primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study using older satellite imagery that may not represent recent changes. The cultural demand maps provide only general information about the location of water users. Effluent generation data was compiled from several sources to provide an estimate of how much of this renewable resource might be The flow directions that are shown generally available for use. However, effluent reuse is reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the often difficult both logistically and economically basin and are not meant to depict temporary or since a potential user may be far from the local-scale conditions. wastewater treatment plant. Water Quality Water quality conditions impact the availability of water supplies. Water quality data was compiled from a variety of sources as described in Volume 1, Appendix A. The data indicate areas where water quality exceedences have previously occurred, however additional areas of concern may currently exist where water quality samples have not been collected or sample results were not reviewed by the Department (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It is important to note also that the exceedences presented may or may not reflect current aquifer or surface water conditions. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the necessary information to the Department. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must Cultural Water Demand be disclosed in promotional materials and in Cultural water demand is an important component sales documents. of a water budget. However, without mandatory metering and reporting of water uses, accurate In addition to these subdivision determinations demand data is difficult to acquire. Municipal for which a water adequacy report is issued, demand includes water company and domestic water providers may apply for adequacy (self-supplied) demand estimates. Basin demand designations for their entire service area. If a information is from several sources in order to subdivision is to be served water from one of prepare as accurate an estimate as possible. these water providers, then a separate adequacy Annual demand estimates have been averaged determination is not required. (See Section over a specific time period. This provides 2.0-5) Section 2.0 Overview 56 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Developers of large, master-planned communities outside of AMAs may apply for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This type of application is generally used to prove that water will be physically available for the master-planned community. AAWS are issued based on the development plan or plat. If an AAWS is issued for groundwater, it reserves a specific volume of water for 10 years (for purposes of further adequacy reviews) only for the specific property that is the subject of the AAWS. (See Appendix A, Volume 1 for more information about the Adequacy Program). 57 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 REFERENCES Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), 2008, Hopi Indian Reservation Community Profile: Accessed November, 2008 at www.azcommerce.com _____, 2006, 2006-2055 Commerce Population Projections: Accessed March 2009 at http:// www.azcommerce.com/EconInfo/Demographics/Population+Projections.htm Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System, Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/databases/ brownsearch.htm _____, 2002, The Status of Water Quality in Arizona - 2002: Volume 1: Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(b) Listing Report. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Identification of Active Agriculture on the Navajo Reservation, unpublished analysis, December 2008. _____, 2008b, Preliminary Hydrographic Survey Report for the Hopi Indian Reservation In re The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. _____, 2008c, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River Adjudications: ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. ______, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1994b, Hydrographic Survey Report for Indian Lands in the Little Colorado River System, September 1994. ______, 1994c, Little Colorado River Settlement Committee Group “A” –In-Basin Negotiating Committee Inventory of Irrigation, Reservoirs, and Stockponds in the Upper Little Colorado River Watershed, In re the General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. ______, 1994d, Little Colorado River Settlement Committee Group “A” –In-Basin Negotiating Committee Inventory of Irrigation and Reservoirs in the Lower Little Colorado River Watershed, In re the General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. Section 2.0 Overview 58 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 _______,1990, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Silver Creek Watershed, Volume 1: General Assessment In Re: The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. _______, 1989, Hydrology of the Little Colorado River System. Special report to the Settlement Committee, In re the General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2008, Arizona Heritage Data Management System, accessed in 2008 at: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Land Ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Bills, D.J., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn, H.A. Pierce, R.D. Catchings and M.J. Rymer, 2000, Hydrology of the regional aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona 1994-97: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4122. Browne, D., ed., 1982, Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4, Numbers 1-4. Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, 342 pp. City of Flagstaff, 2009, Water Conservation: Accessed February 2009 at www.flagstaff.az.gov _______, 2008, Reclaimed Water Hauling: Accessed September 2008 at www.flagstaff.az.gov _______, 2001, Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan: Water Resources Element. City of Show Low, 2007, City of Show Low General Plan. Coconino County, 2003, Coconino County Comprehensive Plan: Water Resources Element. Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008, Abandoned Uranium Mines on the Navajo Nation: Accessed September 2008 at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ 59 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Fenneman, N.M. and D.W. Johnson, 1946, Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U. S.: GIS cover. Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas. GeoTrans, Inc. and Waterstone Environmental Hydrology and Engineering, Inc. (GeoTrans and Waterstone), 1999. A Three-Dimensional Flow Model of the D and N Aquifers, Black Mesa Basin, Arizona. Prepared for Peabody Western Coal Company. Grahame, J.D. and T.D. Sisk eds., 2002. Canyons, cultures and environmental change: An introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau. Accessed February, 2006 at www.cpluhna.nau.edu Hart, RJ, J.J. Ward, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Generalized hydrology and ground water budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and Salt River basins, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026. Heffernon, R. and M. Muro, 2001, Growth on the Coconino Plateau, Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region, Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Hoffmann, J. P., D.J. Bills, J.V. Phillips, K.J. Halford, 2005, Geologic, hydrologic, and chemical data from the C aquifer near Leupp, Arizona. Hopi Tribe, 2005, Water resource and miscellaneous information: Accessed December 2005 at www.hopi.nsn.us. HKM Engineering, Hopi Ranch Acquisitions: Accessed September 2005 at www.hkminc.com/ Hopi.htm. Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, Navajo Nation: Accessed November 2008, at www. itcaonline.com Leake, S.A., J.P. Hoffmann and J.E. Dickinson, 2005, Numerical ground-water change model of the C Aquifer and effects of ground-water withdrawals on stream depletion in selected reaches of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek and the Little Colorado River, Northeastern Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5277, 29 p. National Atlas of the United States, 2005, Federal Lands: GIS cover accessed in 2008 at http:// nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2008, Little Colorado River Headwaters Watershed Arizona Rapid Watershed Assessment. Section 2.0 Overview 60 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 ________, 2007a, Chevelon Canyon Watershed-Arizona: Rapid Watershed Assessment. ________, 2007b, Silver Creek Watershed-Arizona: Rapid Watershed Assessment. Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources (NDWR), 2002a, Navajo Nation Drought Report. _________, 2002b, Navajo Nation Irrigation Rehabilitation Strategy Draft: Department of Agriculture, white paper. _________, 2001, Navajo Nation Land Plan Draft: Navajo Soil and Water conservation Districts, and Navajo Resource Conservation and Development _______, 1999 NDWR, Water Management Branch, Hydrologeology of the Little Colorado River alluvial aquifer, Bird Springs Study Area; US Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs, final report. NDWR, USBOR and US Indian Health Service, 2002, White Paper, Navajo Nation Municipal Water Development Strategy, Draft. Neary, D. G., G.J. Gottfried and P.F. Ffolliott, 2003, Post-wildfire watershed flood responses; Proceedings of the 2nd International Fire Ecology Conference, American Meteorological Society, Orlando FL, Paper 65982, 8pp. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 2008, Black Mesa Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.OSM-EIS-33, November 2008. Olson, D. M, E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D’amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, & K.R. Kassem, 2001, Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51:933938 Overby, A.E., 2007, Groundwater Conditions in Southern Navajo County, Arizona: April-August 2001; Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 37, Arizona Department of Water Resources. Parra, I., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin, L.R. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan for the Little Colorado Watershed: Accessed October, 2008 at www.srnr.arizona.edu/nemo Pinetop-Lakeside, 2004, Pinetop-Lakeside Regional Plan: Water Resources Element. Pinkham, R., and Davis, B., 2002, North Central Arizona Water Demand Study, Phase 1 Report. PMCL and Rocky Mountain Institute. Reed, K.E., 2005, Renegotiating Urban Water Management in Flagstaff, Arizona-Origins and Implications of Conservation Policies, CLIMAS Report Series CL 1-04. 61 Section 2.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. Rothman, 1991, Navajo National Monument: A Place and Its People; Southwest Cultural Resources Center Santa Fe, New Mexico. Professional Papers No. 40, 1991 Salt River Project (SRP) 2006, C.C. Cragin Reservoir: Accessed April 2006 at www.srpnet. com/water/dams/blueridge.aspx. SCA, 2007, Award for Water Conservation: Accessed September 2008 at www.sca.com Seaber, P.R., E.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp, 1987, Hydrologic Unit maps; Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63pp. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have \ affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. TetraTech RMC. 2003. Summary Report – Page LeChee Water Supply Project Alternatives. Town of Eagar, 2008, Town of Eagar 2007 Drinking Water Annual Water Quality Report. _______, 2005, Public Works-Wastewater: Accessed September 2008 at www.eagar.com _______, 2002, Town of Eagar General Plan; Water Resources Element Town of Snowflake, 2007, Town of Snowflake General Plan; Presentation Draft 9/2007. Truini, M., J.P. Macy and T.J. Porter, 2005, Groundwater, surface water and water chemistry data, Black Mesa area, Northeastern Arizona, 2003-2004: USGS Open file report 20051080. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/wildarea.htm U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2007, Consumptive Uses and Losses-Arizona Portion of the Upper Colorado River Basin Calendar Year 2005. ______, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study, Report of Findings, U.S. Department of Interior, Denver, CO. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2008, Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2007 Section 2.0 Overview 62 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 ______, 2006, Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2006. U.S Department of Energy (DOE), 2008a, Annual Groundwater Report April 2007 through March 2008 Tuba City, Arizona, Disposal Site. ______, 2008b, Tuba City, Arizona Disposal Site-Fact Sheet; Office of Legacy Management. ______, 2007, Monument Valley, Arizona Processing Site-Fact Sheet; Office of Legacy Management. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007a, Wildland fire perimeters (Southwest Region): GIS Datasets accessed in 2007 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis/datasets.shtml ______, 2007b, Wilderness areas: Accessed 2007 at www.fs.fed.us/rs/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed September, 2008 at www.fws.gov/arizonaes/documents/ and www.fws.gov/ ifw2es/endangeredspecies/lists/default.cfm. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2009, Preliminary Data from 2008 Agricultural Ground Truthing in Select Basins: GIS data cover. ______, 2008, Water withdrawals for municipal use on the Navajo and Hopi reservations: Data file received December, 2008 ______, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas 1991-2005, Data file received November 2007. ______, 2005, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater U.S. National Park Service (NPS), 2008a, Petrified National Forest: Accessed November, 2008 at www.nps.gov/pefo/. _______, 2008a, Canyon de Chelly National Monument: Accessed November, 2008 at www.nps. gov.cach/ Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press, 462 pp. 63 Section 2.0 Overview Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 64 64 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.1 Geography of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin The Little Colorado River Plateau Basin, at 26,700 square miles in area, is the largest groundwater basin in the state. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 2.1-1. Located at the southern end of the Colorado Plateau, it is characterized by relatively high elevation, semi-arid mesas and several high elevation mountain ranges. Elevations generally increase from north to south. Vegetation types are primarily Great Basin conifer woodland, plains and Great Basin grasslands and Great Basin desertscrub. At higher elevations vegetation types include subalpine grassland, Rocky Mountain subalpine conifer forest and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forests (see Figure 2.0-11). Riparian vegetation is found along streams including: conifer oak, wet meadow, mixed broadleaf, Russian olive and wet meadow along Tsalie Creek, Kinlechee Creek and Canyon de Chelly; tamarisk on Chinle Creek and Silver Creek; and mixed broadleaf, wet meadow and conifer oak on the Little Colorado River east of Springerville. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 2.1-1 are: o Monument Valley north of Kayenta o Kaibito Plateau south of Page o Painted Desert, located between Gray Mountain and Winslow o Defiance Plateau, running north/south near Window Rock o Black Mesa in the vicinity of Chilchinbito o Canyon de Chelly, near Chinle o First, Second and Third Mesas on the Hopi Reservation o Petrified Forest located between Holbrook and Navajo o Mogollon Plateau or Mogollon Rim stretching 200 miles from Flagstaff to the White Mountains o Lukachukai and Chuska Mountains near Lukachukai o Little Colorado River, which flows to the Colorado River from the headwaters near Greer, and exits the basin at Cameron o San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff with Humphreys Peak, the highest point in Arizona at 12,633 feet o White Mountains along the southeastern boundary of the basin, that rise to over 11,000 feet at Mt. Baldy o Navajo Mountain, an isolated peak that straddles the Arizona-Utah border east of Page; rising to over 10,400 feet it is a prominent visual feature of the basin o The lowest point at 1,300 feet where the Little Colorado River exits the basin 65 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 66 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.2 Land Ownership in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category is shown in Figure 2.1-2. Principal features of land ownership are the large amount of tribal lands, the continuous band of national forest lands along the southern and southwestern boundary of the basin, and the “checkerboard” pattern of land ownership south of the reservation lands. This distribution of land ownership has implications for land management and water development and use. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on National Parks, Monuments and Wilderness Areas is found in Section 2.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. Indian Reservations • 63.9% of the land is under tribal ownership. • Of the 27,000 square miles of Navajo Nation lands in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, more than 14,600 square miles are in Arizona. • The Hopi Reservation encompasses about 2,500 square miles (1.5 million acres) in parts of Navajo and Coconino counties. • The Hopi Reservation is primarily comprised of three mesas and tribal communities at Lower and Upper Moenkopi east of Tuba City. There are areas north of Joseph City under Hopi and Navajo ownership. • Other tribal lands include those of the Zuni (about 16 square miles) north of Concho and Fort Apache lands (about 4.5 square miles) southwest of Greer. The Zuni tribal lands in Arizona, “Zuni Heaven”, were formally recognized in 2004. The Zuni also hold large, non-reservation ranch holdings in and around their reservation. • The Hopi Tribe holds large, non-reservation ranch holdings in the checkerboard lands area including deeded land, state leased property and Forest Service lands. • The community of Willow Springs is home to a small community of San Juan Southern Paiute through an agreement with the Navajo. • Primary land uses are grazing, mining and farming. Private • 14.8% of land ownership in the basin is private. • Private lands are primarily located in areas surrounding non-Indian communities and in the area between Winslow and the New Mexico border south of the Navajo Reservation and north of National Forest lands. • Private land in-holdings are located within National Forest lands in the Nutrioso area southeast of Springerville and in other areas as shown. • Primary land uses are domestic, industrial and commercial. National Forest • 10.5% of land is federally owned and managed as National Forest. • Forest lands are part of the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. • Forest lands contain the headwaters of most of the major streams and of the only major river in the basin. • Primary land uses are grazing, recreation and logging. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 67 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 State Trust Land • 8.0% of lands are held in trust for public schools and 13 other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • There is a large amount of contiguous state land ownership between Springerville and Saint Johns and another contiguous area adjacent to national forest lands southeast of Flagstaff. • Primary land use is livestock grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 1.4% of lands are under federal ownership as parks, monuments and other sites. • Sites identified on Figure 2.1-2 include a small portion of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Canyon De Chelly National Monument, Wupatki National Monument, Petrified Forest National Park, Sunset Crater National Monument and Walnut Canyon National Monument. • Primary land use is for recreational purposes. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 1.2% of lands are under federal ownership by the Bureau of Land Management. • All lands are included in the checkerboard pattern of land ownership in Navajo and Apache counties. • Primary land uses are for livestock grazing. Other (Arizona Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% is held by other landowners. • These lands are located in the vicinity of Springerville, southeast of Flagstaff and there are a few sections scattered in the checkerboard lands. • Primary land uses on Arizona Game and Fish lands is for wildlife conservation. 68 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 69 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.3 Climate of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations are compiled in Table 2.1-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 2.1-3. Figure 2.1-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate is found in Section 2.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 2.1-1A • The 46 NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations are widely dispersed throughout the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature ranges from 61.5˚F at Greer to 82.2˚F at Cameron and the average monthly minimum temperature ranges from 27.0˚F at Fort Valley to 36.5˚F at Cameron 1 NNE. • The highest seasonal rainfall occurs at most stations in the summer (July-September). For the period of record used, the highest average annual precipitation is 28.46 inches at McNary 2 N and the lowest is 4.09 inches at Monument Valley. • On average, the driest season is spring (April-June). • Altitude is a factor in precipitation, however, the rain shadow effect results in greater precipitation on the windward side as storms move northeastward. Blue Ridge Ranger Station at 6,880 feet received an average of 20.6 inches of rainfall a year while Betatakin, at 7,290 feet received only 12.81 inches. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 2.1-1B • There are three sites in the basin at Flagstaff, Page and Winslow. Elevation at the stations range from 4,890 feet to 7,010 feet and the corresponding annual average evaporation ranges from 84.7 inches to 54.0 inches. AZMET • Refer to Table 2.1-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, located at Flagstaff at an elevation of 6,747 feet. Average annual reference evaporation is 56.79 inches and is similar to that at the Flagstaff evaporation pan site. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 2.1-1D • There are data from 20 snow measurement sites in the basin, more than any basin in the state. Four sites have been discontinued. • Elevations at current sites range from 6,930 feet at Lake Mary to 11,200 feet at Snow Bowl #2. • High elevation sites (>8,000 feet) in the vicinity of Flagstaff typically continue to accumulate snowpack into April. • High elevation sites (>8,000 feet) in the Beaver Springs and Tsaile Canyon areas report highest average snowpack in March. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 • • Sites <8,000 feet generally show highest snowpack in March/February. Highest average snowpack is found at three stations near Flagstaff and a station at Mount Baldy (Baldy #2). In general, there is a correlation between elevation and the average snowpack, however the location of the site, even those in close proximity to each other, and the period of record affect snowpack accumulation averages. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 2.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 40 inches at sites along the Mogollon Rim and near Flagstaff and as low as 4 inches in the vicinity of Cameron. 71 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2-1.1 Climate Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Betatakin 7290 1971-2000 71.9/Jul 29.8/Jan 3.24 1.71 4.25 3.61 12.81 Blue Ridge Ranger Station 6880 1971-2000 68.0/Jul 30.2/Jan 5.88 2.17 7.31 5.24 20.60 Burrus Ranch 6800 1948-1968 69.4/Jul 29.3/Jan 4.21 2.14 6.63 4.22 17.20 Cameron 1 NNE 4160 1971-2000 82.2/Jul 36.5/Dec 1.34 0.70 2.12 1.40 5.56 Canyon de Chelly 5610 1971-2000 77.2/Jul 32.0/Jan 2.18 1.48 3.34 2.53 9.53 Chevelon Ranger Station 7010 1971-2000 68.4/Jul 30.5/Jan 4.58 2.02 7.95 4.64 19.19 Chinle 5540 1908-1970 75.0/Jul 28.9/Jan 1.70 1.28 4.01 2.17 9.17 1 70.4/Jul 32.0/Jan 4.53 2.06 6.47 4.95 18.00 75.4/Jul 30.3/Jan 1.46 0.99 1.84 2.34 6.62 7.36 2.52 5.62 22.91 Clay Springs 6320 1971-1987 Copper Mine Trading Post 6380 1948-1976 1 2 Insufficient Data Cottonwood Indian School 6050 NA Flagstaff Airport 7000 1971-2000 66.1/Jul 29.7/Jan No Data 7.41 Fort Valley 7350 1971-2000 62.1/Jul 27.0/Jan 7.18 2.55 7.66 4.71 22.10 Ganado 6340 1971-2000 72.0/Jul 29.2/Jan 2.61 1.57 4.37 3.04 11.59 Greer 8490 1971-2000 61.5/Jul 28.6/Jan 4.44 2.75 10.71 5.29 23.19 Heber Ranger Station 6590 1971-2000 68.3/Jul 32.7/Jan 4.75 1.82 7.94 4.66 19.17 Holbrook 5070 1971-2000 77.6/Jul 35.8/Jan 2.09 0.95 3.86 2.30 9.20 1 Kayenta 5710 1915-1978 75.7/Jul 29.3/Jan 0.61 0.52 2.30 2.27 5.69 Keams Canyon 6210 1971-2000 72.6/Jul 30.5/Jan 2.77 1.17 3.65 2.57 10.16 Klagetoh 12 WNW 6500 1971-2000 73.7/Jul 32.6/Jan 2.29 1.17 3.27 2.61 9.34 Leupp 4700 1948-1981 1 77.1/Jul 31.4/Jan 1.57 0.98 2.85 2.00 7.39 1971-2000 72.5/Jul 28.9/Jan 1.89 1.12 3.84 2.57 9.42 75.9/Jul 30.4/Dec 0.89 0.48 1.58 1.86 4.80 Lukachukai 6520 Many Farms School 5320 1951-1975 McNary 2 N 7340 1971-2000 64.7/Jul 31.0/Jan 8.33 3.03 9.75 7.35 28.46 Monument Valley 5560 1971-2000 79.1/Jul 31.2/Jan 0.44 0.70 1.88 1.07 4.09 Navajo 5580 1961-1976 1 74.1/Jul 28.5/Jan 2.14 0.86 3.43 3.02 9.45 1 Page 4270 1971-2000 81.7/Jul 34.7/Jan 1.74 1.04 1.93 2.03 6.74 Painted Desert National Park 5760 1973-2005 1 76.0/Jul 35.5/Jan 2.58 1.32 3.97 2.96 10.83 Petrified Forest National Park 5450 1971-2000 76.0/Jul 34.9/Jan 2.04 1.23 4.40 2.77 10.44 Pinedale 6510 1912-1968 69.4/Jul 29.2/Jan 3.99 2.02 7.52 4.79 18.31 67.2/Jul 32.8/Jan 5.53 2.43 9.13 5.51 22.60 Pinetop 6960 1980-1997 1 Saint Johns 5790 1971-2000 73.8/Jul 34.0/Dec 2.07 1.40 5.47 2.53 11.47 Sanders 5850 1971-2000 73.4/Jul 32.2/Jan 3.02 1.55 4.39 3.17 12.13 1 Sanders 11 ESE 6250 1961-1986 71.2/Jul 29.3/Jan 4.20 1.79 4.14 3.59 13.71 Show Low Airport 6410 1971-2000 73.2/Jul 35.1/Jan 4.14 1.86 7.26 4.87 18.13 1971-2000 73.1/Jul 34.1/Jan 2.46 1.34 5.83 3.07 12.70 72.6/Jul 32.3/Jan 2.22 1.50 5.78 3.03 12.52 66.4/Jul 32.3/Dec 1.49 1.25 7.12 2.13 11.99 Snowflake 5640 Snowflake 15 W 6080 1965-1998 Springerville 7060 1971-2000 1 St. Michaels 6 WNW 7640 1906-1927 69.3/Jul 27.6/Jan 2.85 1.33 6.35 2.89 13.42 Sunset Crater National Monument 6980 1971-2000 65.8/Jul 27.5/Jan 3.87 2.00 7.15 4.04 17.06 Teec Nos Pos 5290 1971-2000 78.4/Jul 31.4/Jan 1.81 1.30 2.80 2.17 8.08 Tonalea 5520 NA3 Tuba City 5030 1971-2000 1.60 6.35 Insufficient Data 78.0/Jul 33.8/Jan, Dec No Data 1.66 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 0.76 2.33 72 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2-1.1 Climate Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Wallace Ranger Station 7010 1916-1959 67.2/Jul 30.2/Jan 4.37 2.12 8.06 3.73 18.28 Window Rock 4 SW 6900 1971-2000 69.4/Jul 28.5/Jan 2.31 1.49 4.44 3.07 11.31 Winslow Airport 4890 1971-2000 77.5/Jul 34.1/Dec 1.60 0.93 3.51 1.99 8.03 Wupatki National Monument 4910 1971-2000 80.1/Jul 35.6/Dec 1.78 1.10 4.02 2.07 8.97 Source: WRCC, 2005a. 1 2 3 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 Not available -Period of Record 1956-1958 Not available -Period of Record 1948-1949 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Flagstaff WB AP Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages 7,010 Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) 1968 - 1978 54.00 Page 4,270 1957 - 2002 80.57 Winslow AP 4,890 1990 - 1999 84.7 Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evapotranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate average) Flagstaff 6,747 2003 - current 56.79 (4) Source: WRCC, 2005a. C. AZMET: Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Average Snowpack at Beginning of Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June Arbabs Forest 7,680 1985 - current 1.1 (21) 2.2 (22) 1.8 (21) 0.2 (22) 0 (0) 2.4 (1) Baldy #1 9,125 1950 - 1999 (discontinued) 3.7 (28) 5.7 (49) 7.3 (50) 6.4 (49) 3.3 (2) 0 (0) Baldy #2 9,750 1963 - 1997 0 (0) 12.3 (2) 0 (0) 19.1 (9) 25.2 (1) 0 (0) Baldy (SNOTEL) 9,125 1950 - current 3.5 (35) 5.9 (56) 7.7 (57) 6.5 (57) 0.3 (21) 0 (19) Beaver Spring 9,220 1986 - current 3.7 (18) 6.9 (19) 8.7 (18) 7.4 (20) 0 (0) 0 (0) Cheese Springs 8,700 1969 - current 2.4 (28) 4.1 (38) 5.6 (38) 3.9 (38) 0 (1) 0 (0) Fluted Rock 7,800 1985 - current 1.3 (21) 2.7 (22) 3.1 (21) 0.6 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0) Forestdale Alt. 6,580 1984 - 1989 (discontinued) 0.5 (6) 1.0 (6) 0.6 (6) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) Fort Apache 9,160 1951 - current 3.5 (27) 6.0 (54) 7.7 (56) 7.0 (56) 0 (0) 0 (0) Fort Valley 7,350 1947 - current 1.2 (32) 2.2 (60) 2.4 (60) 1.0 (59) 0 (1) 0 (0) Heber 7,640 1950 - 1999 (discontinued) 1.8 (23) 3.5 (49) 3.6 (49) 2.1 (46) 1.0 (2) 0 (0) Heber (SNOTEL) 7,640 1950 - current 2.1 (31) 4.4 (56) 4.5 (56) 2.3 (52) 0 (24) 0 (24) Lake Mary 6,930 1975 - current 1.2 (27) 2.5 (32) 2.9 (32) 0.4 (32) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mormon Mountain 7,500 1950 - 1999 (discontinued) 2.8 (30) 4.8 (49) 5.8 (50) 4.2 (47) 5.1 (3) 0 (0) Mormon Mountain (SNOTEL) 7,500 1950 - current 2.4 (37) 4.5 (56) 5.7 (57) 4.2 (54) 1.0 (27) 0 (24) Mormon Mountain Summit #2 8,470 1975 - current 3.6 (16) 7.5 (22) 11.6 (24) 13.0 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0) Snow Bowl #1 Alt. 9,920 1984 - current 5.6 (22) 8.1 (23) 11.9 (23) 12.9 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0) Snow Bowl #2 11,200 1965 - current 7.6 (29) 11.9 (41) 16.7 (41) 21.4 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0) Tsaile Canyon #1 8,160 1985 - current 2.5 (21) 4.9 (22) 5.7 (21) 3.4 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0) Tsaile Canyon #3 8,920 1986 - current 3.5 (20) 6.6 (21) 8.2 (20) 6.8 (21) 0 (0) 0 (0) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005 Notes: WB = Weather Bureau AP = Airport Alt = Alternate Current = December 2008 73 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 74 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.4 Surface Water Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 2.1-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 2.1-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 2.1-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 2.1-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 2.1-2 • Data from 50 stations, including 28 discontinued stations, are shown in the table and on Figure 2.1-5. All but one of the active stations are real-time stations. Three additional stations were installed in 2008. • The average seasonal flow is highest in the Spring (April-June) from winter snowmelt and spring rains and in the Summer (July-September) from high intensity monsoon storms. • High summer season flow was noted at many gages on the Navajo and Hopi reservations. High winter flow (January-March) was recorded at gages near Lakeside, Show Low and Snowflake. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 20.3 million acre-feet (maf) in 1984 at the Colorado River at Lees Ferry gage, located downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. Mean flow at this gage is 10.8 maf. Maximum flow on the Little Colorado River is 587,869 acre-feet at Grand Falls measured in 1941. (see Figure 2.1-4 for a stream hydrograph for the Little Colorado River) Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 2.1-3 • There were 32 stations in the basin as of October 2005, most located along the Little Colorado River, and in the vicinity of Heber, Snowflake, Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 2.1-4 • The basin contains 94 large reservoirs. The largest, Lake Powell, has a maximum storage of 20.3 maf. Most of this storage is not in the basin. • Thirty-three large reservoirs are intermittent or dry, particularly those listed in Table 2.13B. • The most common use of large reservoirs is for recreation (46), followed by fire protection, stock or farm use (33) and for irrigation (30). Other reservoir uses include hydroelectric power generation, navigation and water supply. • Capacity information was available for 416 small reservoirs, which have a combined maximum storage capacity of 13,343 acre-feet. • There are 269 small reservoirs for which only surface area data are available with a total surface area of 3,907 acres. • There are 6,113 registered stockponds in the basin. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 75 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 2.1-5. • Average annual runoff varies from 5 inches per year, or 265 acre-feet per square mile at higher elevations along the Mogollon Rim and near Greer to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, near the Little Colorado River and along a contour stretching from near Sanders, through Polacca to the northwest corner of the basin. Figure 2.1-4 Annual flows (acre-feet) at Little Colorado River at Holbrook, water years 1930-2008 (Station #9397000) 140,000 Annual Flow, in af 120,000 100,000 Average Annual Flow 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1930 1942 76 1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Station Number USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 49 42 Winter Spring Summer Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Years of Annual Flow Record Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 6 2 905 (2002) 6,624 6,258 10,860 (2004) 5 9379025 Chinle Creek at Chinle 639 5,500 11/1999-7/2006 (discontinued) 9379050 Lukachukai Creek near Lukachukai NA 5,750 8/2000-8/2006 (discontinued) 28 37 22 13 796 (2002) 1,947 1,781 2,172 (2003) 5 9379180 Laguna Creek at Dennehotso 414 4,985 7/1996-12/2005 (discontinued) 13 4 61 22 1,694 (2004) 3,826 4,408 8,760 (1997) 6 9379200 Chinle Creek near Mexican Water 3,650 4,720 10/1964-current (real time) 19 32 36 13 3,062 (1994) 15,457 20,429 67,692 (1982) 40 9379910 Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam 111,700 3,100 10/1989-8/2004 (discontinued) 23 28 27 22 7,847,916 (2002) 8,166,466 8,382,855 9,252,432 (1971) 9 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry 111,800 3,106 10/1921-current (real time) 16 44 24 16 1,383,521 (1963) 9,375,509 10,885,307 20,322,048 (1984) 83 112,000 NA 10/1980-9/2007 24 25 28 22 7,833,437 (1988) 8,383,659 9,876,067 18,699,615 (1986) 20 1.3 NA 10/1966-9/1972 (discontinued) 7 43 26 24 261 (1970) 398 405 543 (1969) 5 0.5 NA 10/1966-9/1972 (discontinued) 9 47 30 13 11 (1969) 94 79 130 (1969) 5 1.9 NA 10/1966-9/1972 (discontinued) 17 29 30 24 116 (1967) 188 191 239 (1970) 5 29.1 8,283 8/1960-9/1982 (reactivated, real time) 12 59 20 9 5,198 (1961) 8,688 11,437 25,267 (1973) 21 NA 6,950 83.3 7,421 86.8 7,364 7/1967-9/1982 (discontinued) 9383000 9383200 9383220 9383250 9383400 9383430 9383500 9383550 Colorado River at Compact Point near Lees Ferry Lee Valley Creek above Lee Valley Reservoir near Greer Lee Valley Creek Tributary near Greer Lee Valley Creek below Lee Valley Reservoir near Greer Little Colorado River at Greer Little Colorado River at Springerville Nutrioso Creek above Nelson Reservoir near Springerville Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir near Springerville new as of 6/2008 (real time) 6/1967-9/1982 (reactivated, real time) No statistics run, less than 3 years data <1 21 63 6 10 485 (1977) 2,729 4,517 16,507 (1973) 14 19 69 4 8 290 (1977) 2,237 4,235 17,013 (1973) 14 9383570 Nutrioso Creek at Springerville NA 6,965 new as of 10/2008 ( real time) No statistics run, less than 3 years data <1 9383595 Little Colorado near Wenima NA 6,740 new as of 10/2008 (real time) No statistics run, less than 3 years data <1 9384000 Little Colorado River above Lyman Lake near St. Johns 706 6,010 4/1940-current (real time) 20 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 52 17 10 2,259 (1996) 11,113 15,588 51,258 (1941) 64 77 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Years of Annual Flow Record Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9385500 Little Colorado River below Lyman Reservoir near St. Johns 1 790 6,480 4/1941-12/1986 (discontinued) 9385700 Little Colorado River below Salado Springs 845 5,785 3/1985-current (real time) 9386000 Little Colorado River at St. Johns 964 NA 4/1906-4/1940 (discontinued) 24 33 27 16 2,013 (1939) 3,895 10,309 45,538 (1909) 8 9386030 Little Colorado River above Zion Reservoir near St. Johns 1,007 5,560 10/1975-current (real time) 29 31 16 24 94 (2004) 3,453 5,149 18,823 (1985) 29 NA 5,610 8/1998-current (real time) 0 0 99 1 65 (2004) 1,596 2,082 5,169 (2002) 5 NA 5,530 9/1998-current (real time) 1 <1 97 2 80 (2003) 116 2,684 11,798 (2002) 6 3,741 5,399 3/1940-9/1972 (discontinued) 16 10 60 14 8 (1961) 2,266 3,778 22,009 (1955) 31 6,383 5,372 5/1929-9/1972 (discontinued) 14 12 64 10 239 (1962) 5,046 10,424 58,424 (1941) 34 5,913 10/1944-6/1955 (discontinued) 6 5,575 (1951) 8,466 13,683 (1952) 10 69 6,610 5/1953-current (real time) 53 19 9 19 970 (2002) 6,863 9,692 31,493 (1978) 51 73 6,530 10/1955-2/2006 (discontinued) 47 25 13 14 1,405 (1990) 3,033 6,391 28,090 (1993) 49 90.2 6,309 10/1944-6/1955 (discontinued) 65 12 12 11 1,086 (1953) 4,156 6,519 24,832 (1952) 10 Station Number USGS Station Name 9386250 9386300 9386500 9388000 9390000 9390500 9392000 9392500 Carrizo Wash near St. Johns Little Colorado River below Zion Reservoir near St. Johns Little Colorado River above Zuni Reservoir near Hunt Little Colorado River near Hunt Silver Creek near Shumway Show Low Creek near Lakeside Show Low Creek below Jaques Dam near Show Low Show Low Creek at Show Low 172 Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 21 63 6 10 478 (1963) 1,509 2,722 19,547 (1973) No statistics run, less than 3 years data 12 44 38 7,891 34 2 9393400 Cottonwood Wash at Snowflake 262 5,580 10/1981-8/1984 (discontinued) 9393500 Silver Creek near Snowflake 925 5,204 10/1950-9/1995 (discontinued) 45 8 28 19 2,020 (1990) 10,461 13,830 59,583 (1993) 44 9394000 Silver Creek near Woodruff 966 NA 4/1929-9/1952 (discontinued) 51 4 36 9 4,293 (1942) 14,914 17,902 58,642 (1932) 15 9394500 Little Colorado River at Woodruff 8,072 5,130 3/1905-current (real time) 27 12 46 15 5,524 (2000) 26,860 35,839 165,791 (1919) 74 9396500 Puerco River near Adamana 2,654 5,312 4/1940-9/1949 (discontinued) 24 13 47 16 9,557 (1944) 26,642 46,732 167,963 (1941) 8 9397000 Little Colorado River at Holbrook 11,462 5,063 3/1905-current (real time) 19 10 55 16 13,973 (1950) 82,533 91,138 197,646 (1968) 26 78 No statistics run, less than 3 years data 2 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9397500 Chevelon Fork below Wildcat Canyon near Winslow 271 5,905 9398000 Chevelon Creek near Winslow1 785 9398500 Cleak Creek below Willow Creek near Winslow 9399000 Station Number USGS Station Name Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 5/1947-current (real time) 57 28 5 10 0 (1996, 2002) 22,950 30,032 97,737 (1965) 30 4,899 1/1906-12/2006 (discontinued) 49 33 6 11 10,715 (1956) 32,651 38,756 99,909 (1952) 44 317 5,957 6/1948-10/1993 (discontinued) 41 45 3 11 4,127 (1990) 36,633 59,275 168,963 (1973) 43 Clear Creek near Winslow 621 4,861 6/1906-9/2007 (discontinued) 39 49 2 9 3,852 (1967) 46,697 60,719 183,890 (1978) 51 9400350 Little Colorado River near Winslow 16,192 4,863 12/2001-current (real time) 52 9 23 16 54,009 (2003) 69,140 73,870 98,461 (2004) 3 9400562 Oraibi Wash near Tolani Lake 635 5,025 7/1995-current (real time) 1 0 72 19 434 (1996) 1,998 1,980 4,177 (1997) 9 9400568 Polacca Wash near Second Mesa 905 5,240 4/1994-current (real time) 5 1 73 21 195 (1995) 2,125 2,117 3,678 (1997) 8 9400583 Jeddito Wash near Jeddito 147 5,440 9/1993-9/2005 (discontinued) 0 1 88 11 14 (1998) 145 298 1,426 (2003) 11 9401000 Little Colorado River at Grand Falls 21,068 4,439 11/1925-7/1995 (discontinued) 39 24 30 7 18,461 (1956) 162,171 198,406 587,869 (1941) 24 9401110 Dinnebito Wash near Sand Springs 473 5,160 6/1993-current (real time) 5 3 78 14 311 (1994) 2,085 2,680 6,682 (2004) 11 9401226 Coal Mine Wash Tributary near Kayenta 0.6 NA 10/1977-9/1981 (discontinued) 2 4 90 4 0 (1979) 3 70 (1980) 3 9401239 Coal Mine Wash near Mouth near Shonto NA NA 5/1978-10/1982 (discontinued) 20 11 48 21 434 (1979) 775 857 1,361 (1980) 3 9401260 Moenkopi Wash at Moenkopi 1,629 4,610 7/1976-current (real time) 13 4 64 18 1,376 (1994) 7,457 7,083 14,769 (2001) 28 9401280 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City 1,904 NA 7/1926-9/1940 (discontinued) 8 2 81 9 5,408 (1928) 9,774 16,334 45,828 (1930) 13 9401400 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City 2,492 4,309 10/1940-9/1978 (discontinued) 8 2 58 33 2,179 (1944) 8,833 11,158 44,452 (1972) 25 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Average Seasonal Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of Record may not equal Years of Annual Flow Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 1 Station operated by SRP after 1985 and table statistics do not include the SRP data Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 79 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1701 Little Colorado River @ Hunt Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1715 Black Canyon Lake Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1720 Oklahoma Flat Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1722 Stermer Ridge Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1724 Bunger Point Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD Dreamy Draw Precipitation/Stage 3/1/2004 Navajo County FCD Precipitation/Stage 10/27/1995 Navajo County FCD Stage NA Navajo County FCD Precipitation/Stage 9/5/1995 Navajo County FCD 1725 1729 1739 1743 Little Colorado River @ Winslow @I-40 Cottonwood Wash Winslow Obed Bridge over Little Colorado River @ Joseph City 1750 Leroux Wash Precipitation/Stage 11/2/1995 Navajo County FCD 1764 Little Colorado River @ Holbrook Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1771 Joseph City @ SR 66 Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1778 Pinedale Ridge Precipitation 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1785 Silver Creek at Snowflake Precipitation/Stage 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1795 Lone Pine Dam Precipitation/Stage 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1800 Chevelon Butte 20 mi. SW of Winslow Repeater/Precipitation 7/18/1995 Navajo County FCD 1804 Porter Mountain Repeater/Precipitation 1/18/1995 Navajo County FCD 1808 Buckskin Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1815 Schoens Dam Precipitation/Stage 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1822 White Mountain Lake Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1829 Cottonwood Wash Taylor Precipitation/Stage 10/6/1995 Navajo County FCD 1843 Dutch Joe Precipitation 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1850 Morgan Wash Precipitation/Stage 11/22/1995 Navajo County FCD 1857 Holbrook Base Station Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1864 South County Complex Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1871 Heber Repeater Repeater/Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1881 Black Canyon Wash Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1885 Heber SNOTEL Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1892 Show Low Lake Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1893 Phoenix Park Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 3300 Newman Canyon Precipitation/Stage NA City of Flagstaff 3310 Rio de Flag Precipitation/Stage NA City of Flagstaff Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available to ADWR 80 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) Schoens Lyman Many Farms Upper Lake Mary 2 Red 7 Blue Ridge/C.C. Cragin 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Mormon 3 Lone Pine White Mountain (Daggs Dam) Tremaine (Hay Lake Dam) Chevelon Canyon Show Low (Jacques Dam) Tsaile Wheatfields Fool's Hollow Canyon Diablo Reservoir Mill Pond Willow Springs Ashurst Alejandro Ganado Reservoir Twin Lakes Hay3 River Reservoir Kinnikinick Ortega + Little Ortega (Ortega Lake Retention) White Mountain Lower Lake Mary Rainbow (Lakeside Dam) Cholla Millett Swale Black Canyon Blue Canyon Soldier Annex Knoll Scott Reservoir Bear Canyon Concho Unnamed (Twin Dams) Little Mormon Becker Woods Canyon Little Long3 3 Mexican Round Rock Hog Wallow Pool Corral Nelson Slade Broken Tank Mexican Hay Clear Creek (Clear Creek #2) Colter Tunnel 3 Norton 58 Haumont Tank3 59 60 61 62 Lee Valley Soldiers Patterson Bunch 27 MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE Bureau of Reclamation Navajo County Lyman Water Co Navajo Nation City of Flagstaff Navajo Nation Bureau of Reclamation/Salt River Project Coconino NF Navajo County Silver Creek Irrigation District Bar T Bar Ranch AZ Game & Fish City of Show Low Navajo Nation Navajo Nation AZ Game & Fish Navajo Nation Abitibi AZ Game & Fish AZ Game & Fish Private Navajo Nation Abitibi Bar T Bar Ranch Round Valley Water Users AZ Game & Fish 20,325,000 62,000 44,500 32,500 21,041 15,517 H,I,O,R,S C I,R I,R S,R F,I,R Federal State State Tribal State Tribal 15,000 H,S,R State 15,000 14,700 13,750 9,000 8,542 8,160 8,100 5,700 5,617 4,700 4,400 4,230 4,164 4,111 3,750 4 3,700 3,530 3,195 3,124 F,R C I,R I R O,R I,R I,R R I,R I R R U I,R O U I,R R Federal State State State State State Tribal Tribal State Tribal State State State State Tribal State State State State Silver Creek Flood Control 2,500 C,R State I,R R,S I,R F,O,R C R S F,I,P,R R I,R R I,R C F,R I,F,R R I,R F,R C,F,I I,R I I R I P I,R I,R I I,R I State Federal State State State State Tribal Federal State State State State Tribal Federal Federal State State Federal Federal Tribal State State State State State State State State Federal State OWNER/OPERATOR Round Valley Water Users Coconino NF Show Low Irrigation Arizona Public Service Silver Creek Flood Control AZ Game & Fish Navajo Nation Coconino NF AZ Game & Fish Show Low Irrigation AZ Game & Fish Concho Water Co Hopi Tribe Apache Sitgreaves NF Apache Sitgreaves NF AZ Game & Fish St. John's Irrigation Apache Sitgreaves NF Apache Sitgreaves NF Navajo Nation Lyman Water Co Lyman Water Co AZ Game & Fish Private AZ State Land Dept. Lyman Water Co City of Winslow Lyman Water Co Apache Sitgreaves NF Town of Springerville AZ State Land Dept./Rancho Allegra AZ Game & Fish Coconino NF AZ Land Dept Round Valley Water Users 4 2,391 2,240 2,226 4 2,200 2,104 1,900 1,900 1,886 1,774 1,740 1,638 1,560 1,500 1,400 1,338 1,232 4 1,200 1,200 1,100 1,070 1,000 993 900 898 4 851 821 750 732 694 680 1 JURISDICTION 674 I State 640 550 4 534 512 I,R R P I,R State Federal State State Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR Unnamed6 6 Dry Dry 6 Red Navajo Nation AZ State Land Dept./Private Private Navajo Nation Bureau of Land 67 Ortega Sink6 Management/Private 3 Coconino NF 68 Long 69 Long Coconino NF 6 Navajo Nation 70 Greasewood 6 AZ State Land Dept./Private 71 Unnamed 72 Marshall Coconino NF 3 Navajo Nation 73 Tolani 3 Navajo Nation 74 Toh De Niihe 6 Navajo Nation 75 Unnamed 6 Navajo Nation 76 Mud Flats 3 Coconino NF 77 Mud Lake & Tank 3 Coconino NF 78 Breezy Coconino NF 79 Yaeger Lake & Tank3 Navajo Nation 80 Unnamed 6 Navajo Nation 81 Unnamed Lake & Windy Tank6 Bureau of Land Management 82 Unnamed6 83 Vail Coconino NF 3 Coconino NF 84 Grass Flat Tank 85 Unnamed Navajo Nation 3 Coconino NF 86 Horse Lake & Tank 3 Private 87 Unnamed 3 Apache Sitgreaves NF 88 Whipple Private 89 McDermit3 Coconino NF 90 Pine Lake & Tank3 3 Navajo Nation 91 Tobenayoli Pond Coconino NF 92 Deep3 Coconino NF 93 Indian3 94 To Kla Dua Aakee Navajo Nation Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others 63 64 65 66 MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE 2,642 1,817 1,674 502 P P P P Tribal Landowner Landowner Tribal 405 P Federal 323 271 269 215 213 129 121 112 110 106 101 96 95 92 90 88 88 87 84 81 75 72 70 65 62 60 54 F,P,R F,P P P F P P P P F,P P,R P P P P P P P P P F,P,R P P P F P P Federal Federal Tribal Landowner Federal Tribal Tribal Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Federal Federal Tribal Federal Landowner Federal Landowner Federal Tribal Federal Federal Tribal 1 JURISDICTION C.Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet) Total number: 416 Total maximum storage: 13,343 acre-feet 5 D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 269 Total surface area: 3,907 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet) Total number: 6,113 (estimate based on water right filings) Notes: NF = National Forest 1 C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; N= navigation; O=other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond; R=recreation; S=water supply; U=unknown 2 Dam is in New Mexico as is most of the lake 3 Intermittent Lake 4 Normal capacity < 500 acre-feet 5 Capacity data not available to ADWR 6 Dry Lake 82 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 83 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 2.1-5. The location of major springs is shown on Figure 2.1-6, keyed to Table 2.1-5A. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • • • Perennial streams are found at higher elevations in the basin. The Little Colorado River, the major drainage in the basin, flows perennially only in areas near the headwaters and below Silver Creek. On tribal lands data were insufficient to determine if streams are intermittent or perennial. There are 70 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken prior to 1990. Only 14 major and 13 minor spring measurements post-date 1990. Greatest discharge rates were measured in the far southeastern corner of the basin at the headwaters of Silver Creek (Silver Springs, 3,648 gpm), south of Saint Johns (Salado, 1,730 gpm), east of Pinetop (Big, 1,211 gpm) and near Concho (Concho, 1,120 gpm). Most of the other major springs are located in this area. A cluster of major springs is also located in the vicinity of Tuba City and the Hopi community of Moenkopi. More than three quarters of the major springs discharge less than 100 gpm. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 2.1-5B. 160 minor springs have been identified in the basin. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies between 1,222 to 1,305, depending on the database reference. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 84 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-5 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Silver (multiple) Salado Big (multiple) Concho Unnamed2 Pinetop Coal Canyon Mine Wash Carnero Adair Walnut Unnamed Porter/Paige Moenave Unnamed Bourdon Ranch2 Wiltbank Unnamed Coon Big Hollow Wash (multiple) Dodson Upper Sheep Unnamed Eagle Nest, Talakwava Shonto-2 Unnamed (multiple)2 Unnamed Sawmill Whitcom Unnamed Danstone Unnamed Unnamed Willow Unnamed Pasture Canyon4 Unnamed (multiple)2 Davis2 Unnamed Big Leroux Los Burros2 24 Ranch Bitter Oak Thompson Unnamed Unnamed2 Dodson Lower Stinking Charlie Day Coyote, Isva 85 Discharge Location Lattitude Longitude (in gpm)1 341951 1095527 3648 342604 1092352 1730 340814 1095804 1211 342551 1093745 1120 364025 1104828 700 340724 1095454 673 360631 1110031 450 340609 1093212 400 340825 1095727 276 340749 1095723 225 342240 1092318 200 341047 1095622 145 360840 1112005 118 360845 1112003 118 342039 1095612 100 341629 1092359 100 362712 1102307 893 340346 1092212 70 343215 1092520 67 360830 1111441 66 340316 1093358 60 362952 1101836 603 361056 1111147 50 363536 1103834 50 343135 1092553 50 354919 1100851 50 345014 1112234 40 340845 1095217 40 363237 1102318 403 340921 1094749 38 360813 1111908 38 342251 1092251 37 361049 1112242 35 342247 1092254 31 361021 1111159 31 364851 1103221 30 342932 1091634 29 362539 1102412 273 351736 1114327 25 340829 1094634 25 341723 1092445 20 361411 1105403 20 351438 1113521 20 340752 1095358 20 365113 1105546 20 363747 1103749 20 360828 1111441 19 343729 1093435 185 360833 1111412 16 353905 1103349 15 Date Discharge Measured 6/1990 6/12/1990 11/30/1990 12/6/1951 7/27/1954 11/20/1990 2/16/1955 9/24/1974 11/30/1990 6/23/1952 8/15/1985 7/1/1971 2/25/1948 8/9/1954 6/25/1952 1/6/1975 10/19/1983 NA 9/17/1975 7/26/1954 5/22/1952 11/14/2003 NA 3/20/1951 2/12/1975 NA 7/12/1975 6/11/1952 11/13/2003 6/13/1952 8/10/1954 8/15/1985 4/5/1952 8/15/1985 4/26/2004 NA 1/1/1957 4/3/2007 9/26/1949 6/11/1952 1/6/1975 NA 9/20/1962 6/11/1952 NA 6/11/1966 7/26/1954 NA 6/10/1988 During or prior to 2005 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-5 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Hoxworth Muddy Water Unnamed Unnamed Wide Reeds Ruins - Right Unnamed Near Dennehotso Moenkopi School Spring Wide Reed Ruins - Left 2 Sheep, Many Fast Drips Cliff Dwelling Jack Homer Mineral Schuster Sweet Water Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed2 Unnamed Unnamed Location Latitude Longitude 350225 360651 360625 365215 354237 364656 360632 354237 361204 364736 361056 340939 342859 361403 354812 360636 365539 364545 365221 365144 1113427 1105709 1111311 1094857 1093312 1094254 1111311 1093312 1104335 1094232 1112244 1093645 1093002 1103521 1101046 1111321 1094419 1104327 1103835 1103838 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 15 15 15 15 15 13 12 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4/1/1996 2/16/1955 During or prior to 2005 2/16/1955 11/9/2004 4/1/2004 3/29/2004 11/9/2004 During or prior to 2005 10/6/1954 7/16/1954 11/20/1974 2/6/1975 During or prior to 2005 During or prior to 2005 During or prior to 2005 2/16/1955 NA NA NA B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Unnamed Atascacita Little Giant Neilson Unnamed Unnamed Huse Tse Chizzi Unnamed Cc Hall Government Unnamed Willow Unnamed Keams Canyon Cow Halleck Kalbito #1 Mcintosh Mud Navajo Nee De Miso Bito Ortega Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 354860 341007 341027 341753 360631 364226 354218 355434 361554 340715 361110 362022 360645 360824 354847 355734 340730 353113 343048 342154 350605 361409 342657 351823 354835 364225 360821 1100939 1093100 1093417 1092124 1111315 1103004 1144836 1100117 1103613 1093737 1115225 1100501 1104703 1111912 1101003 1095504 1095513 1102538 1091740 1092847 1092938 1105926 1093555 1114243 1101001 1103004 1101333 8.5 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5.56 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Date Discharge Measured 10/30/1951 9/24/1974 9/24/1974 1/17/1975 NA 9/25/1965 2/10/1976 6/18/1954 4/301952 6/23/1952 6/24/1954 10/7/1954 NA 4/4/1952 10/31/1950 6/18/1954 6/1/1952 NA 7/1/1946 1/7/1975 11/18/1975 6/24/1954 1/15/1975 8/23/1979 NA 8/25/1965 4/5/1952 86 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-5 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Unnamed Walker Wash Kydestea Heiser Chipmunk Kai Si Kato Sueiva Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Malpais Oak Ashurst Bitter, Toh De Koinish Chili, Tsilvasa Coal Slurry Hall Hoecevi Little Burro, Matovia Red Bluff, South Sand Sand 2 Siwukva Tonali Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Betakin Wepo South Bluebird Hotevilla Laguna Salada Awat ovi Babbit CC Fireman Cabin Hock Lemova Maynard Nee De Miso Bito Onion Red Willow Rock Ledge, Phillips Farm Sand Shonto Sweetwater Talahogan Telephone Unnamed 87 Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 364221 361056 361947 353021 340830 361811 354846 354728 354632 361953 362601 365149 362629 342428 355524 350131 363930 354822 361736 341624 354944 354036 362740 354306 354259 355405 360002 340913 360642 355358 355812 364813 360651 364049 355325 354714 355544 342018 354325 350401 340653 355103 354818 361544 361358 355946 361952 354011 361004 354032 354538 354406 340842 350659 1093352 1141732 1104019 1112114 1095218 1104805 1103143 1101601 1101637 1094052 1101812 1103127 1102419 1093325 1095730 1112949 1113845 1101119 1104016 1092055 1102948 1103413 1141512 1105546 1105545 1104050 1111434 1092742 1111325 1104028 1103306 1101039 1111551 1103218 1102203 1101430 1104024 1094324 1101645 1113216 1093737 1105424 1102900 1141818 1105925 1102908 1103249 1103315 1105546 1104439 1105635 1101635 1094837 1103153 5 5 4.5 46 4 4 4 4 4 4 46 4 46 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Date Discharge Measured 12/2/1954 3/12/1980 4/21/1987 6/25/1925 6/11/1952 NA NA NA 4/21/1955 2/27/1950 3/3/2004 NA 9/26/1995 1/15/1975 6/17/1954 7/26/1978 4/30/1952 NA 8/11/1954 1/16/1975 7/10/1952 NA 3/11/1980 5/13/1954 NA NA 7/7/1954 12/24/1974 NA 4/21/1955 4/15/1955 10/1/1954 6/25/1954 8/28/2002 8/17/1993 4/21/1955 8/16/1993 1/15/1975 NA 3/27/2004 9/24/1974 NA NA 3/11/1980 6/24/1954 NA NA NA NA 8/6/1954 4/13/1954 NA 6/13/1952 7/2/1972 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-5 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Wolf Pass Salt Water Unnamed Unnamed Big Willow Chief, Monwisva Franey Hawk Nest Shonto Trickle, Yatcakpa Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Wepo North, Wipho, Cattail, Reed Youngs Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Bell Butte Scott Aqwpa Beehive Bryan Adams, Fadairs Buhu Va Campbell Cane Clark Cottonwood, White cave Coyote Flower, Wuko'kwan tu kwi, Siipa Gopher Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured 354434 355141 360936 360534 362412 354519 355905 362812 360644 364856 354851 353125 361301 363153 364128 354804 354533 340718 365002 363625 354347 342448 354902 363632 361633 1105616 1100909 1105330 1111021 1102318 1102402 1102945 1105902 1111447 1102149 1101214 1101952 1100153 1101837 1103606 1095611 1101638 1093744 1103611 1103822 1101653 1093109 1100936 1103822 1094330 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NA NA 6/25/1954 7/7/1954 10/8/1954 NA 4/14/1955 7/8/1954 8/10/1954 10/14/1954 NA NA 10/6/1954 12/8/1987 8/7/1954 6/16/1954 NA 9/24/1974 7/28/1954 8/6/1954 NA 1/15/1975 NA 8/6/1954 2/27/1950 355330 1102159 2 8/17/1993 350517 362208 363238 362537 362537 353338 361542 354917 340404 355123 354720 344453 363346 350402 360216 351358 1112838 1094113 1102241 1102407 1102406 1102045 1094119 1102941 1093239 1100849 1101802 1112947 1100706 1113444 1103902 1113934 2 1.56 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7/24/1978 11/1/1929 4/18/2007 6/25/2007 6/25/2007 NA 8/4/1954 NA 9/23/1974 NA NA 8/6/2002 10/13/1954 3/27/2004 NA 8/27/1979 355039 1102238 1 NA 362103 1110326 1 7/7/1954 Grooming, Naftakinva 354821 1103128 1 NA Hard Rocks Horse Hummingbird Lee Lukai 360134 361106 364941 353947 353113 1103008 1103437 1094155 1111811 1102050 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 11/10/1954 2/3/1954 NA Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 88 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-5 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Many Fast Drip Mccormick Red Bluff, North Salt Seeps Sand Seba Delkai Setsiltso Sherwood Shonto-hi, Shontah Spring on a Rock Tis Ya Toh Tonahakaad Trough Unnamed2,7 Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed (multiple) Unnamed (multiple) Unnamed Unnamed Nasjo Toh Wupatki Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 361153 340853 362744 350625 365025 353453 364323 341715 353250 355740 360428 354643 341937 351521 354840 361556 361121 354120 354848 353755 361603 364618 364626 364632 364449 362422 363212 363504 353118 1104406 1094623 1141505 1092706 1094206 1102414 1094014 1092115 1101732 1111425 1104325 1111259 1102448 1113544 1104004 1105911 1103742 1105301 1101024 1102650 1105911 1102142 1093645 1094136 1094036 1095214 1102339 1100937 1112231 Date Discharge Measured 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 16 16 16 6/25/1954 6/13/1952 3/11/1980 11/18/1975 11/10/1954 NA 112/1/1954 1/16/1975 NA 7/7/1954 10/8/1954 7/14/1954 11/7/1952 8/27/1949 NA 6/24/1954 10/28/1954 5/13/1954 7/9/1950 NA 6/24/1954 10/14/1954 12/1/1954 10/6/1954 10/6/1954 8/4/1994 2/3/2005 10/13/1954 8/23/1950 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 1,222 to 1,305 Notes: Most current discharge measurement 2 Spring not on current topographic map 3 Most current discharge <10gpm 4 One of 21 springs in a 1 mile section of the canyon. This representative spring is the is only one measured. 5 Spring is now dry 6 Most current discharge <1gpm 7 Location approximated by ADWR 1 89 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 90 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 2.1-6. Figure 2.1-7 shows aquifer boundaries, aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 20032004. Figure 2.1-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 2.1-7. Figure 2.1-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 2.1-6 and Figure 2.1-7. • Recent stream alluvium aquifers include alluvial deposits along washes and stream channels, including along the Little Colorado River and its tributaries. • Volcanic aquifers include the Lakeside-Pinetop aquifer and a smaller aquifer inside the caldera of the San Francisco Peaks, known as the “Inner Basin”. • The large regional aquifers are located in sedimentary formations of sandstone and limestone that are stacked on top of one another and are generally separated by impermeable shales and siltsones. In descending order, the regional aquifers are the D-, N-, and C-aquifers. • The Bidahochi formation forms a local aquifer in the central part of Apache and Navajo counties and near Saint Johns. • Undifferentiated sandstones west of Show Low along the Mogollon Rim and in the Springerville-Eagar area form local aquifers, known as the White Mountain and Springerville aquifers, respectively. • Flow directions are shown in Figure 2.1-7. Flow directions in the D-aquifer are generally from east to west. Flow in the N-aquifer varies as shown on the map. Flow direction in the C-aquifer is south to north in the southern part of the basin and generally from east to west in the northern part of the basin. The Bidahochi aquifer flows are not mapped in the area south of Keams Canyon. Flows in the Volcanic aquifer are generally toward the north. Well Yields • Refer to Table 2.1-6 and Figure 2.1-9. • Well yields vary greatly in the basin. In general, well yields are greatest along the Little Colorado River and in alluvial areas north of Springerville and in the vicinity of Concho, Saint Johns and Snowflake. Areas of lower yield are found in the northern part of the basin and in the volcanic aquifers around Flagstaff and Greer. • One source of well yield information, based on 386 reported wells, indicates that the median yield from is 500 gpm. An estimate that includes USGS and Navajo Tribal Utility Authority data found a median well yield of 95 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 2.1-6 • Estimated natural recharge to the major regional aquifers is 319,000 AFA to the C-aquifer (areal extent 21,655 square miles), 5,392 AFA to the D-aquifer (areal extent 3,125 square miles) and between 2,600 acre-feet to 20,248 acre-feet with a median of 13,000 AFA to the Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 • N-aquifer (areal extent 6,250 square miles). Main recharge areas are along the southern and eastern periphery of the basin. Recharge rates to other basin aquifers is unknown. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 2.1-6 • Storage volumes are based on rough estimates and additional aquifer studies are needed. • The only storage estimate for the entire basin is 508 maf from a 1989 ADWR study. Water Level • Refer to Figure 2.1-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 57 index wells in the basin. Hydrographs for 10 index wells, including one automated telemetry site, and other wells (Hydrograph #AZ), are shown in Figure 2.1-8. • Deep water levels are found in areas near Flagstaff where water levels as deep as 1,572 feet below land surface (bls) were measured, and near Cottonwood and Piñon where water levels were between 1,000 and 1,272 bls. Shallow water levels (<50 feet bls) are found along the Little Colorado River, in the Tuba City area, near Window Rock and near Dennehotso. • Areas of most significant groundwater level decline were found in the vicinity of St. Johns, Pinon, Flagstaff and Kayenta. Water level rises were noted in individual wells near Springerville, Concho, Chilchinbito and Flagstaff. 92 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 26,700 Geologic Units and/or Name Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Volcanic Rock (Lakeside-Pinetop Aquifer) Sedimentary Rock (Bidahochi Formation, C, D, N, Springerville, and White Mountain Aquifers) Range 8-1,602 Median 95 Measured by ADWR and/or USGS or NTUA (85 wells measured) Range 1-3,000 Reported on registration forms for large Median 500 (> 10-inch) diameter wells (386 wells reported) Range 30-300 ADWR (1990b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 319,0001 (C Aquifer) Hart et. al (2002) 5,392 (D Aquifer) GeoTrans and Waterstone (1999) 2,600 - 20,248, median 13,000 (N Aquifer) OSM (2008) 508,000,000 (total) ADWR (1990b) 413,000,000 (C Aquifer) ADWR (1989) 15,000,000 (D Aquifer) ADWR (1989) 526,000,000 (N Aquifer) ADWR (2008d) Current Number of Index Wells: 94 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2001 (932 wells measured) Notes: Assumes stready state conditions and may include parts of the Verde and Salt River Basins. NTUA = Navajo Tribal Utility Authority 1 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 93 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 94 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 95 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 AA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 1975 75 AB WELL DEPTH: 925 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY N-aquifer 08 022-07.34X12.44 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: 686 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 N-aquifer 08 039-00.70X01.57 BMOB 125 175 200 250 525 575 1975 AC 1975 AD 1975 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 N-aquifer 02 040-05.38X15.27 BMOB 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 720 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 N-aquifer 08 037-12.81X16.98 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 96 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 150 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 0 AE WELL DEPTH: 960 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1975 N- aquifer 01 058-11.71X12.08 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 612 ft PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 N-aquifer 03 077-13.38X05.87 AF USE: 50 100 725 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2460 ft MONITORING 2005 N-aquifer 04 074-08.95X02.95 BMOB AG USE: 775 825 875 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 97 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 175 225 1000 1050 200 AH 1975 AI 1975 AJ 1975 AK WELL DEPTH: 200 ft USE: UNUSED unknown aquifer 10 071-05.55X01.98 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 N-aquifer 03 077-11.59X14.61 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2905 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 sedimentary rocks (?) 10 072-07.01X13.28 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 361 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 D-aquifer 06 096-02.73X03.65 250 300 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 98 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 200 AL WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC N-aquifer 06 095-06.50X08.61 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 250 300 1975 300 AM 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1106 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 N-aquifer 06 094-03.23X11.05 350 400 450 500 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 99 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells AN 150 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 1975 AO 0 50 1975 1950 AP 2000 1975 75 125 AQ 1975 WELL DEPTH: 390 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY unknown aquifer 17 109-10.13X00.78 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 141 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 unknown aquifer 18 108-04.48X01.55 1985 1995 2005 WELL DEPTH: 2200 ft USE: UNUSED C-aquifer A-23-08 21ABA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2200 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer 05 131-13.60X14.28 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 100 Arizona Water Atlas Submit by Email Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells AR 50 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 1975 AS 1200 WELL DEPTH: 250 ft USE: DOMESTIC C -aquifer A-21-27 25BBD2 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1600 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-21-06 35CBA 1250 1300 1975 1985 AT 550 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1206 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-20-08 18BBB 600 650 700 1975 550 600 AU 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 640 ft USE: STOCK 1975 2005 C-aquifer A-20-12H24CBB 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 101 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Submit by Email Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 50 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 AV 1975 AW WELL DEPTH: 610 ft USE: UNUSED C-aquifer A-19-16 36DBB 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 170 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 recent stream alluvium A-18-23 06CDC2 50 1975 250 300 350 AX 1975 AY 400 1975 1985 WELL DEPTH: 293 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 C-aquifer A-18-14 13ABD3 YEAR 1995 WELL DEPTH: 420 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 2005 2005 Bidahochi Formation A-18-30 20CDD 1995 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2005 102 by Email ArizonaSubmit Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 275 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 325 25 75 650 700 700 AZ 1975 BA 1975 BB 1975 BC 750 1975 WELL DEPTH: 570 FT USE: UNUSED C-aquifer A-17-20 26DBC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY C-aquifer A-16-22 17CCD 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 780 ft USE: STOCK 1995 WELL DEPTH: 860 ft USE: STOCK 103 2005 C-aquifer A-15-12 15DDC 1985 1985 2005 2005 C aquifer A-15-17 02CCC YEAR 1995 2005 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 25 BD Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 75 1975 0 BE WELL DEPTH: 425 ft USE: UNUSED C-aquifer A-15-23 28DDC1 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 410 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-14-26E18CBD2 50 100 250 1975 BF 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 328 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 C-aquifer A-13-21 24CCB 300 1975 250 300 BG 1975 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-13-27 15BDC WELL DEPTH: 574 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 104 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 5 500 BH C-aquifer A-13-26 06DCB WELL DEPTH: 447 UNUSED 100 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 150 200 250 7 75 1975 BI 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-13-29 05BAD WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: MONITORING 125 175 225 275 325 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 105 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 125 BJ WELL DEPTH: 327 ft USE: STOCK C-aquifer A-13-29 35AAA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 175 225 1975 450 500 675 725 5 50 100 BK 1975 BL 1975 BM 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 603 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY C-aquifer A-12-17 33BDD 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-11-24 22DBC WELL DEPTH: 850 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-11-28 22BDD2 WELL DEPTH: 550 ft USE: MONITORING 1985 2005 YEAR 1995 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 2005 106 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Figure 2.1-8 (Cont) Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells BN 500 WELL DEPTH: 1550 ft USE: MONITORING C-aquifer A-11-29 20ABB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 550 600 1975 500 BO 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: 750 FT USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-10-22 30ABA 550 1975 BP 0 1985 1995 2005 unknown aquifer A-09-22 36CBB WELL DEPTH: 200 ft USE: DOMESTIC 50 1975 150 BQ 200 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 226 ft USE: STOCK 2005 unknown aquifer A-07-30 14BDD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 107 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Basin 108 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.7 Water Quality of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeding drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 2.1-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 2.1-7B. Figure 2.1-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 2.1-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 2.1-7A • 237 wells, springs and mine sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • North of Highway 264, the parameters most frequently exceeded in the sites measured were thallium and radionuclides in both wells and springs. • Between Highway 264 and Interstate 40, the parameter most frequently exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. There is a notable arsenic cluster in the vicinity of the Hopi communities of Polacca, Kykotsmovi and Keams Canyon. • South of Interstate 40 the parameters most frequently exceeded in the sites measured were arsenic and cadmium. • For the entire basin, the most frequently exceeded constituents measured, in order of greatest occurrence were arsenic, radionuclides, thallium, lead and TDS. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 2.1-7B • Water quality standards were equaled or exceeded in eight lakes; mercury was the most common contaminant. • Water quality standards were equaled or exceed in two reaches of Nutrioso Creek and six reaches of the Little Colorado River; turbidity was the most common contaminant. • At this time, 12 of the 16 sites are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. These include sites b, c, f,and h-p in Table 2.1-7B. • Final TMDL reports have been completed for the Little Colorado River (Nutrioso Creek to Camero Wash), Little Colorado River (Water Canyon Creek to Nutrioso Creek), Rainbow Lake and Nutrioso Creek from its headwaters to the Little Colorado River where Clean Water Act 319 projects are ongoing. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 2.1-10 • There is one effluent dependent reach, the Rio de Flag, at Flagstaff. Effluent is discharged to the Rio de Flag from the Rio de Flag and Wildcat Hill wastewater treatment plants. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 56 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Mine Spring Mine Mine Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Mine Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Spring Spring Mine Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard 2 (DWS) 41 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 39 North 39 North 39 North 38 North 38 North 38 North 38 North 37 North 37 North 37 North 37 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 34 North 34 North 34 North 34 North 34 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 31 North 31 North 30 North 30 North 29 North 29 North 19 East 23 East 29 East 30 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 21 East 39 East 39 East 7 East 20 East 28 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 31 East 22 East 23 East 23 East 28 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 30 East 31 East 22 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 30 East 9 East 21 East 21 East 22 East 23 East 11 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 24 East 9 East 11 East 11 East 12 East 12 East 20 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 24 East 10 East 19 East 9 East 9 East 21 28 14 34 14 21 26 1 13 18 29 35 31 31 28 23 2 33 2 26 27 19 9 18 33 1 4 14 15 17 18 21 33 6 18 17 7 8 18 27 27 27 2 31 22 23 8 20 27 2 32 32 7 2 33 29 14 21 6 21 33 21 5 16 25 11 15 As, Rad Pb Tl Tl Rad As As As Rad Rad Rad Rad, Se, Tl Sb Tl Rad, Tl Tl Rad Tl Tl Sb, Rad Rad, Tl Sb, Tl Pb As, Tl Rad, Se Tl Rad, Tl Pb Tl As, Rad, Se, Tl Tl As, Rad, Se, Tl Rad Tl Rad Tl Rad, Tl Rad, Tl Rad As As As Rad Tl As, Tl As Tl Tl Rad, Tl Rad Tl Rad Se As, Tl Tl Tl Tl As, Pb, Rad Tl Rad Tl Rad Tl Rad Pb As, Ba, Be, Cd, Pb, Rad NO3 Site Location 110 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 Well Mine Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard 2 (DWS) 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 24 North 24 North 24 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 9 East 9 East 9 East 12 East 15 East 18 East 19 East 21 East 10 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 19 East 19 East 19 East 19 East 9 East 10 East 11 East 11 East 12 East 15 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 11 East 17 East 22 East 22 East 23 East 10 East 20 East 20 East 21 East 22 East 22 East 22 East 22 East 23 East 18 East 23 East 24 East 17 East 19 East 21 East 22 East 23 East 6 East 6 East 8 East 18 East 19 East 21 East 30 East 30 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 22 25 33 7 12 26 33 5 5 9 9 26 26 26 27 27 28 14 14 22 9 9 21 21 11 6 19 26 27 16 2 9 16 14 7 31 35 35 30 22 34 22 6 17 35 35 19 11 1 24 24 21 14 8 4 26 26 27 10 9 4 22 27 5 8 8 8 TDS As, Ba, Pb, Rad TDS Tl NO3 Se Fl AS, TDS Pb As As As As As As As As As As As, Pb As As As As TDS Pb As, Rad As, Rad, Tl As, Rad NO3 Tl TDS TDS As, Rad, Tl TDS As As As, Rad Pb As As Ba, Tl As Tl Tl As Ba As, Rad Ba As, Rad, Se, Tl As As Ba Ba As As, Rad NO3 NO3 Ba As As Tl Cd, Rad Cd Rad Rad Cd Pb Site Location Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 22 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 31 East 6 East 6 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 19 East 25 East 25 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 28 East 29 East 9 East 16 East 16 East 23 East 23 East 25 East 26 East 28 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 19 East 22 East 26 East 18 East 22 East 25 East 28 East 28 East 30 East 16 East 25 East 27 East 27 East 30 East 30 East 21 East 21 East 27 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 16 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 18 East 9 23 25 9 19 20 20 25 25 25 25 35 10 13 20 23 24 24 28 30 30 15 15 28 4 26 28 32 20 17 20 28 3 19 11 32 4 8 16 16 28 17 13 9 14 6 18 35 14 9 4 1 15 7 21 26 26 31 20 28 29 15 21 30 32 33 28 Rad As As, Sb As As As TDS Pb, NO3 Be F As, Cd Be As, Cd, Rad Cd As Rad Cd As Cd Rad Rad TDS F F As Rad As As As Ba TDS TDS Rad TDS Cd, Rad As As Be, F, TDS As, Rad As, Rad Cd, Pb TDS F TDS F F NO3 TDS TDS As As TDS TDS F F NO3 NO3 NO3 F TDS F Pb Cd, Se Cd, Se As, Cd, Se Cd, Se As Site Location 112 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 233 234 235 236 237 Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well3 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 7 North UNSRV UNSRV UNSRV UNSRV 26 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 14 East 19 East 20 East 21 East 22 East 28 East 29 East 29 East 20 East 20 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 22 East 22 East 23 East 25 East 25 East 22 East 22 East 23 East 23 East 29 East 26 East UNSRV UNSRV UNSRV UNSRV 13 17 17 18 11 18 29 34 23 9 7 28 13 20 3 3 13 14 32 22 22 22 25 26 22 10 9 14 UNSRV UNSRV UNSRV UNSRV Be As F F As Cd As, Cd As, Cd As As As As Be, Cd Cd, Pb, Se As As, Cd Pb As Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Pb, Cd Cd Cu, Pb Pb NO3 Pb, Tl As, Pb, Rad Tl Tl Site Location Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Area of Impaired Lake Designated Use Parameter(s) Exceeding Length of Impaired (in acres) Stream Reach (in miles) Standard4 Use Standard 2 Map Key Site Type Site Name a Lake Bear Canyon NA 55 A&W, AgI, AgL, FBC pH b River Little Colorado River (Nutrioso Creek to Carnero Wash) 12 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration c River Little Colorado River (Porter Tank to McDonalds Wash) 17 NA A&W Cu, Ag, Sediment d River Little Colorado River (Silver Creek to Carr Wash) 6 NA A&W E. coli, sediment e River Little Colorado River (unnamed tributary to Lyman Lake) 3 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration f River Little Colorado River (Water Canyon Creek to Nutrioso Creek) 4 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) B. Lakes and Streams Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Lake Stream Reach (in miles) (in acres) Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Map Key Site Type Site Name g River Little Colorado River (West Fork to Water Canyon Creek) 20 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration h Lake Long Lake NA 323 FC Hg i Lake Lower Lake Mary NA 865 FC Hg j Lake Lyman NA 1,308 FC Hg k Stream Nutrioso Creek (headwaters to Picnic Creek) 27 NA A&W Turbidity l Stream Nutrioso Creek (Picnic Creek to Little Colorado River) 4 NA A&W Turbidity m Lake Rainbow NA 111 A&W, AgI, AgL, FBC DO, NO3, P, pH n Lake Soldiers NA 28 FC Hg o Lake Soldiers Annex NA 122 FC Hg p Lake Upper Lake Mary NA 760 FC Hg Source: ADEQ 2005f Notes: NA = Not applicable UNSRV = Unsurveyed 1 Most water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2003. One sample was collected in 1951. 2 Sb = Antimony As = Arsenic Ba = Barium Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate P = Phosphorous Se = Selenium Ag = Silver TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Tl = Thallium Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium 3 Conflicting locational information 4 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife AgI = Agricultural Irrigation AgL = Agricultural Livestock Watering FBC = Full Body Contact FC = Fish Consumption 114 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 115 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells, and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 2.1-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 2.1-9. Figure 2.111 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 2.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 2.1-8 and Figure 2.1-11. • Population increased by an average of 3,700 people per year between 1980 and 2000. • Total groundwater pumping is increasing with an average of 104,800 acre-feet pumped per year in 2001-2005. • Total surface water diversions are estimated to be comparable to historic diversion volumes with 50,800 acre-feet diverted per year in 2001-2005. Municipal surface water diversions, however, appear to be declining with 4,100 acre-feet of surface water diverted per year between 2001-2005. • Most high intensity municipal and industrial (M&I) use is found in the population centers of Flagstaff, Page, Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside, Taylor/Snowflake and Winslow/Holbrook. • Industrial use has remained relatively constant with an average of 83,100 acre-feet of surface water and groundwater used per year during 2001-2005. • Approximately two-thirds of the industrial water supply is groundwater. • Location of power plants and mines are shown on Figure 2.1-11 including the extent of the large Black Mesa and Kayenta coal mines south of Kayenta. Power plants/electrical generating stations include Cholla near Joseph City, Coronado near Saint Johns, Navajo at Page and the Springerville power plant located northeast of Springerville. • Agricultural use is estimated to have declined since 1991, for agricultural acreage in 2008 see Table 2.0-12. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 2.1-9. • There are 60 known wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. • The population served appears to be overestimated for the basin as a whole. Multiple databases were used to compile the effluent generation information and may contain flawed population estimates and outdated information. • More than 36,000 acre-feet of effluent per year are generated in the basin. Almost a third of this volume is generated by a single facility, the Catalyst paper mill. • Eight facilities discharge waste water for irrigation. • Effluent is used to irrigate five golf courses. More than 20 schools, parks, and other locations use effluent in Flagstaff. • Thirteen facilities discharge effluent to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer and five discharge to wildlife areas. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 116 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-8 Cultural Demand in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 2,5812 947 60,000 85,000 77,000 85,000 Data Source 2 175,451 178,851 182,252 905 190 90,000 185,652 189,052 192,452 195,853 199,253 717 119 93,000 202,653 206,053 209,454 213,463 217,472 819 117 29,600 52,400 221,481 225,490 229,649 233,508 237,518 1,428 128 34,700 53,800 241,527 245,536 249,545 254,513 259,481 1,542 155 37,300 54,400 264,450 269,418 274,386 299,227 343,049 378,392 WELL TOTALS: 7,990 1,657 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs or effluent. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 117 ADWR (1994a) 85,000 85,000 36,500 7,100 30,500 15,600 22,300 5,500 31,900 16,300 13,100 4,100 28,700 18,000 ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) ADWR (2008d) USGS (2007) Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Ownership City/Location Served Catalyst Paper Private Industrial NA 11,862 Bacovi WWTP Hopi Tribe Bacovi 550 62 Bison Ranch WWTP Private Overgaard NA Black Mesa Ranger District Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Forest Service Facilities NA Black Mesa Sewer System Navajo Nation Black Mesa 305 34 Chilchinbito Sewer System Navajo Nation Chilchinbito 150 17 X Chinle WWTP Navajo Nation Chinle 7,775 493 X Facility Name Evaporation Water-course Irrigation Pond Wildlife Area Golf Course/ Discharge to Turf/ Another Industrial Use Landscape Facility Infiltration Basins X Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Primary NA 2005 X NA 70 2000 X Secondary 100 2000 Secondary 600 1999 Secondary 750 1998 Cottonwood Sewer System Navajo Nation Cottonwood 1,000 112 X Secondary 645 2000 Dennehotso Navajo Nation Dennehotso 1,000 112 X Secondary 1,115 2000 Dilkon WWTF Navajo Nation Dilkon 1,408 134 Secondary 850 2000 Eager WWTP Town of Eagar Eagar 4,500 269 Adv. Trt.II 1,400 2001 Flagstaff Ranch Development WWTP Private Flagstaff Fort Valley Meadow Subdivision Private Flagstaff Ganado Burnwater Phase IX Navajo Nation Ganado 3,000 336 X Secondary 500 Ganado WWTP Navajo Nation Ganado 851 157 X Secondary 51 1996 Ganado Wood Springs II Navajo Nation Ganado NA 45 X Secondary NA 2000 X Secondary 300 2000 X X X Flagstaff Ranch NA NA NA 1998 NA Glen Canyon NRA WWTF National Park Service Recreation Area Greenhaven Sewer WWTP Private Page 226 13 Greer WWTP Little Colorado SD Greer 600 56 Houck Burnwater Phase I Navajo Nation Houck 300 34 Inscription House Septics Navajo Nation Inscription House 1,000 112 Joseph City WWTF Town of Joseph City Joseph City 1,300 314 Kayenta WWTP Navajo Nation Kayenta 3,270 661 Le Chee Sewer System Navajo Nation Le Chee 150 17 Leupp WWTF Navajo Nation Leupp 400 45 Linden Trails WWTP NA Show Low NA X X 2003 Secondary 300 2001 X Secondary 250 2000 X Secondary 60 2000 Secondary 750 2000 X Secondary 165 2000 X Secondary NA 1999 1,540 2000 620 2000 Laguna & Chinle Washes NA Livco Sewer Co. Private Concho NA 3 X Lukachukai Navajo Nation Lukachukai 200 22 X X NA Secondary Many Farms Navajo Nation Many Farms 685 34 Moenkopi WWTF Hopi Tribe Moenkopi 1,385 NA X Navajo Govt. Complex Navajo County Holbrook 700 45 X Secondary NA 2004 Nazali WWTF Navajo Nation Ganado 1,493 157 X Secondary NA 2000 Oraibi Hopi Tribe Oraibi 500 56 X Secondary NA 2000 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Secondary 2003 NA 118 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont) Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Page WWTF City of Page Page 7,500 1,120 Painted Mesa WWTF City of Holbrook Holbrook 6,000 560 Pinetop Lakeside WWTF Pinetop-Lakeside SD PinetopLakeside 20,000 1,792 Pinon WWTP Navajo Nation Pinon 2,050 213 Rio De Flag WWTP City of Flagstaff Flagstaff 20,000 2,467 839 11 Rough Rock WWTF Navajo Nation Rough Rock Sanders Unifed School District NA Sanders Disposal Method Evaporation Water-course Irrigation Pond Wildlife Area Golf Course/ Discharge to Turf/ Another Industrial Use Landscape Facility Lake Powell X X Infiltration Basins X Hidden Cove X X NA Rio De Flag X X Pine Canyon X NA Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Adv. Trt. I NA 2000 Adv. Trt.I NA 2008 Adv. Trt. II 2,200 2004 Secondary 700 2000 Adv. Trt. II NA 2008 Secondary 675 2000 2004 NA Show Low WWTF City of Show Low Show Low 8,800 896 X Secondary 1,500 Shungopavi WWTF Hopi Tribe Shungopavi 400 45 X Secondary NA 2000 Sipaulovi WWTF Hopi Tribe Sipaulovi 500 56 X Secondary 200 2000 Snowflake WWTF Town of Snowflake Snowflake 3,600 293 Springerville WWTF Town of Springerville Springerville 1,400 224 St. Johns WWTP Town of St. John's St.Johns 3,340 446 St. Micheals WWTF Hopi Tribe St.Micheals 500 50 Sweetwater Sewer System Navajo Nation Sweetwater 200 22 Sunrise Resort White Mountain Apache Tribe Resort 7,677 45 Taylor WWTF Town of Taylor Taylor 2,400 202 X X X X X X X NA X Adv.Trt.I 600 1997 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary 159 2000 Secondary 450 1999 Secondary 200 2001 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary 1,200 2004 2001 Tec Nos Pos WWTF Navajo Nation Tec Nos Pos 400 22 X Secondary 1,399 Tolani-Red Lake Sewer System Navajo Nation Tolani-Red Lake 100 11 X Secondary 100 2000 Tsaile WWTF Navajo Nation Tsaile 4,861 448 X Secondary 594 2000 Tuba City WWTF Navajo Nation Tuba City 12,443 448 Secondary 350 2000 Waweep WWTF National Park Service Park Wide Ruins Sewer System Navajo Nation Wide Ruin Secondary 245 1999 Adv. Trt II NA 2008 Secondary 2,215 2000 Adv. Tr. I NA 2004 Wildcat Hill WWTP NA 245 City of Flagstaff Flagstaff 64,693 Window Rock WWTP Navajo Nation Window Rock Winslow WWTF City of Winslow Winslow Total X 11 X 3,939 Rio De Flag 10,650 986 Black Creek 9,800 2,016 Ruby Wash 221,146 31,524 X X Continental & Aspen Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR NRA: National Recreation Area WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WRP: Water Reclamation Plant SD: Sanitation District ID: Improvement District Adv. Tr. l: Advanced treatment level l Adv. Tr. ll: Advanced treatment level ll 1 SCA Tissues began using reclaimed water for industrial processes in 2004 119 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 120 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 2.1-10A and B for water adequacy reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Water adequacy designations are shown in Table 2.1-10C. Figure 2.1-12 shows the general location of subdivisions (to the section level) and designated providers keyed to the table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Three hundred and six determinations of water adequacy for over 18,800 lots have been made through December 2008. One hundred and forty-nine determinations of inadequacy have been made, primarily in the vicinity of Flagstaff, Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside. The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There are two analyses of adequate water supply for a total of 1,936 lots. There are 13 designated water providers. Six designated water providers have total projected or estimated annual demand of 10,450.22 acre feet. The remaining seven designated water providers do not have a projected or estimated annual demand. The number of lots receiving an adequacy determination, by county, are: County Apache Coconino Navajo Number of Subdivision Lots 5,597 4,139 Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate 2,731 2,330 9,054 5,042 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Percent Adequate 48 56 56 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 A1,A2 1 A-1 Ranch Coconino 21 North 6 East 15 33 53-401052 Inadequate 2 Amity Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 7 23 53-500268 Adequate 3 Anasazi Trails Coconino 22 North 8 East 10, 15 17 53-401071 Inadequate Apache 10 North 24 East 11 94 53-400112 Apache 21 North 28 East 24, 26, 35 19 Navajo 18 North 22 East 9 21 Arrowhead Estates Coconino 21 North 7 East 9 8 Aspen Glen Coconino 22 North 8 East 9 Aspen Meadow Estates and Aspen Meadow Condominiums Navajo 8 North 10 Aspen Meadows Phase 1 Navajo 8 North 4 5 6 7 Apache Trails Unit One Amended Arizona Park Estates Unit One Arizona Rancheros, Rancho 36 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 5/7/2004 A-1 Ranch Owners 12/2/1976 Town of Eagar A1,A2 10/14/2003 Doney Park Water Company Inadequate C 7/30/1999 Cedar Grove WC 53-700259 Inadequate A1 4/4/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion 53-400335 Inadequate C 7/28/2000 Sun Valley Utilities 8 53-500298 Inadequate A2,A3 8/8/1988 Dry Lot Subdivsion 27 28 53-300069 Inadequate A1 12/5/1995 Doney Park Water Company 23 East 5 214 53-402263 Inadequate A1 8/21/2006 Pinetop Water Community Facilities District 23 East 5 14 53-700381 Inadequate A1 8/13/2007 11 Aspen Shadows Coconino 21 North 6 East 25 390 53-300242 Adequate 12 Bar D Ranches Coconino 21 North 8 East 3 15 53-400979 Inadequate 13 Bear Country Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 22 53-400036 Adequate 14 Belair Estates Apache 10 North 24 East 9 8 53-500314 Inadequate D 3/2/1987 15 Benny Jay Heights Apache 8 North 29 East 17 9 53-400431 Inadequate A1 12/1/2000 Town of Eagar 16 Bent Oak Navajo 8 North 23 East 2, 11 71 53-500318 Adequate 6/21/1989 Ponderosa DWID 17 Bison Cabin Resort II Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 33 53-400516 Adequate 4/2/2002 18 Bison Ranch Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 39 53-400080 Adequate 6/2/1999 19 Bison Ranch Parcel C3 Bison Lodge Cabins Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 22 53-400572 Adequate 9/21/2001 20 Bison Ranch Resort Suites Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 88 53-401659 Adequate 5/25/2005 21 Bison Resort Cabins Navajo 11 North 17 East 3 57 53-400257 Adequate 3/6/2000 Bison Resort Cabins III Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 57 53-400691 Adequate 4/2/2002 Navajo 12 North 17 East 33, 34 34 53-400447 Adequate 1/19/2001 22 23 24 25 122 Bison Town I, Parcels B1 and B2 of Bison Bison Town II, Parcels B3 and B4 of Biso Blue Ridge Estates 8/11/1997 Pinetop Water Community Facilities District Flagstaff Ranch Water Company Doney Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Overgaard A1,A2 7/30/2003 3/24/1999 Navajo 12 North 17 East 33, 34 25 53-400446 Adequate 1/19/2001 Coconino 15 North 12 East 32 193 53-300463 Adequate 6/12/1997 Belair Estates HOA Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Starlight Water Company Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 26 Blue Valley Apache 8 North 29 East 16 8 53-500345 Adequate 5/14/1976 Town of Eagar 27 Brewer Acres Navajo 13 North 21 East 23 20 53-500359 Adequate 11/3/1975 Town of Snowflake 28 Burdon Ranch Estates Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 131 53-500370 Inadequate 12/6/1984 Dry Lot Subdivsion 29 Bushman Acres Navajo 13 North 21 East 26 48 53-500371 Adequate 8/11/1976 Town of Snowflake 30 Canyon Vista Estates Navajo 12 North 22 East 31 56 53-402027 Adequate 5/24/2006 Watco Inc. 31 Casitas of Pinetop, The Navajo 9 North 23 East 32 0 53-500420 Inadequate 10/31/1980 Pinetop Water Company 32 Cedar Mesa Ridge Navajo 12 North 22 East 31 56 53-402026 Adequate 8/18/2006 Watco Inc. 33 Cedar Ridge Apache 8 North 29 East 11 49 53-500427 Adequate 8/22/1983 Town of Eagar 34 Cedar Ridge #1 Apache 10 North 24 East 10 13 53-500429 Inadequate A1 11/6/1991 Dry Lot Subdivsion 35 Cedar Ridge #2 Apache 10 North 24 East 4 5 Inadequate A1 7/9/1987 Dry Lot Subdivsion 36 Central Center Navajo 10 North 22 East 20 10 53-500430 Inadequate A1 6/21/1984 City of Show Low 37 Cheney Ranch Navajo 10 North 21 East 8 168 53-500449 Adequate 4/17/1986 White Mountain Water Co. A1 A1 38 Cholla Subdivision Navajo 13 North 21 East 36 12 53-500453 Adequate 3/4/1981 Town of Taylor 39 Chu-Vista Estates Navajo 12 North 22 East 30 23 53-500455 Inadequate D 5/12/1987 Dry Lot Subdivsion 40 Cinder Forest Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 26, 27, 35 82 53-500457 Inadequate A2 1/16/1974 Dry Lot Subdivsion 41 Cinder Mountain Navajo 8 North 23 East 11 65 53-500458 Adequate 9/17/1973 Ponderosa Water Company 42 Circle G at Temple Hill Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 23 53-400715 Adequate 5/22/2002 Town of Snowflake 43 Clearview Estates Apache 10 North 24 East 12 8 53-700423 Inadequate 10/26/2007 Lord AZ Water Co. 44 Cobblecreek Development Navajo 11 North 20 East 32 0 53-500475 Adequate 5/12/1987 Pinedale DWID Apache 11 North 26 East 7 8 53-700256 Inadequate A1 3/30/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion Apache 11 North 26 East 7 4 53-700306 Inadequate A1 5/22/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion A1 45 46 47 Concho Lake Land Unit 1 Amended Concho Lakeland Unit 1 Amended Concho Lakeland Unit 3, lots 580-582 & 538 A1 Apache 11 North 26 East 19 4 53-402274 Inadequate 8/31/2006 Dry Lot Subdivsion 48 Concho Valley #01B Apache 12 North 26 East 18 21 53-500489 Adequate 5/11/1982 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 49 Concho Valley #05A Apache 12 North 26 East 19 108 53-500490 Adequate 7/16/1979 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 50 Concho Valley #05B Apache 12 North 26 East 19 0 53-500491 Adequate 6/23/1980 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 51 Concho Valley #09 Apache 12 North 26 East 29 181 53-500492 Adequate 8/23/1989 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 52 Concho Valley #09A Apache 12 North 26 East 19 117 53-500493 Adequate 5/23/1991 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 53 Concho Valley #10 Apache 12 North 26 East 7, 8 193 53-500494 Adequate 5/23/1991 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 54 Concho Valley #12 Apache 12 North 26 East 8 303 53-500495 Adequate 7/30/1992 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 55 Concho Valley #18 Apache 12 North 26 East 8, 9 203 53-500496 Adequate 3/5/1993 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 56 Concho Valley #33 Apache 12 North 26 East 33 82 53-500497 Adequate 1/15/1985 Livco Water & Sewer Co. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 123 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key 57 58 Subdivision Name County Concho Valley Unit 3 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Township Range Section Apache 12 North 26 East 29, 31 7 53-700262 Inadequate A1 6/11/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion Concho Valley Unit 3, Lot 1/85; Lot 3/50; Lot 2/73;Lot Apache 3/276; Parcel 2,Lot 2/134 12 North 26 East 29 5 53-402273 Inadequate A1 8/30/2006 Dry Lot Subdivsion 59 Concho Valley Unit 4 Apache South East 13 53-500034 Inadequate A1 11/21/2006 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 60 Concho Valley Unit Eight Apache 12 North 26 East 22 7 53-402248 Inadequate A1 8/23/2006 Dry Lot Subdivsion 61 Concho Valley Unit Three Apache 12 North 26 East 31 6 53-700258 Inadequate A1 4/2/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion 62 Concho Valley, Unit 4A Apache 12 North 26 East 18 14 53-500033 Inadequate A1 11/21/2006 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 63 Concho Valley, Unit 5 Apache 13 North 27 East 18 26 53-500032 Inadequate A1 10/24/2006 Livco Water & Sewer Co. Apache 12 North 26 East 7, 18 47 53-402047 Inadequate A1 3/17/2006 Livco Water & Sewer Co. Navajo 9 North 23 East 31 101 53-500498 Inadequate A1 10/3/1986 Pinetop Water Community Facilities District Navajo 17 North 19 East 12 25 53-500503 Adequate 5/23/1984 Coconino 21 North 9 East 7, 8 30 53-500512 Adequate 8/28/1973 64 65 66 67 Concho West Shore Subdivision Condominium at Pine Creek, The Cool Water Acres Cosnino Equestrian Estates Cosnino Equestrian Sub. #2 Coconino 21 North 9 East 8, 9 77 53-500514 Adequate 69 Cottonwood Ranch Navajo 19 North 16 East 7 47 53-500518 Inadequate 70 Country Club Estates #1 Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 18 53-500522 71 Country Club Manor #1 Navajo 10 North 21 East 14 0 72 Country Club Villas, Unit I, Lots 2-15 Apache 12 North 26 East 18 14 68 3/21/1979 A1 Dry Lot Subdivsion Black Bill and Doney Park WUA Black Bill and Doney Park WUA 6/19/1985 Dry Lot Subdivsion Adequate 10/31/1983 Town of Snowflake 53-500523 Adequate 9/13/1978 City of Show Low 53-700387 Inadequate A1 8/8/2007 Livco Water & Sewer Co. 9/11/1980 Town of Eagar 3/12/2007 Dutch Joe Ranch HOA 3/14/2008 Dry Lot Subdivsion 73 Country Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 10 20 53-500524 Adequate 74 Dutch Joe Ranch Coconino 13 North 13 East 27 400 53-500045 Inadequate A1 75 E C Bar Ranch Estates Apache 7 North 30 East 20, 29 81 53-700503 Inadequate A1 76 Eagle Ridge Apache 11 North 24 East 34 54 53-300464 Adequate 77 Eagle View Park Coconino 22 North 8 East 10 11 53-401404 Inadequate 78 East Highland Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 23 11 53-500597 Adequate 79 East Valley Acres Apache 8 North 29 East 33 12 53-500598 Inadequate A1 8/21/1986 Town of Eagar 80 El Rancho Grande Navajo 12 North 21 East 6 46 53-500609 Inadequate A1 3/14/1984 Dry Lot Subdivsion 81 Elk Crest Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 18 72 53-400164 Inadequate A1 11/30/1999 Town of Eagar 82 Elk Meadow Apache 6 North 29 East 1 8 53-500610 Adequate 5/30/1989 Elk Meadow HOA A1 12/28/1998 Cedar Grove WC 9/2/2004 Doney Park Water Company 5/23/1979 Town of Snowflake 83 Elk Springs Navajo 9 North 22 East 9 43 53-500063 Inadequate A1 11/14/2006 Pineview Water Company 84 Elk Springs Subdivision Navajo 20 North 11 East 30 6 53-700441 Inadequate A1 1/28/2008 Dry Lot Subdivsion 124 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application A1 8/18/2003 Park Valley Water Company 85 Ellkins Acres Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 51 53-400991 Inadequate 86 Escondido Apache 8 North 29 East 7, 8 48 53-500616 Adequate 8/22/1979 Town of Eagar 87 Escondido #2 amended Apache 8 North 29 East 18 57 53-500617 Adequate 5/21/1982 Town of Eagar 88 Escudilla Mountain Estates, Units 1,2 &3 Apache 7 North 30 East 31 74 53-300583 Inadequate A1 12/15/1998 Dry Lot Subdivsion 89 Evergreen Estates Unit I Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 24 53-400725 Inadequate A1 5/22/2002 Pineview Water Company Pineview Water Company 90 Evergreen Estates Unit II Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 19 53-401857 Inadequate 9/8/2005 91 Fairway Park Center Navajo 10 North 21 East 23 26 53-500636 Adequate 9/24/1976 Fairway Park 92 Foothills #02 Apache 8 North 29 East 9 36 53-500639 Adequate 12/21/1979 93 Forest Trails #1 Navajo 12 North 17 East 28 170 53-500673 Adequate 7/20/1984 94 Forest Trails #2 Navajo 12 North 17 East 28 207 53-500674 Adequate 5/13/1985 95 Forest Trails #3B Navajo 12 North 17 East 28 49 53-300004 Adequate 4/3/1995 Town of Eagar Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard 96 Fort Valley Meadows, lots Coconino 56-65 22 North 6 East 26 10 53-400139 Inadequate A2 7/30/1999 Community well Coconino 22 North 6 East 34 11 53-400898 Inadequate A1 3/12/2003 Dry Lot Subdivsion Frontier Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 202 53-400564 Adequate 8/30/2001 Town of Snowflake Frontier Hills Coconino 22 North 8 East 24 33 53-500689 Inadequate 5/4/1994 Doney Park Water Company 97 Fort Valley Pines 98 99 A1,A2 100 G Flake Subdivision Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 11 53-400583 Adequate 9/28/2001 Town of Snowflake 101 Gobbler Peak Estates Apache 6 North 29 East 1 28 53-500706 Adequate 10/24/1991 Dry Lot Subdivsion 102 Golden Lockett Coconino 21 North 7 East 3 14 53-400951 Inadequate 103 Grand View Estates #1 Apache 8 North 29 East 18 58 53-500723 Adequate A1,A2 104 Green Acre Estates Navajo 10 North 21 East 13 7 53-700400 Inadequate 105 Green Valley Acres Apache 8 North 29 East 16 198 53-500730 Adequate 2/26/1975 Town of Eagar 106 Green Valley Ranches Navajo 11 North 22 East 6 22 53-500750 Adequate 9/1/1976 Subdivision wells A1 NA 7/26/1982 Town of Eagar 8/23/2007 Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water co. 107 Greer Acres Apache 7 North 27 East 2 20 53-400209 Inadequate 12/12/2000 Dry Lot Subdivsion 108 Greer Lodge Estates Apache 7 North 27 East 14 16 53-500764 Adequate 9/13/1994 Greer Meadows HOA 109 Greer Mountain Subdivision Apache 7 North 27 East 14 24 53-500765 Adequate 7/11/1995 Greer Mountain Subdivision Joint Venture 110 Greer View Estates Apache 7 North 27 East 12 22 53-400001 Adequate 3/4/1999 Dry Lot Subdivsion 111 Hacienda Pines-Unit 1 Navajo 10 North 21 East 25 68 53-300448 Adequate 4/23/1998 City of Show Low 112 Harvest Valley Navajo 12 North 21 East 5 10 53-500776 Adequate 2/24/1976 Dry Lot Subdivsion 113 Hidden Meadow Ranch Apache 9 North 27 East 30 52 53-400654 Inadequate B 5/13/2002 Club at Hidden Ranch HOA 114 Hidden Oak Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 21 53-401931 Inadequate A1 11/7/2005 Ponderosa Water Company Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A1 5/23/2003 125 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key 115 116 117 Subdivision Name High Country Pines II Unit 2 High Country Pines II Unit I County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application High Country Pines WC Navajo 12 North 16 East 15 74 53-400127 Adequate 7/21/1999 Navajo 12 North 16 East 15 104 53-300405 Adequate 1/8/1998 High Country Pines WC High Country Pines Inc. Navajo 12 North 16 East 15 0 53-500787 Adequate 4/26/1985 High Country Pines WC 118 High Pines Estates Navajo 11 North 18 East 3, 4, 9 63 53-700437 Inadequate 3/31/2008 Mountain Glen Water Co 119 Highland Park Unit 5, Phase 1 Navajo 13 North 21 East 36 12 53-300161 Adequate A1 6/24/1996 Town of Snowflake 120 Hillcrest Apache 8 North 29 East 3, 4 36 53-500793 Adequate 1/29/1976 Town of Eagar 121 Homestead Unit One at Torreon Navajo 10 North 21 East 25, 26 109 53-300437 Adequate 3/31/1998 City of Show Low 122 Hutchinson Acres Coconino 22 North 8 East 9, 16 95 53-400459 Inadequate A1 3/21/2001 Doney Park Water Company 123 J. L. Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 4 11 53-500817 Adequate 7/23/1976 Town of Eagar 124 Koch Field East Coconino 22 North 8 East 25 10 53-500847 Inadequate A2 4/26/1993 Doney Park Water Company 125 Laguna Estates #1 Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 151 53-500871 Inadequate A1 7/7/1986 High Country Water 126 Lake View Estates Phase I Navajo 11 North 22 East 11 25 53-700328 Inadequate A1 6/13/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion 127 Linden Trails Navajo 10 North 21 East 3, 4 96 53-401605 Adequate 3/16/2005 Mountain Glen Water Co 128 Lockett Estates Coconino 21 North 7 East 4 16 53-400415 Inadequate A1,A3 11/13/2000 Community well 129 Mahogany Run Subdivision Coconino 21 North 7 East 3, 4 7 53-400716 Inadequate A3 5/21/2002 Dry Lot Subdivsion 130 Majestic Views Estates Coconino 22 North 6 East 26 28 53-401616 Inadequate A1 1/12/2005 Majestic Views Domestic Water Improvement District 131 Mogollon Airpark Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 27 53-500994 Adequate 1/3/1986 132 Mogollon Airpark #03 Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 59 53-500995 Adequate 5/15/1987 133 Mogollon Airpark #04A Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 37 53-500997 Adequate 10/6/1993 134 Mogollon Air Park #04B Navajo 12 North 17 East 27, 34 36 53-500993 Adequate 4/6/1994 135 Mogollon Airpark #06 Navajo 12 North 17 East 27, 34 52 53-300042 Adequate 7/25/1995 136 Mogollon Airpark Properties Navajo 12 North 17 East 54 53-500998 Adequate 3/6/1985 137 Mogollon Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 27, 34 70 53-300167 Adequate 138 Mountain Pine Ranch #1 Apache 10 North 24 East 5 57 53-501019 Inadequate A1 4/13/1993 139 Mountain Pine Ranch Unit II Apache 10 North 24 East 5 57 53-400107 Inadequate A1 6/26/1999 Dry Lot Subdivsion 140 Mountain Pines Estates Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 86 53-501020 Adequate 9/1/1983 Ponderosa Water Company 126 7/15/1996 Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Dry Lot Subdivsion Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 142 Mountain View #2 143 144 145 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 32 53-501027 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 8/18/1978 Mountain View Water Company Township Range Section Apache 12 North 28 East 4 Mountain View Ranchos Coconino 21 North 9 East 11 28 53-501035 Adequate 7/19/1973 Subdivision wells Mountains Meadow Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 142 53-402238 Inadequate A1 9/11/2006 Pineview Water Company Needles Creek Subdivision Navajo 10 North 21 East 13 57 53-400451 Inadequate A1 1/19/2001 Fools Hollow Water Company 146 Nicoll Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 9 20 53-501048 Adequate 147 Noble Mountain Estates Amended Apache 6 North 30 East 7 65 53-501050 Inadequate A1 7/26/1994 148 North Peak Coconino 22 North 8 East 28, 29 18 53-501051 Inadequate A2 1/24/1992 149 North Peak #2 Coconino 22 North 8 East 28 11 53-501052 Inadequate A2 2/23/1993 150 Northern Taylor Navajo 13 North 21 East 36 14 53-501055 Adequate 8/15/1977 Town of Taylor 151 Northfork Ranches #1 Apache 10 North 24 East 7 93 53-501056 Inadequate A1 4/10/1985 Dry Lot Subdivsion 152 Nutrioso Pines Apache 6 North 30 East 4, 5 83 53-700223 Inadequate A1 3/15/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion 153 Ojo Bonito Estates Apache 10 North 25 East 19 63 53-501074 Adequate 9/10/1981 Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 32 53-500047 Inadequate 11/14/2006 Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 39 53-500048 Inadequate 11/14/2006 154 155 Overgaard Springs Ranch Unit I Overgaard Springs Ranch Unit II 2/6/1980 157 Park Place Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 78 53-300341 Inadequate A1 8/15/1997 158 Park Place III Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 35 53-400331 Inadequate A1 7/17/2000 A1 1/12/2004 Town of Eagar Doney Park Water Company Doney Park Water Company Doney Park Water Company Ojo Bonito HOA Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water co. Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water co. Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water co. 159 Park Place IV Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 16 53-401172 Inadequate 160 Park Plaza #1 Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 31 53-501113 Adequate 5/23/1986 Town of Snowflake 161 Park Show Low #1 Apache 10 North 24 East 1 14 53-501114 Inadequate A1 9/8/1989 Dry Lot Subdivsion 162 Park Show Low #1-4 Apache 10 North 24 East 1, 11, 25 140 53-501117 Inadequate A1 11/6/1991 Dry Lot Subdivsion 163 Park Show Low #3, 4 Apache 11 North 24 East 1, 11 47 53-501119 Inadequate A1 6/22/1994 Dry Lot Subdivsion 164 Park Show Low #4,5,6 Apache 11 North 24 East 1, 13, 15 62 53-501120 Inadequate A1 12/22/1986 Dry Lot Subdivsion 165 Park Valley #3 Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 86 53-501121 Inadequate A1 10/5/1983 Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water co. 166 Park Valley #4 Navajo 10 North 21 East 25 189 53-501122 Inadequate A1 10/8/1986 City of Show Low 167 Petrified Forest Estates #2 Apache 18 North 24 East 5 133 53-501144 Inadequate C 1/14/1987 Dry Lot Subdivsion A1 4/25/2006 168 Pine Canyon Estates Coconino 14 North 12 East 6 385 53-300466 Adequate 169 Pine Creek Navajo 9 North 23 East 31 45 53-402114 Inadequate 170 Pine Meadows Country Club Est Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 116 53-501150 Adequate Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 6/24/1998 5/30/1986 Starlight Water Company Pinetop Water Community Facilities District Arizona Water Company Overgaard 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 172 Pine Mountain Estates Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Doney Park Water Company Township Range Section Coconino 22 North 8 East 9 36 53-300065 Inadequate A1 12/5/1995 173 Pine Oaks Navajo 10 North 22 East 29 78 53-300200 Inadequate A1 10/17/1996 City of Show Low 174 Pine Ridge #1 Navajo 8 North 23 East 4, 5 0 53-501152 Inadequate A1 1/8/1986 Pinetop Water Company 175 Pine Rim Forest Navajo 12 North 17 East 30 56 53-501154 Adequate 9/1/1983 Arizona Water Company Overgaard 176 Pineaire Navajo 10 North 22 East 32 160 53-501156 Adequate 10/25/1973 Pineview Water Company 177 Pinecrest Lake Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 3 53-501158 Adequate 8/5/1986 Arizona Water Company Overgaard 178 Pineglen Park Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 84 53-501159 Inadequate A1 12/5/1983 Pineview Water Company 179 Pineglen Village #1 Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 94 53-501160 Inadequate A1 12/5/1983 Pineview Water Company Pinegrove Park Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 37 53-501161 Inadequate A1 8/10/1983 Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water co. Navajo 10 North 22 East 32 0 53-501163 Adequate 2/18/1987 Pineview Water Company 180 181 182 Pines at Show Low Condominiums Pinetop Country Club Village Navajo 8 North 23 East 11 65 53-501164 Adequate 9/17/1973 Ponderosa Water Company Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 53 53-501166 Adequate 10/6/1983 Ponderosa Water Company 8 North 23 East 11 0 53-501167 Adequate 2/6/1974 Ponderosa Water Company 8 North 29 East 4 0 53-501196 Adequate 6/8/1981 22 North 8 East 14, 23 35 53-501197 Inadequate A2 12/4/1992 Coconino 22 North 8 East 23 83 53-501198 Inadequate A2 10/3/1994 A1 8/22/2006 Dry Lot Subdivsion 183 Pinetop Lakes Plaza #2,3 184 Pinetop Lakes, Mountain Homes Navajo 185 Pioneer Subdivision Apache 186 Pioneer Valley #1 Coconino 187 Pioneer Valley #3, 2B 188 Randall Navajo 18 North 19 East 15 36 53-501286 Adequate 189 Red Cabin Ranch Estates Apache 9 North 26 East 5, 8 44 53-402231 Inadequate 190 191 Rendezvous Unit One at Torreon Rim Rock View Estates, Unit 1 9/6/1973 Town of Eagar Doney Park Water Company Doney Park Water Company Joseph City Water Company Navajo 10 North 21 East 23 113 53-300436 Adequate 3/31/1998 City of Show Low Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 8 53-400642 Adequate 1/3/2002 Subdivision wells Dry Lot Subdivsion 192 Rim Spur Navajo 9 North 22 East 27 11 53-400368 Inadequate C 8/30/2000 193 Rim Top Ranch Coconino 15 North 12 East 21, 27, 35 233 53-300542 Inadequate D 9/21/1999 HOA Wells 194 Rio Rancho Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 35, 36 37 53-400499 Inadequate A1 3/2/2001 Doney Park Water Company 195 Rio Vista Estates Apache 21 North 28 East 13 34 53-401474 Inadequate A1 11/3/2004 Navajo Tribal Utility 196 River Run Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 5 214 53-400290 Inadequate A1 4/13/2000 Town of Eagar 197 Rolling Hills #2 Navajo 12 North 21 East 3 49 53-501341 Adequate 3/12/1974 Town of Taylor 198 Roundhouse Square #2 Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 0 53-501345 Adequate 3/31/1976 Ponderosa Water Company 128 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 16 53-402183 Inadequate A1 15 53-300370 Adequate 14 53-501372 Inadequate 131 53-501373 Adequate 30 53-700299 Inadequate A1 5/2/2007 27 53-501378 Inadequate A1 2/11/1986 Pineview Water Company 5 112 53-501388 Adequate 12/16/1974 Pinetop Water Company 24 East 9 41 53-700233 Inadequate 4/12/2007 Cedar Grove WC 10 North 21 East 23 124 53-501391 Adequate 7/1/1975 City of Show Low Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 147 53-700567 Inadequate A1 10/2/2008 Watco Inc. Apache 11 North 25 East 7, 18, 19 6 53-700257 Inadequate A1 4/4/2007 Dry Lot Subdivsion Subdivision Name 199 Sacred Circle Ranchos, lots 1-7,17-23, 46,47 Apache 10 North 24 East 10 200 San Juan Meadows Apache 13 North 27 East 25, 26 201 Saskan Ranch Coconino 21 North 6 East 23, 24 202 Satellite Homestead Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 203 Sawmill Point Navajo 12 North 16 East 13 204 Scotts Pine Meadows Navajo 9 North 22 East 9 205 Shadowing Pines Navajo 8 North 23 East 206 Show Low East Unit 1 Apache 10 North Navajo 207 208 Show Low Golf & Country Club Show Low Mountain Ranch County Location Map Key Township Range Section No. of Lots D Date of Determination 6/14/2006 Cedar Grove WC 10/31/1997 Dry Lot Subdivsion 8/31/1994 5/13/1975 A1 Water Provider at the Time of Application HOA Wells Silver Well Service Corporation Heber Domestic Water Improvement District 209 Show Low Pines Unit 5 210 Show Low Vista Community - Unit 1A Navajo 10 North 22 East 18 20 53-300490 Adequate 7/8/1998 City of Show Low 211 Sierra Pines Navajo 10 North 22 East 30 57 53-300054 Adequate 10/19/1995 City of Show Low 9/19/1996 City of Show Low 212 Sierra Pines Unit Two Navajo 10 North 22 East 30 30 53-300198 Inadequate 213 Sierra Pines Unit Three Navajo 10 North 22 East 29, 30 39 53-300379 Adequate A1 10/15/1997 City of Show Low 214 Sierra Pines Unit Four Navajo 10 North 22 East 30 49 53-300501 Adequate 7/21/1998 Dry Lot Subdivsion Sierra Springs Ranch HOA 215 Sierra Springs Ranch Navajo 9 North 23 East 27, 34 51 53-401740 Adequate 3/29/2006 216 Sierra Vista Ranchettes Navajo 19 North 15 East 1 20 53-501407 Adequate 6/5/1986 217 Silver Creek Golf Heights, Unit 1 Navajo 11 North 22 East 11 50 53-700343 Inadequate A1 6/14/2007 Silver Creek Village Navajo 11 North 22 East 15 0 53-501409 Inadequate A1 2/4/1985 C 7/25/1996 218 219 220 Silver Creek Waterfront Estates Silver Lake Estates No. 1 &2 Navajo 11 North 22 East 10, 11 99 53-400262 Adequate Navajo 11 North 22 East 35 12 53-300146 Inadequate 2/3/2000 Dry Lot Subdivsion White Mountain Lake Estates, Inc. White Mountain Lake Water Company White Mountain Lake Estates, Inc. Silver Well Service Corporation Doney Park Water Company 221 Skyline Estates Coconino 22 North 9 East 19 9 53-401403 Inadequate D 9/2/2004 222 Skyline Ranch Apache 10 North 24 East 11, 12 71 53-700340 Inadequate A1 6/12/2007 The Wilderness 223 Slayton Ranch Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 13, 19, 24 117 53-401149 Inadequate A1,A2 12/22/2003 Doney Park Water Company 224 Snowbase Coconino 22 North 6 East 26 55 53-300287 Inadequate A1 6/4/1997 Dry Lot Subdivsion 225 Snowbowl Ranch Coconino 22 North 6 East 23 15 53-501421 Inadequate A1,A2 8/24/1994 Dry Lot Subdivsion 226 Snowbowl Ranch Unit 2 Coconino 22 North 6 East 23 10 53-700545 Inadequate A1 7/7/2008 Dry Lot Subdivsion 227 Snowbowl Ranch Unit 3 Coconino 22 North 6 East 23 14 53-700547 Inadequate A1 7/10/2008 Dry Lot Subdivsion Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports County Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Subdivision Name 228 Snowflake Cntry Club Properties Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 80 53-400563 Adequate 8/20/2001 Town of Snowflake 229 Snowflake Country Club Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 57 53-501422 Adequate 6/4/1980 Town of Snowflake 8/9/1985 Dry Lot Subdivsion Township Range Section 230 Snowflake East #1 Navajo 13 North 22 East 3 25 53-501425 Inadequate 231 Snowflake Garden Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 14 47 53-501426 Adequate 7/8/1974 Town of Snowflake 232 Snowflake Heights Navajo 13 North 22 East 17 90 53-501427 Adequate 1/27/1984 Town of Snowflake 233 Snowflake Heights #2 Navajo 13 North 22 East 17 131 53-501428 Adequate 6/6/1984 Town of Snowflake 234 Solomon's Lakes Navajo 11 North 22 East 6 56 53-700513 Inadequate A1 4/11/2008 Dry Lot Subdivsion 235 Stardust Meadows Coconino 22 North 8 East 24 9 53-300002 Inadequate A1 4/10/1995 Stardust Trails Subdivision Coconino A1 236 A1 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Map Key 22 North 8 East 23, 24 5 53-700305 Inadequate 237 Starlight Pines #1 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 54 53-501451 Adequate 5/23/1983 Mogollon Water Company 238 Starlight Pines #2 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 176 53-501452 Adequate 4/24/1986 Mogollon Water Company 239 Starlight Pines #3 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 118 53-501453 Adequate 10/24/1986 Mogollon Water Company 240 Starlight Pines #4 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 248 53-501454 Adequate 11/9/1988 Mogollon Water Company Starlight Pines #5 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 17 53-501455 Adequate 2/9/1995 Starlight Water Company Starlight Pines Ranchettes Coconino 14 North 12 East 7 125 53-300093 Adequate 7/30/1996 Starlight Water Company 9 North 22 East 8 72 53-401754 Inadequate D 5/25/2005 Pineview Water Company 241 242 243 244 245 246 Starlight Ridge Estates Townhouses unit 1 Starlight Ridge Estates Townhouses Unit 2 Starlight Ridge Estates Unit 1 Starlight Ridge Estates Unit II Navajo 5/3/2007 Doney Park Water Company Doney Park Water Company Navajo 9 North 22 East 8 72 53-700333 Inadequate A1 6/22/2007 Pineview Water Company Navajo 9 North 22 East 8 48 53-401400 Inadequate D 7/20/2004 Pineview Water Company Navajo 9 North 22 East 8 95 53-402147 Inadequate A1 5/23/2006 Pineview Water Company Starwood Estates Navajo 8 North 23 East 1 65 53-400300 Inadequate D 5/3/2000 Ponderosa Water Company 248 Summer Meadows Apache 8 North 29 East 4 17 53-501473 Adequate 6/8/1981 Town of Eagar 249 Summer Meadows #3 Apache 8 North 29 East 4 7 53-501474 Inadequate A1 8/21/1986 250 Summer Place Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 58 53-501475 Adequate 10/8/1985 Summer Place North Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 45 53-300369 Adequate 11/17/1997 Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 40 53-400412 Adequate 9/28/2000 Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 68 53-700323 Adequate 8/7/2007 Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 43 53-700515 Adequate 6/23/2008 247 251 252 253 254 130 Summer Place North Unit 2 Summer Place North Unit 3A & 3B Summer Place North, Unit 3C Town of Eagar Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Arizona Water Company Overgaard Heber Domestic Water Improvement District Arizona Water Company Overgaard Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key 255 257 Subdivision Name Sun Valley Highlands No. 2 Sundance Springs Community County No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 5 58 53-300308 Inadequate A1 6/3/1997 Dry Lot Subdivsion 13 257 53-401743 Adequate 8/4/2005 Snowflake Municipal Water Company Location Township Range Navajo 18 North 22 East Navajo 13 North 21 East Section 258 Sunrise Vista Estates Apache 10 North 24 East 9 24 53-501514 Adequate 259 Sunset Vista Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 31 24 53-300390 Inadequate A1 11/19/1997 260 Tall Pine Estates #2 Coconino 18 North 9 East 28 44 53-501534 Inadequate A1 8/10/1989 261 Tamarron Pines Coconino 15 North 12 East 32 411 53-400100 Adequate 7/8/1999 Starlight Water Company 262 The Commons at White Mountain Lodge Apache 7 North 27 East 11 7 53-402010 Inadequate A1 2/9/2006 White Mountain Lodge 22 North 6 East 23 74 53-700246 Inadequate A1 3/29/2007 Majestic Views Domestic Water Improvement District Navajo 10 North 21 East 13, 24 66 53-700337 Inadequate A1 5/22/2007 Navajo 10 North 21 East 13, 24 90 53-700336 Inadequate A1 5/22/2007 D 263 264 265 The Ranch At The Peaks Coconino The Retreat Villas at Bison Crossing The Retreat at Bison Crossing 10/26/1993 Water Provider at the Time of Application 266 The Village Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 17 53-401373 Inadequate 267 Thunder Run Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 30 41 53-400132 Adequate 268 Timberline Estates #3 Coconino 22 North 8 East 9 10 53-501560 Inadequate A2 10/3/1989 Timberline Estates Unit 4 Coconino A1,A2 10/20/1999 269 8/4/2004 7/28/1999 Cedar Grove WC Doney Park Water Company Tall Pines Estates Water & Improvement Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water Co. Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water Co. Park Valley / Fool Hollow Water Co. Arizona Water Company Overgaard Doney Park Water Company Doney Park Water Company Joseph City Water Company 22 North 8 East 9 25 53-400187 Inadequate 270 Town and Country #1 Navajo 18 North 19 East 15 33 53-501574 Adequate 5/7/1979 271 Udall Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 7, 18 37 53-501589 Adequate 12/5/1983 Town of Eagar 272 United Estates #1 Navajo 12 North 17 East 30 35 53-501591 Adequate 5/23/1979 Arizona Water Company Overgaard 273 Valley View Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 26 11 53-501601 Adequate 9/1/1976 Town of Eagar 274 Valley View Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 26 49 53-501602 Adequate 9/26/1977 Town of Snowflake 275 Valley View Estates #2 Apache 8 North 29 East 8 21 53-501603 Adequate 276 Vein of Gold Unit IV Navajo 18 North 22 East 5, 8 322 53-300309 Inadequate 277 Vernon Valley II Apache 10 North 25 East 22 28 53-501616 Adequate 278 Vista San Juan #1 Apache 13 North 28 East 31 45 53-501656 Adequate 279 Wagon Wheel Meadows Navajo 9 North 22 East 9 17 53-700240 Inadequate 280 Wenima Village Project Apache 9 North 29 East 8, 17, 18 221 53-501665 281 West Gardens Navajo 13 North 21 East 16 0 282 West Peak Coconino 21 North 6 East 23, 24 12 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A1 7/26/1982 Town of Eagar 6/3/1997 Dry Lot Subdivsion 10/15/1986 Serviceberry Water Company 12/6/1976 Developer Water Company 2/13/2007 Pineview Water Company Adequate 5/17/1989 Town of Springerville 53-501666 Adequate 12/9/1976 Town of Snowflake 53-501667 Inadequate 8/11/1994 Dry Lot Subdivsion A1 A2,A3 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 283 West View Subdivision Navajo 284 Westbrook Additn to the Vernon Townsite 285 Westwood Estates 286 287 Whispering Pines Townhouses White Mountain Lake Vistas, Unit I Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 12 53-401498 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 1/18/2005 Snowflake Municipal Water Company Township Range Section 13 North 21 East 23 Apache 10 North 25 East 21 8 53-400056 Adequate 4/18/2001 Vernon DWID Coconino 21 North 6 East 23 78 53-300012 Adequate 6/21/1995 Flagstaff Ranch Water Company Navajo 9 North 23 East 31 89 53-501675 Inadequate 7/3/1984 Pinetop Water Company Navajo 11 North 22 East 15 84 53-401733 Inadequate A1 10/4/2005 288 White Mountain Lakes #18 Navajo 11 North 22 East 10, 14, 15 132 53-501678 Inadequate A1 9/27/1984 289 White Mountain Lakes Airpark Voyager Unit I Navajo 11 North 22 East 13, 24 61 53-402149 Inadequate A1 6/15/2006 290 White Mountain Lakes Estates Navajo 11 North 22 East 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 0 53-501679 Adequate 9 North 10 North 9 North 10 North 22 East 22 East 22 East 22 East 4, 5 32, 33 4 33 117 53-400626 Inadequate A1 7 53-401415 Inadequate A1 10 North 24 East 12 115 53-501686 Adequate 291 292 293 294 295 296 White Mountain Vacation Village, LLC White Mountain Vacation Village, Unit 2 Phase 3 Wilderness, The Winchester Trails Ranches Winchester Trails Ranches #2 Windsor Valley Ranch Phase 2 Navajo Navajo Apache White Mountain Lake Estates, Inc. White Mountain Lake Estates, Inc. White Mountain Lake Estates, Inc. 6/27/1985 White Mountain Lake Estates, Inc. 11/8/2001 Pineview Water Company 38214 Pineview Water Company 7/10/1991 Apache 10 North 25 East 17 125 53-501692 Adequate Apache 10 North 25 East 17 68 53-501693 Inadequate C 1/28/1985 Dry Lot Subdivsion 11 North 25 East 12 North 25 East 3 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34 332 53-700551 Inadequate A1 9/29/2008 Dry Lot Subdivsion Apache 12 North 25 East 25, 26, 27, 28 321 53-402094 Inadequate A1 9/1/2006 Dry Lot Subdivsion Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 53-501697 Inadequate A1 4/11/1990 Dry Lot Subdivsion Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 53-501698 Inadequate A1 7/7/1992 Dry Lot Subdivsion Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 53-300534 Inadequate A1,A2 9/22/1998 Dry Lot Subdivsion Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 53-401217 Inadequate A1 3/2/2004 Dry Lot Subdivsion Navajo 9 North 22 East 9 26 53-400565 Inadequate A1 10/2/2001 Navajo 12 North 17 East 6 19 53-400043 Adequate Pineview Water Company Arizona Water Company Overgaard Apache 3/3/1987 Lord Arizona Water Systems Lord Arizona Water Systems 302 Windsor Valley Subdivision Wing Mountain Ranch, Unit 1 Wing Mountain Ranch, Unit 2 Wing Mountain Ranch, Unit 3 Wing Mountain Ranch, Unit 3, Phase 2 Wolf Pines Unit I 303 Woodland Acres 304 Woodland Hills Subdivision Navajo 8 North 23 East 6 152 53-300514 Inadequate A1,C 8/27/1998 Pinetop Water Company 305 Wupatki Trails Coconino 23 North 8 East 29, 32 41 53-400517 Inadequate A1 5/14/2001 Doney Park Water Company 306 Wye Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 11 18 53-501708 Adequate 8/22/1983 Town of Eagar 297 298 299 300 301 132 3/24/1999 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table 2.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin (Cont)1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Map Key Subdivision Name Padre Canyon Trails Planned Residential Development Sundance Springs Community 156 256 Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Coconino 21 North 11 East 19, 29, 31 1200 43-402073 6/23/2006 Undetermined Navajo 13 North 21 East 13 736 43-401744 7/21/2005 Snowflake Municipal Water Company County C. Designated Adequate Water Supply County Designation No. Arizona Water Company Lakeside & Pinetop Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Navajo 40-900000 No amount designated NA 10/25/1973 b City of Flagstaff Coconino 40-900002 No amount designated NA 5/17/1973 Map Key Basin a Year of Projected or Annual Demand No data, hydrologic study needed No data, hydrologic study needed No data, hydrologic study needed No data, hydrologic study needed c City of Holbrook Navajo 40-900005 No amount designated NA 5/17/1973 Not Shown City of Page Coconino 40-900009 No amount designated NA 5/17/1973 d Park Valley/Fools Hollow Water Company Navajo 40-402065 611.74 3/16/2006 10/16/2007 2016 e Pineview Water Company Navajo 40-402066 919.48 3/16/2006 8/20/2007 2016 f City of Show Low Navajo 40-300412 2,246 1/1/1998 4/15/1999 2010 g Town of Snowflake Navajo 40-401841 3,333 8/10/2005 1/17/2006 h Town of Springerville Apache 40-900013 No amount designated NA 5/17/1973 i City of St. Johns Apache 40-900012 No amount designated NA 5/16/1973 j Town of Taylor Navajo 40-900014 1,800 NA 12/21/1982 NA k Voyager at White Mountain Lakes Water Co. Navajo 40-700359 1,540 6/12/2007 2/19/2008 2017 l City of Winslow Navajo 40-900018 No amount designated NA 5/17/1973 No data, hydrologic study needed 2025 No data, hydrologic study needed No data, hydrologic study needed Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 2 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA=ta not currently available to ADWR 3 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 133 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 134 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Section 2.0 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 135 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU BASIN References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona, 1987-1990: USGS Open File Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, ADEQSWI Database: ADEQ data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP Database: ADEQ data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005c, Azurite Database: ADEQ data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005d, Database of surface water sources for providers: ADEQ data file, received June, 2005. _____, 2005e, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. to the LCR _____, 2005f, GIS cover of impaired lakes and reaches: Received January 2006. _____, 2005g, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files received July 2005. _____, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: ADEQ data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: ADEQ data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2008a, Databases of Assured and Adequate water supply determination: ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008d, Preliminary Hydrographic Survey Report for the Hopi Indian Reservation: In re The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. _____, 2005a, Database of flood warning gages: ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Database of inspected dams: ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005c, Database of non-jurisdictional dams: ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005d, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005e, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005g, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I. Inventory and Analysis _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1994c, Inventory of Irrigation and Reservoirs in the Lower Little Colorado River Watershed, in The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. _____, 1994d, Inventory of Large Reservoirs in the Little Colorado River System, in The Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 136 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source _____, 1992, Preliminary Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt Watershed, Volume 1: General Assessment, In re The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source. _____, 1990a, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Silver Creek Watershed. _____, 1990b, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. _____, 1989, Hydrology of the Little Colorado River System, Special report to the Settlement Committee, In re the General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source, October 1989. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, GIS cover of Springs: Accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, GIS cover of Streams: Accessed 2005 at http://www.land. state.az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2005c, GIS cover of water features: Accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us / alris/index.html. _____, 2004, GIS cover of land ownership: Accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase 1, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. Arizona Game and Fish (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file received April 28, 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, GIS cover, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project. _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study: AZ Game & Fish Planning Department. Arizona Meterological Network (AZMET), 2005, Evaporation data from climatological stations: Accessed March 2009 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/az-data.htm B Bills, D.J. and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 02-265. Bills, D.J., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn, H.A. Pierce, R.D. Catchings and M.J. Rymer, 2000, Hydrology of the regional aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona 1994-97: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4122. Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. C Cooley, M.E., J.W. Harshbarger, J.P. Akers and W.F. Hardt, 1969, Regional Hydrogeology of the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservations, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, USGS Geological Survey Professional paper 521-A E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey databases: Accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. _____, 2005, Surf Your Watershed reports: Accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ ef_home2.water. 137 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 F Feth, J.H., 1954, Preliminary report of investigations of springs in the Mogollon rim region of Arizona, USGS Open file report 54-339 Flora, S., 2004, Hydrological characterization and discharge variability of springs in the middle Verde River watershed, central Arizona: Northern Arizona University M.S. thesis. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. GeoTrans, Inc. and Waterstone Environmental Hydrology and Engineering, Inc. (GeoTrans and Waterstone), 1999. A Three-Dimensional Flow Model of the D and N Aquifers, Black Mesa Basin, Arizona. Prepared for Peabody Western Coal Company. Gregory, H.E., 1916, The Navajo Country - A Geographic and Hydrographic Reconnaissance of Parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah: USGS Water Supply Paper 380. H Hack, J.T., 1942, The Changing Physical Environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona, Peabody Museum Papers, v. 35 no 1 pp 1-83. Hart, RJ, J.J. Ward, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Generalized hydrology and ground water budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and Salt River basins, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026. L Littin, G.R., 1993, Results of groundwater, surface water and water quality monitoring, Black Mesa area, Northeastern Arizona, 1991-1992: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4111. Lopes, T.J. and J.P. Hoffman, 1997, Geochemical Analyses of Ground-water Ages, Recharge Rates and Hydraulic Conductivity of the N Aquifer, Black Mesa Area, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4190. N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) station data: Accessed March 2009 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/Arizona/ arizona.html _____, 2005, Snow Course Data Network data file: Accessed December 2005 at http://www3. wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/snowhist.html Navajo Nation, 2008, Southern Paiute Reservation Boundary: GIS datafile, received 09/2008. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), 2004, Data file of NTUA wells and yields. O Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 2008, Black Mesa Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.OSM-EIS-33, November 2008. Oregon State University, 1998, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS): www.ocs.orst.edu/ prism, PRISM map – Arizona Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 138 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. Price, D. and T. Arnow, 1974, Summary appraisals of the nation’s groundwater resources, Upper Colorado region: USGS Professional Paper 813-C. S Soil Conservation Service (SCS) & USFS, 1981, Little Colorado River Basin, AZ-New Mexico, Coop Study, Appendix II – Water Resources, and Appendix IV - Recreation, Fish & Wildlife and Timber: USDA report. Spangler, L.E. and M.S. Johnson, 1999, Hydrology & water quality of the Oljato Alluvial Aquifer: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4074. T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectricpower, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293. TerraSpectra Geomatics, 2000, Abandoned uranium mines project, Arizona, New Mexico, UtahNavajo Lands, 1994-2000: EPA & Corps of Engineers joint report. Thomas, B., 2003, Water quality data for Navajo National Monument, Northeastern AZ, 2001-2002: USGS Open file report 03-287. _____, 2003, Water quality data for Walnut Canyon and Wupatki National Monuments, Arizona-2001-02: USGS Open File Report 03-286. Truini, M., J.P. Macy and T.J. Porter, 2005, Groundwater, surface water and water chemistry data, Black Mesa area, Northeastern Arizona, 2003-2004: USGS Open file report 20051080. Truini, M. and B.E. Thomas, 2004, Groundwater, surface water, and water chemistry data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona -2002-03: USGS Open file Report 03-503. Truini, M. and S.A. Longsworth, 2003, Hydrogeology of the D aquifer and movement and ages of groundwater determined from geochemical and isotopic analysis, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations 2003-4189. U United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams-Arizona: Accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/ webpages/nid.cfm. United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Database of springs and spring discharges through 2005: Received November 139 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study-land cover descriptions: Accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets received July, 2005. _____, 2005, Water and Wastewater Residential Rate Survey for the State of Arizona. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005a, Precipitation and temperature station data: Accessed December 2005 at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westevap. final.html _____, 2005b, Pan Evaporation Station data: Accessed December 2005 at http://www.wrcc.dri. edu/htmlfiles/westevap.final.html Supplemental Reading Allen, C., 1995, Analysis of the Hydrogeologic Conditions Present Within Fort Valley, Coconino County, AZ: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 136 p. Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: In Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2008, Lyman Lake total maximum daily load, Fact sheet 08-02. _____, 2008, Lake Mary Regional total maximum daily load, Fact sheet 08-17. _____, 2007, Little Colorado River Total Maximum Daily Load, Fact Sheet 07-03. _____, 2006, Rainbow Lake Total Maximum Daily Load, Fact Sheet 06-16. _____, 2002, Little Colorado River TMDL for Turbidity. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 1997, Preliminary hydrographic survey report of Indian lands in the Little Colorado River basin: Arizona Department of Water Resources Report. _____, 1990, Hydrographic survey report for the Silver Creek watershed, volumes 1-5: The general adjudication of the Little Colorado River system and source. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 140 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Army Corps of Engineers, 1991, Holbrook levees, Little Colorado River basin, Little Colorado River at Holbrook, Arizona: US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angles District, Report. Bartholomew Engineering, Inc., 1986, Amended water adequacy study for Vernon ValleyII, Apache County, Arizona. Berghoff, K., L. Boobar and J. Ritenour, 1998, The effects of land use on water quality at the beaches of Lake Powell: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona. Bills, D.J., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn, H.A. Pierce, R.D. Catchings and M.J. Rymer, 2000, Hydrology of the regional aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994-1997: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00 - 4122, 143 p. Bills, D.J. and H.W. Hjarlmarson, 1990, Estimates of groundwater flow components for Lyman Lake, Apache County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 894151. Blakemore, T.E., 2003, Water quality data for Navajo National Monument, Northeastern Arizona, 2001-2002: USGS Open File Report 03-287. Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., 1984, Report on adequate water supply for proposed Heber Associates Development. Bowman, S. N., 2000, Nutrioso Creek TMDL for turbidity: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, June 2000. Brian, N.J., 1992, Historical review of water flow and riparian vegetation at Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona: NPS Technical Report NPS/ WRUA.NRTR-92/44. Brown and Caldwell, 1997, Hydrologic study for city of Show Low Arizona in support of designation of adequate water supply. Bureau of Reclamation and the GOES Office in Flagstaff, Arizona, 1990, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Phase II, Draft Integrated Research Plan Volume I. _____, 2000, Appraisal level study of Water Delivery System Analyses: North Central Arizona Regional Water Supply Project. Carpenter, T.L., 2001, The origin of isotopically anomalous waters of the Mogollon Rim region of Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. Thesis, 107 p. City of Show Low, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted July 2003. 141 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Cherry, D. and C. Cullom, 1996, A discussion of the vulnerability of Blue Springs to the impacts of well withdrawals in the Little Colorado River watershed: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p.3. Craig, S.D., W.L. Dam, J.M. Kernodle and C.R. Thorn, 1990, Hydrology of the Point Lookout sandstone in the San Juan structural basin, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Utah: USGS 1990 report, 2 sheets. Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, Inc. (DBSA), 2000, Hopi Drought Plan. Prepared with the Hopi Tribe, August, 2000. Desta, A.S., 2006, Modeling precipitation-runoff relationships to determine water yield from a ponderosa pine forest watershed: Thesis (M.S.), Northern Arizona University, 2006. Dickens, C. M., 2004, Hydrologic study: water adequacy report- Foxboro Ranch Estates, Coconino County, Arizona. Dixson, E.C., 1990, Hydrologeology and groundwater quality in the Sanders area, western Puerco basin, Arizona: University of Nevada, M.S. thesis. Dohm, S., 1995, Hydrogeology and ground-water availability of the Bird Springs alluvial aquifer, Navajo Indian Reservation: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 133 p. Downm, C.E., L. Harper and R. Boston, 1995, Walnut Canyon and Water: Capture, storage, and use during the Sinagua period of occupation, CA. A.D. 1100-1300: NAU Archeological Report No. 1125. Dulaney, A.R., 1991, Water chemistry of the Navajo-Lukachukai aquifer system, Black Mesa basin and vicinity, Arizona: Proceedings from the 4th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium. Environmental and Earth Science Consultants Ltd., 2000, Hydrologic study for demonstrating an adequate water supply- Silver Creek Waterfront Estates, White Mountain Lake Estates Water Company, White Mountain Lake, Navajo County, Arizona. _____, 1998, Hydrologic study for demonstrating an adequate water supply- Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Cedar Grove Water Company, Apache County, Arizona. Errol L. Montgomery and Associates, 1996a, Assessment of hydrologic conditions and potential effects of proposed groundwater withdrawal for Canyon Forest Village, Coconino County, Arizona: report June 1996. Feth, J.H., 1954, Preliminary report of investigations of springs in the Mogollon rim region of Arizona: USGS Open file report 54-339. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 142 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Fisk, G.G., S.A. Ferguson, D.R. Rankin and L. Wirt, 1994, Chemical, geologic, and hydrological data from the Little Colorado River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Open File Report 94-356. Flynn, M. and N. Hornewer, 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Garrett, L.D. and P.J. Garrett, 2001, LCR-MOM/ADWR cooperative project on forest restoration- a work plan for forest restoration and monitoring activities on the Billy Creek /Thompson Creek subwatershed area - Apache Sitgreaves National Forest: M3 Research, final report. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Geotrans Co, 1993, Investigation of the N and D aquifer geochemistry and flow characteristics using major ion and isotope chemistry, petrology, rock stress analysis, and dendrochronology in the Black Mesa area, Arizona: Peabody Western Coal Co., report. Geo V. Sabol Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1993, Little Colorado River geomorphology and river stability study, Navajo County, Arizona: 2 vol. Gillespie, E.L., 1983, Demonstration of hydrologic ground water evaluation of the Star Light Pines subdivision, Coconino County, Arizona. Godwin, T. N., A.E. Springer and L.E. DeWald, 1999, Restoration of a degraded perennial spring-fed riparian system on the Colorado Plateau: EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol. 80. _____, 1998, Anthropogenic influences on spring-dominated, high elevation riparian ecosystems in a semi-arid region: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 30, p. A120. Graf, J.B., L. Wirt, E.K. Swanson, G.G Fisk and J.R. Gray, 1996, Stream-flow transport of radionuclides and other chemical constituents in the Puerco and Little Colorado River \ basins, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water-Supply Paper 2459, 89 p. Gray, J.R. and R.H. Webb, 1991, Radionuclides in the Puerco and Lower Little Colorado River basins, New Mexico and Arizona: in Radon in Water: USGS Bulletin 1971, p.297311. Gray, J.R., 1990, Water quality in uranium mine pits and groundwater in the Cameron Uranium Mining Belt, Arizona: in Minimizing Risks to the Hydrologic Environment: Abstracts from the American Institute of Hydrology Meeting, March 1990, Las Vegas, Nevada, p.19. 143 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Grecu, V., 1995, Structural and Hydrologic Analysis of Coconino-Supai Aquifer, Lake Mary Watershed, Coconino County Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 143 p. Griffith, S., 1993, Geochemistry and reaction path modeling of the N-aquifer system, Hopi Reservation Northeastern Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 107 p. Harms, R., 2005a, Canyon De Chelly National Park springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. _____, 2005b, Navajo National Monument springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. _____, 2005c, Petrified Forest National Park springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. Hart, H.E. and others, 2004, Physical and chemical characteristics of Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui canyons and the effects of recreational use on water quality, Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5120, 40 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. _____, Assessment of spring chemistry along the south rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet 096-02. _____, 1992, Comparison of water quality characteristics of Lake Powell and the Colorado River: in Lake Reservoir, and Watershed Management in a Changing Environment: Abstracts from the 11th annual International Symposium of the North American Lake Management Society, November 1991, Denver Colorado, p.70. Hart, R.J., J.J. Ward, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Generalized hydrology and groundwater budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin, and parts of Verde and Salt River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026, 47 p. Hart, R.J. and K.M. Sherman, 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the forebay and outflows of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p. Hereford, R., 2007, Climate Variation at Flagstaff, Arizona - 1950 to 2007:USGS Open File Report 2007-1410, 17 p. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 144 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Higgins, D.P., 1999, Leakage simulations from a perched mountain aquifer in the inner basin, San Francisco Mountains, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 141 p. Hinchman, V.H., 1993, Relationships between riparian vegetation and alluvial channel deposits, Little Colorado River Arizona: Arizona State University, M. S. thesis. Hornewer, N.J. and M.E. Flynn, 2008, Bathymetric Survey and Storage Capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 20081098. HydroSystems, Inc., 2004, Physical availability demonstration analysis for Flagstaff Meadows in Coconino County Arizona. Johnson, M.S. and J.D. Sorrell, 1998, Hydrogeology of the Bird Springs alluvial aquifer Navajo nation: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 139. Johnson, M.S. and L.E. Spangler, 1996, Hydrogeologic investigation of the Oljeto Wash aquifer, Monument Valley, Arizona and Utah: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p. 159. Kelly, S.E., 2000, Ground water flow simulation and recharge sources for a fractured sandstone aquifer, Coconino County, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis 145 p. Kelly, S., A. Springer and M. Vanderbilt, 1999, Recharge mechanisms for the CoconinoSchnebly Hill aquifer in the Lake Mary area, Coconino County, Northern Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Kennard, M., 1990, Water supply aspects of the Navajo-Lukachukai aquifer system, Black Mesa and vicinity, Arizona: Geological Society of America annual meeting, Dallas Texas, 11 p. Leake, S.A., J.P. Hoffmann and J.E. Dickinson, 2005, Numerical ground-water change model of the C Aquifer and effects of ground-water withdrawals on stream depletion in selected reaches of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek and the Little Colorado River, Northeastern Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5277, 29 p. LCR-MOM Program Coordinating Committee, 2000, Strategic plan of the Little Colorado River watershed multiple objective management group, LCR-MOM. Littin, G.R., B.A. Baum and M. Truini, 1999, Groundwater, surface water and water chemistry data, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona-1997: USGS Open–File Report 98-653, 27 p. 145 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Longsworth, S.A., 1994, Geohydrology and water chemistry of abandoned uranium mines and radiochemistry of spoil-material leachate, Monument Valley and Cameron areas, Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigation 93-4226. Lombard, J. P., T.W. Anderson, E.L. Montgomery, and J.K. Blainer-Fleming, 1992, Aquifer systems of the southern Colorado Plateau: in Proceedings of Arizona Water 2000: Commission on the Arizona Environment and Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1992, p. 287-303. Lopes, T.J., and J.P. Hoffman, 1996, Geochemical analysis of groundwater ages, recharge rates and hydraulic conductivity of the N aquifer, Black Mesa area, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations 96-4190. Manera, P. A., 1988, Ground water evaluation in preparation for an application for adequacy of water supply, Flagstaff Ranch Water Company. Manion-Farrar, J., 2008, Water conservation policy in Northern Arizona : successes and limitations: Thesis (M.A.) -- Northern Arizona University, 2008. Marley, B., 2004, C aquifer exploration near Moenkopi, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Marley, B., B. Newcomer and R. Morgan, 1999, Inter-aquifer leakage or inadequate annular well seals: What is the origin of poor groundwater quality in the N Aquifer in the southeastern part of the Black Mesa basin?: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. McCulley, B., 1995, Marble Canyon Spring Sampling Investigation: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute. McGavock, E., 2004, Challenge of water supply in northern Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Misseri, P.E., 1998, The Upper Colorado River comprehensive water plan: Town of Eager report. _____ 1996b, Hydrogeologic monitor program February 1, 1995 through January 31, 1996, Springerville Generating Station area, Apache County, Arizona: Tucson Electric & Power Report. _____, 1993a, Results of 90-day aquifer test and groundwater flow model projections for long term water yield of the Coconino-Supai aquifer Lake Mary well field, Coconino County, Arizona: Tucson, Arizona, Errol L. Montgomery and Associates report prepared for the city of Flagstaff, 1885 p. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 146 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 _____, 1993b, Projections for composite drawdown impact for the Kaibab-Coconino aquifer based on revised projected groundwater withdrawals for the Springerville and Coronado generation stations, Apache County Arizona: Tucson Electric Power report. Montgomery, E.L., E.H. McGavock and W.R. Victor, 1999, The R-Aquifer system in northern Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Moody, T., R. Valencia, K. Wirtanen and M. Wirtanen, 2001, Upper Little Colorado River Concept Plan: a road map and resource guide to riparian enhancement for private landowners: Northern Arizona University, College of Engineering and Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Morgan, J., 2000, A new look at the structure of the Coconino aquifer of northeastern Arizona: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p.67. Morgan, R., 1995, Draft progress report on the characteristics of the Little Colorado River basin of northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico: Bureau of Reclamation contract no. 1-FC-40-10560. Mullen, G., A. Springer, T. Kolb and A. Ament, 2002, Restoration of wet meadows: Influence of burning herbaceous communities on groundwater recharge: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. National Park Service, 1999a, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Canyon De Chelly National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-99/228. _____, 1999b, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Navajo National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-98/196. _____, 1999c, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Walnut Canyon National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report, NPS/NRWRD/ NRTR-99/224, 203 pp. _____, 1997, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report NPS/NRWRD/ NRTR-97/144, 177 pp. _____, 1996a, Baseline water quality inventory and analysis, Sunset Crater National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-96/90, 161 pp. 147 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 _____, 1996b, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Wupatki National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-96/82, 229 pp. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2008, Little Colorado River Headwaters Watershed Arizona Rapid Watershed Assessment. _____, 2007a, Chevelon Canyon Watershed-Arizona: Rapid Watershed Assessment. _____, 2007b, Silver Creek Watershed-Arizona: Rapid Watershed Assessment. Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, 2004, Appraisal Study - Ganado Irrigation Water Conservation Project, 3 Volumes of Appendices: U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Native American Affairs Office, Phoenix AZ, September 30, 2000. ______, 2002a, Navajo Nation Drought Report. ______, 2002b, Navajo Nation Irrigation Rehabilitation Strategy Draft: Department of Agriculture, white paper. ______, 2001, Navajo Nation Land Plan Draft: Navajo Soil and Water conservation Districts, and Navajo Resource Conservation and Development _____, 1999 NDWR, Water Management Branch, Hydrologeology of the Little Colorado River alluvial aquifer, Bird Springs Study Area; US Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs, final report. NDWR, USBOR and US Indian Health Service, 2002, White Paper, Navajo Nation Municipal Water Development Strategy, Draft. Northwest Economics Associates, 1993, Garden and livestock water use in the N aquifer basin: Report for regional Native American communities. O’Day, C. M. and S.A. Leake, 1995, Ground water availability in the Flagstaff area of the Colorado Plateau, Arizona: in Water Use in Arizona: Cooperation or Conflict?: Proceedings from the 8th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1995, Tucson, Arizona, p. 2-3. Parker, J.T.C., 1998, Low and zero discharge control on the morphology of tributaries in the East Dinnebito Wash drainage basin, Black Mesa, northeastern Arizona: in Supplement to EOS Transactions from the American Geophysical Union fall meeting, November 1998, p. F305. Parra, I., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin, L.R. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan for the Little Colorado Watershed: Accessed October, 2008 at www.srnr.arizona.edu/nemo Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 148 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Parsons Brinckerhoff Value Engineering, 2002, Show Low Creek reservoir system evaluation: final report for Northern Arizona University and Navajo County, 02-09. Pinkham, R., and Davis, B., 2002, North Central Arizona Water Demand Study, Phase 1 Report. PMCL and Rocky Mountain Institute. Reed, K.E., 2005, Renegotiating Urban Water Management in Flagstaff, Arizona-Origins and Implications of Conservation Policies, CLIMAS Report Series CL 1-04. Roessel, R.J., 1994, Hydrogeology of the Chinle Wash watershed, Navajo Nation Arizona, Utah and New Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990-1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Scott, P.W., 1994, Hydrogeological-structural analysis of the Woody Mountain well field area with geophysical interpretations: Northern Arizona M.S. thesis. Schlinger, C. and J. Janecek, 2002, Lone Pine Dam groundwater recharge evaluation: Northern Arizona University report for Navajo County. Sottillare, J.P., D.J. Bills and J.G. Brown, 1992, Results of groundwater, surface water and water quality monitoring, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 92-4008. Southwest Ground-water Consultants Inc., 2005, Hydrologic investigation, Sundance Springs Community, Snowflake, Arizona. _____, 1998, Hydrologic study in support of an application for a water adequacy report, Pine Canyon Estates near Starlight Pines, Arizona. _____, 2001, Application for water adequacy report, Hidden Meadow Ranch (Formerly Aspen Meadow Ranch), Apache County, Arizona. Springer, A.E., A.J. Gavin, T.N. Godwin, D.P. Higgins, R.W. Wilkinson, 1998, Characterization and ecological restoration of perched aquifers in the Flagstaff, Arizona, area: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 30, p. 37. Springer, A.E. and D. Bills, 1998, Exploration for and ecological importance of shallow and deep ground-water around San Francisco Mountain: in Duebendorfer, E.M., ed., Geologic excursions in northern and central Arizona, p. 27-33. Strength, D., R.A. Parnell, Jr. and J.B. Bennett, 1996, Rates of travertine deposition: comparison of laboratory and field rates in the Little Colorado River, Arizona: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 47, no. 46. 149 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Stumpner, P., 2004a, Data report for survey of Heiser and Peshlaki springs, Wupatki National Monument; NPS unnumbered report. _____, 2004b. Hydrolgeological investigations and water table monitoring recommendation Deadman Wash and Little Colorado River confluence area, Wupatki National Monument: NPS unnumbered report. Rowlands, P.G., C.C. Avery, N.J. Brian and H. Johnson, 1995, Historic flow regimes and canyon bottom vegetation dynamics at Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona: National Park Service report. Tecle, A., M.R. Wagner and C.C. Avery, 1993, The effect of pulp mill wastewater irrigation on soil salinity: in Emerging Critical Issues in Water Resources of Arizona and the Southwest: Proceedings from the 6th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1993, Casa Grande, Arizona, p. 268. Tetra Tech, 1999, Rainbow Lake-total maximum daily load study: Draft report prepared for ADEQ. Thomas, B.E., 2003, Water quality data for Navajo National Monument, northeastern Arizona-2001-2002: USGS Open File Report 03-287. _____, 2003,Water quality data for Walnut Canyon and Wupatki National Monuments, Arizona2001-2002: USGS Open – File Report 03-286, 13 p. _____, 2002, Groundwater, surface-water, and water-chemistry data, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona-2001-02, and performance and sensitivity of the USGS 1988 numerical model of the N aquifer: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02 4211, 75 p. Thorstenson, D.J. and L.S. Beard, 1998, Geology and fracture analysis of Camp Navajo, Arizona Army National Guard, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 98-242, 42 p. Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted March 2001. Town of Snowflake, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted 2003. Town of Taylor, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted December 2003. Towne, D.C., W.K. Yu and S. Emrick, 1996, The impacts of septic systems on water quality of shallow aquifers: a case study of Fort Valley, Arizona: in Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 150 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p.191. Tso, E., 1995, Hydrogeologic Evaluation of a Proposed Solid Waste Landfill Site, Located Ten Miles North East of Cameron, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 116 p. Truini, M. and J.P. Macy, 2007, Ground-Water, Surface-Water, and Water-Chemistry Data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona-2005-06 USGS Open-File Report 2007-1041. Truini, M. and S.A. Longsworth, 2003 Hydrology of the D aquifer and movement and ages of ground water determined from geo-chemical and isotopic analysis, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03 - 4189, 38 p. United States Department of Energy, 2008, Annual Groundwater Report April 2007 through March 2008 Tuba City, Arizona, Disposal Site, Office of Legacy Management: Doc. No. S0426800. United Sates Department of the Interior, 2004, Analysis of Little Colorado River stability between Holbrook and Winslow, Arizona: In Little Colorado River Sediment Study, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, May 23, 2003. _____, 2000, Water delivery system analysis of the North Central Arizona Regional Water Supply Project: Bureau of Reclamation, draft, September 2000. _____, 2000, Western Navajo Water Supply Project- Lake Powell Arizona to Cameron, Arizona: Bureau of Reclamation, April, 2000. Upper Little Colorado River Watershed Partnership, 2001, Watershed action and management plan, draft. Van Metre, P.C., 1990, Flow and water quality relations between surface water and groundwater in the Puerco River basin near Chambers, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Van Metre, P.C, L. Wirt, T.J. Lopes and S.A. Ferguson, 1997, Effects of uranium mine releases on groundwater quality in the Puerco River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Supply Paper 2476,73 p. Vitale, J., 2003, Water adequacy report for Linden Trails, Linden, Navajo County, Arizona. Waltemeyer, S.D., 2006, Analysis of the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Discharges for the Navajo Nation in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5306, 42 p. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. 151 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Weber, D.S. and E.L. Montgomery, 1994, Projections for long-term groundwater yield from the Coconino - Supai aquifer, Lake Mary area, Northern Arizona: in the Approaching Millennium-Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 311326. Wickham, M., 1992, The geochemistry of surface water and ground water interactions for selected Black Mesa drainages, Little Colorado River basin, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Wirt, L., P.C. Van Metre and B. Favor, 1991, Historical water-quality data, Puerco River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Open File Report 91-196. Woodward – Cline Consultants, 1992, Cholla ash ponds – groundwater interpretive report, Navajo County, Arizona: Arizona Public Service Report June 1992. Zhu, C., R.K. Waddell, I. Star and M. Ostrander, 1998, Responses of ground water in the Black Mesa Basin, northeastern Arizona, to paleoclimatic changes during the late Pleistocene and Holocene; Geology, vol. 26, no.2, 127-130. Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 152 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 153 Section 2.1 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAWS A.R.S. ADEQ ADOC ADOT ADWR AF AFA AZGF ALERT ALRIS AMA APS ASPC ASLD AUM AWPF AWS AZMET BIA BLM bls CDP CFD CLIMAS CODE COE CWR CWS DOD DOE DWID EIS ENSO EPA ESA FY GPCD gpm GWSI HSR HUC ID INA ITCA Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Arizona Revised Statutes Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Commerce Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Water Resources Acre-feet Acre-feet per year Arizona Game and Fish Department Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Arizona Public Service Arizona State Prison Complex Arizona State Land Department Abandoned Uranium Mines Arizona Water Protection Fund Assured Water Supply Arizona Meteorological Network Bureau of Indian Affairs (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management (U.S.) Below Land Surface Census Designated Place Community Facilities District Climate Assessment for the Southwest Arizona Groundwater Management Act - A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq. Corps of Engineers (U.S.) Certificate of Water Right Community Water System Department of Defense (U.S.) Department of Energy (U.S.) Domestic Water Improvement District Environmental Impact Statement El Nino/Southern Oscillation Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) Endangered Species Act - 7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. Fiscal Year Gallons Per Capita Per Day Gallons per minute Groundwater Site Inventory Hydrographic Survey Report Hydrologic Unit Code Irrigation District Irrigation Non-expansion Area Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 154 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 LCR LDIG LUST maf mg/l mgd MGS MHP NDEQ NDWR NEMO NGS NOAA NPS NRA NRCD NRCS NTUA NWS OSM/ OSMRE Pan ET P.L. PCC PCE PWCC RCD RCRA RWA SB SCS SNOTEL SOC SRP sq. mi. SWE TCE TDS UMTRA USBOR USDA USFS USFWS USGS USIHS VOC Little Colorado River Local Drought Impact Group Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Milligrams per liter Million gallons per day Mohave Generating Station Mobile Home Park Navajo Department of Environmental Quality Navajo Department of Water Resources Non-point Education for Municipal Officials Navajo Generating Station National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service (U.S.) National Recreation Area Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service Navajo Tribal Utility Authority National Weather Service Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Pan evaporation Public Law Program Certificate Conveyance Perchloroethylene Peabody Western Coal Company Resource Conservation District Resource Conservation Recovery Act Rapid Watershed Assessment Senate Bill Soil Conservation Service (U.S.) SNOwpack TELemetry Statement of Claimant Salt River Project Square miles Snow Water Equivalent Trichloroethylene Total dissolved solids Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Indian Health Service Volatile organic compound 155 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIX A Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 156 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Appendix A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects In the Eastern Plateau Planning Area through FY 2008 Groundwater Basin EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA AWPF Grant Project Title # Project Category Little Colorado River Plateau 96-0003 Hoxworth Springs Riparian Restoration Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 96-0022 Saffell Canyon and Murray Basin Watershed Restoration Feasibility Study Little Colorado River Plateau 96-0025 Tsaile Creek Watershed Restoration Demonstration Watershed Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 96-0002 Completion Phase: Hi-Point Well Project Fencing Little Colorado River Plateau 97-029 Demonstration Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post Stream Restoration & Revegetation Little Colorado River Plateau 97-037 Talastima (Blue Canyon) Watershed Restoration Project Exotic Species Control & Fencing Little Colorado River Plateau 98-046 EC Bar Ranch Water Well Project Fencing & Water Developments Little Colorado River Plateau 98-051 Evaluation of Carex Species for Use in Riparian Restoration Research Little Colorado River Plateau 99-067 EC Bar Ranch Wildlife Drinker Project Little Colorado River Plateau 99-079 Little Colorado River Riparian Restoration Project Little Colorado River Plateau 99-084 Assessments of Riparian Zones in the Little Colorado River Watershed Research Little Colorado River Plateau 99-089 Town of Eager/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design Feasibility Study Little Colorado River Plateau 99-092 Little Colorado River Enhancement Demonstration Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 99-095 Brown Creek Riparian Restoration Fencing & Water Developments 157 Livestock & Wildlife Water Developments Constructed Wetland & Revegetation Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Project Title Project Category Little Colorado River Plateau 00-101 Murray Basin and Saffell Canyon Watershed Restoration Project Watershed Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 00-104 Continued Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site Exotic Species Control & Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 00-105 Hubbell Trading Post Riparian Restoration with Treated Effluent Revegetation Little Colorado River Plateau 00-108 Lake Mary Watershed Streams Restoration Channel Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 00-110 Upper Fairchild Draw Riparian Restoration Fencing & Revegetation 00-112 Town of Eagar/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design – Additional Mapping for Water Quality Improvements in the Watershed Feasibility Study Little Colorado River Plateau Little Colorado River Plateau 00-113 Polacca Wash Grazing Management Fencing & Exotic Species Control w/ Revegetation Little Colorado River Plateau 03-119 Wet Meadows for Water Quality and Wildlife – A Riparian Restoration Project Fencing & Habitat Protection Little Colorado River Plateau 05-125 Wilkins’ family Little Colorado River Riparian Enhancement Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 05-126 X Diamond Ranch LCR Riparian Enhancement Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 05-127 EC Bar Ranch Reach 8 Water Well and Drinker Project Water Developments Little Colorado River Plateau 06-136 The Arboretum at Flagstaff Wetland Habitat Enhancement Habitat Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 07-141 Picture Canyon Rio de Flag Meander Restoration Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 07-143 Little Colorado River & Nutrioso Creek Riparian Enhancement Project Stream Restoration Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 158 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Project Title Little Colorado River Plateau 07-146 Little Colorado River Project on H-Y Ranch River Recovery Project Little Colorado River Plateau 07-150 Fairchild Draw Riparian Restoration Project Little Colorado River Plateau 07-154 Billy Creek Natural Area Riparian Restoration Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 08-159 Hoxworth Springs Stream Channel Restoration Project Fencing & Stream Restoration 159 Project Category Fencing & Habitat Restoration Fencing & Habitat Restoration Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIX B Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 160 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans (all values are in acrefeet) PCC FACILITY Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered to 2007 Withdrawn 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 2007 Delivered to 91-000396 303 DOMESTIC WTR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LCR 2 2 2 CUSTOMER 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 91-000386 A PETERSEN WATER CO LCR 10 10 9 CUSTOMER 12 12 11 CUSTOMER 91-000100 ADOT GRAY MOUNTAIN M/C LCR 7 7 7 CUSTOMER 10 10 10 CUSTOMER 91-000108 ADOT PAGE YARD & M/C LCR 15 15 15 CUSTOMER 13 13 13 CUSTOMER 91-000004 ARIZONA WINDSONG WC LCR 8 8 9 CUSTOMER 9 9 16 CUSTOMER 91-000021 ASPC APACHE LCR NR 91-000408 ASPC WINSLOW APACHE LCR NR 91-000365 91-000366 91-000409 91-000393 91-000402 91-000018 91-000390 91-000368 AZ WATER CO LAKESIDE AZ WATER CO OVERGAARD BLACK MESA RANGER DISTRICT BOURDON RANCH ESTATES BUCKSKIN ARTISTS COMMUNITY CEDAR GROVE WATER CO CHAPARRAL PINES LCR 792 792 757 3 LCR 503 503 453 CUSTOMER 540 540 468 CUSTOMER LCR 9 9 9 CUSTOMER 13 13 14 CUSTOMER LCR 7 7 7 CUSTOMER 9 9 8 CUSTOMER LCR 65 65 65 CUSTOMER 57 57 57 CUSTOMER 69 68 17 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 45 44 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ OTHER CUSTOMER LCR 54 54 49 4 LCR 13 13 13 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM CUSTOMER LCR 43 43 39 CUSTOMER 91-000084 LCR 783 91-000002 EAGAR, TOWN OF LCR 595 91-000398 EL RANCHO GRANDE FLAGSTAFF RANCH WATER CO LCR LCR FLAGSTAFF, CITY OF LCR 6857 LCR 235 91-000003 91-000106 91-000086 91-000098 91-000099 91-000371 91-000089 91-000111 91-000014 FOREST LAKES WATER IMPROV GREENEHAVEN WATER CO HEBER DOMESTIC WID HECKETHORN WATER COMPANY HIDDEN HOLLOW MOBILE HOM HIDDEN MEADOW RANCH 161 NR CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM CLAY SPRINGS DWID COUNTRY LANE TRAILER PARK CROSBY SPRING AT GREER DONEY PARK WATER 91-000403 NR 898 898 818 CUSTOMER 69 NR 45 NR NR LCR NR NR LCR 783 782 700 668 98 22 22 52 52 105 1628 809 809 832 557 557 632 134 22 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ OTHER CUSTOMER 22 22 22 53 CUSTOMER 41 41 41 CUSTOMER 8485 7890 2286 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 8224 4990 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 235 235 CUSTOMER 144 CUSTOMER 19 CUSTOMER 8506 8840 NR NR LCR 334 NR LCR 138 138 138 CUSTOMER LCR 13 13 12 CUSTOMER LCR 10 10 10 CUSTOMER LCR 13 13 13 CUSTOMER 144 144 0 19 19 NR Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 PCC FACILITY Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered to 2007 Withdrawn 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 2007 Delivered to 91-000405 HIGH COUNTRY PINES WATER LCR 30 30 30 CUSTOMER 34 34 30 CUSTOMER 91-000372 HOLBROOK, CITY OF LCR 790 790 790 CUSTOMER 801 801 801 CUSTOMER 91-000373 JOSEPH CITY UTILITY LCR 91-000112 KACHINA VILLAGE MHP LCR 20 20 CUSTOMER 15 15 CUSTOMER 91-000363 LCR 8 8 CUSTOMER 91-000400 LAGUNA ESTATES LAKE MARY COUNTRY STORE LINDEN TRAILS LCR 15 15 91-000011 LIVCO WATER COMPANY LCR 150 94 15 91-000091 MORMON LAKE WC MOUNTAIN DELL WATER INC MT GLEN WS-LINDEN EAST NAVAJO CO GOVT COMPLEX OJO BONITO ESTATES DWID OLD CONCHO WATER USERS LCR 7 9 6 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM CUSTOMER 8 5 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM CUSTOMER LCR 22 22 23 CUSTOMER 23 23 22 CUSTOMER LCR 74 74 67 CUSTOMER 68 68 68 CUSTOMER LCR 64 64 64 CUSTOMER LCR 4 4 5 CUSTOMER 6 5 CUSTOMER PAGE, CITY OF LCR 2331 2024 CUSTOMER 91-000103 91-000092 91-000379 91-000395 91-000016 91-000006 91-000093 91-000369 91-000005 91-000375 91-000376 PARK VALLEY - FOOLS HOLLOW PINECREST WATER CO INC PINETOP WTR COM FACIL DIS PINEVIEW LAND AND WATER C NR NR 20 8 15 NR NR NR LCR NR 115 15 115 2 100 12 147 3 7 1 NR 6 NR NR LCR 2250 2250 1898 97 719 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM/OTHER 2331 LCR 185 185 170 CUSTOMER 200 200 183 CUSTOMER LCR 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 3 3 3 CUSTOMER LCR 468 468 467 CUSTOMER 478 478 407 CUSTOMER 341 279 1 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 367 367 288 1 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM LCR 335 6 91-000377 PONDEROSA WATER CO LCR 484 484 484 CUSTOMER 592 592 592 CUSTOMER 91-000370 PORTER CREEK DWID PORTER MOUNTAIN DWID RUNNING BEAR MOBIL RESORT SANDERS SCHOOL DISTRICT SERVICEBERRY WATER CO SHOW LOW CROSSROADS HOA LCR 25 25 27 CUSTOMER 27 27 27 LCR 16 16 14 CUSTOMER 19 19 17 1 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM LCR 8 8 8 CUSTOMER 4 4 CUSTOMER 91-000380 91-000378 91-000404 91-000013 NR NR NR LCR LCR 5 5 5 CUSTOMER LCR 4 4 4 CUSTOMER SHOW LOW, CITY OF LCR 1485 1485 1352/3/898 1651 1651 1543 CUSTOMER 91-000381 SILVER WELL SERVICE CORP CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM/OTHER LCR 50 50 48 CUSTOMER 56 56 59 CUSTOMER 91-000391 SITGREAVES WATER CO LCR 8 8 8 CUSTOMER 91-000020 91-000022 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 4 NR NR 162 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 PCC FACILITY Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered to 2007 Withdrawn CUSTOMER/ OTHER 1621 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 18 18 CUSTOMER 1621 1627/305 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 2007 Delivered to SKY-HI DOMESTIC IMP DIST LCR 91-000383 SNOWFLAKE, TOWN OF LCR 1416 1416 1416/299 91-000008 SPRINGERVILLE, TOWN OF LCR 290 290 290 CUSTOMER 286 286 286 CUSTOMER 91-000007 ST JOHNS, CITY OF LCR 662 662 578 CUSTOMER 726 726 618 CUSTOMER 36 29 CUSTOMER 91-000382 NR SUMMER PINES WATER LCR 36 91-000384 CO SUN VALLEY UTILITIES LCR 54 91-000364 COR 91-000399 SWEETWATER RANCH LCR 21 TALL PINES ESTATES LCR 4 91-000096 WATER 91-000385 TAYLOR, TOWN OF LCR 871 THE PINES AT 91-000407 SHOWLOW MASTER LCR PROP HOA INC 91-000023 THE WILDERNESS LCR 91-000367 TIMBERLAND ACRES LCR 54 TIMBERLINE MOBILE LCR 23 91-000401 HOME PK 91-000010 TK WATER SERVICE LCR 8 TWIN LAKES MOBILE LCR 21 91-000157 PARK USFS-CONF-BLUE RIDGE LCR 2 91-000113 R/S 91-000012 VERNON D W I D LCR 12 WEST VILLAGE WATER LCR 6 91-000095 CO WHITE MOUNTAIN LAKES LCR 91-000387 EST WHITE MOUNTAIN LCR 77 91-000389 SUMMER HO WHITE MOUNTAIN LCR 65 91-000406 WATER CO 91-000017 WINCHESTER TRAILS LCR 28 WINCHESTER WATER LCR 61 91-000074 CO. LLC 91-000388 WINSLOW, CITY OF LCR 1744 2000 WONDERLAND ACRES LCR 91-000397 DWID WOODRUFF DOMESTIC LCR 91-000394 WTR CO PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) 163 18 NR 54 54 CUSTOMER 52 52 52 CUSTOMER 21 21 CUSTOMER 36 36 36 CUSTOMER 4 4 CUSTOMER 7 7 7 CUSTOMER 871 870 CUSTOMER 973 973 972 CUSTOMER NR NR NR NR 54 47 CUSTOMER 60 60 53 CUSTOMER 23 23 CUSTOMER  23  &86720(5 9 9 9 CUSTOMER 4 3 CUSTOMER 9 7 CUSTOMER 78 67 CUSTOMER 8 8 CUSTOMER 21 21 CUSTOMER 2 1 CUSTOMER 12 12 CUSTOMER 6 6 CUSTOMER NR 4 NR 8 1 NR NR NR 77 85 CUSTOMER 65 63 CUSTOMER 28 28 CUSTOMER 61 62 CUSTOMER 63 3744 1744 CUSTOMER 1706 NR NR 78 NR 1100 63 63 CUSTOMER 2806 1706 CUSTOMER 38 38 CUSTOMER 38 NR Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Community Water System Plans submitted to the Department as of 12/2008 PCC 91-000396 91-000386 91-000100 91-000108 91-000365 91-000366 91-000409 91-000393 91-000402 91-000018 91-000390 91-000368 91-000084 91-000002 91-000398 91-000106 91-000086 91-000098 91-000371 91-000111 91-000014 91-000405 91-000372 91-000112 91-000090 91-000363 91-000103 91-000400 91-000011 91-000091 91-000092 91-000379 91-000016 91-000093 91-000369 91-000005 91-000376 91-000377 91-000370 91-000378 91-000404 91-000020 91-000381 91-000382 91-000383 91-000008 91-000102 91-000384 91-000364 NAME 303 DOMESTIC WTR IMPRO DISTRICT A PETERSEN WATER CO ADOT GRAY MOUNTAIN M/C ADOT PAGE YARD & M/C AZ WATER CO - LAKESIDE AZ WATER CO - OVERGAARD BLACK MESA RANGER DISTRICT BOURDON RANCH ESTATES BUCKSKIN ARTISTS COMMUNITY CEDAR GROVE WATER CO CHAPARRAL PINES CLAY SPRINGS DWID DONEY PARK WATER EAGAR, TOWN OF EL RANCHO GRANDE FLAGSTAFF RANCH WATER CO FLAGSTAFF, CITY OF FOREST LAKES WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HEBER DOMESTIC WID HIDDEN HOLLOW MOBILE HOM HIDDEN MEADOW RANCH HIGH COUNTRY PINES WATER HOLBROOK, CITY OF KACHINA VILLAGE MHP KACHINA VILLAGE UTILITIES LAGUNA ESTATES LAKE MARY COUNTRY STORE LINDEN TRAILS LIVCO WATER COMPANY MORMON LAKE WC MOUNTAIN DELL WATER INC MT GLEN WS-LINDEN EAST OJO BONITO ESTATES DWID PAGE, CITY OF PARK VALLEY - FOOLS HOLLOW PINECREST WATER CO INC PINEVIEW LAND AND WATER CO PONDEROSA WATER CO PORTER CREEK DWID PORTER MOUNTAIN DWID RUNNING BEAR MOBIL RESORT SERVICEBERRY WATER CO SILVER WELL SERVICE CORP SKY-HI DOMESTIC IMP DIST SNOWFLAKE, TOWN OF SPRINGERVILLE, TOWN OF STARLIGHT WATER COMPANY SUMMER PINES WATER CO SUN VALLEY UTILITIES CORP Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices BASIN LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR 164 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 NAME PCC BASIN SWEETWATER RANCH LCR 91-000399 LCR TALL PINES ESTATES WATER 91-000096 TAYLOR, TOWN OF LCR 91-000385 TIMBERLAND ACRES LCR 91-000367 TK WATER SERVICE LCR 91-000010 LCR TWIN LAKES MOBILE PARK 91-000157 USFS-CONF-BLUE RIDGE R/S LCR 91-000113 WEST VILLAGE WATER CO LCR 91-000095 WHITE MOUNTAIN SUMMER HOMES LCR 91-000389 WHITE MOUNTAIN WATER CO LCR 91-000406 WINCHESTER WATER CO. LLC LCR 91-000074 WINSLOW, CITY OF LCR 91-000388 PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) 165 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIX C Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 166 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS Surface water is defined in Arizona as “waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, floodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface” (A.R.S. § 45-101). In 1864, the first territorial legislature of Arizona adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation to govern the use of surface water. The doctrine is based on the tenet of “first in time, first in right” which means that the person who first puts the water to beneficial use acquires a right that is superior to later appropriators of the water. Since the population and water use were both relatively small at that time, no method was initially specified by the legislature for filing surface water right claims or granting rights. By the late 1800s, rapid development of irrigated agriculture combined with drought years had resulted in severe water shortages along the Salt and Gila Rivers. The territorial legislature responded in 1893 with a requirement that new water appropriations be posted at the point of diversion. However, until 1919, a person could acquire a surface water right simply by applying the water to beneficial use and recording a notice of appropriation at the state and country recorder’s office. There still was not a mechanism for granting surface water rights (ADWR, 1992). On June 12, 1919, the state legislature enacted a surface water code. Now known as the Public Water Code, the law generally requires that a person apply for and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. There is an exception for water use from the mainstem of the Colorado River, which requires a contract with the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, most persons claiming surface water rights prior to the code have been required to file a statement of claim under the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974, although the act did not provide a process for determining the validity of these claims. The legislature also enacted the Stockpond Registration Act in 1977 to recognize certain unpermitted stockponds constructed after 1919 that had not gone through the application process. The Public Water Code provides that beneficial use shall be the basis, measure and limit to the use of water within the state. Beneficial uses are domestic (which includes the watering of gardens and lawns not exceeding one-half acre), municipal, irrigation, stockwatering, water power, recreation, wildlife including fish, nonrecoverable water storage, and mining uses (A.R.S. § 45-151(A)). The quantity of water that is reasonable for a particular beneficial use depends on a number of factors, including the location of the use. The Department maintains a registry of surface water right applications and claims filed in Arizona since the Public Water Code was enacted. Each filing is assigned a unique number with one of the following prefixes ●● “3R” – application to construct a reservoir filed before 1972; ●● “4A” – application to appropriate surface water filed before 1972; ●● “33” – application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir filed after 167 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream flow maintenance can be applied for and is defined as a surface water right that remains in-situ or “in-stream”, is not physically diverted or consumptively used, and is for maintaining the flow of water necessary to preserve wildlife, including fish, and/or recreation; ●● “36” – statement of claim of rights to use public waters of the state. To make this claim, an applicant or predecessor-in-interest must have initiated a water use based on state law before March 17, 1995; ●● “38” – claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification filed for stockponds constructed after June 12, 1919 and before August 27, 1977. To file this claim and application, the stockpond should have been used exclusively for watering of livestock and/or wildlife, have a maximum capacity of 15 acre-feet, and not be subject to water rights litigation or protests prior to August 27, 1977; ●● “39” – statement of claimant filed in The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source (Gila Adjudication) and The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source (LCR Adjudication). As explained further below, the Department maintains a separate registry of these filings on behalf of the Superior Court of Arizona; and, ●● “BB” – decreed water rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These filings specify the source of water, its point of diversion (POD) and place of use (POU), the type and quantity of water use, and date of first use or priority. If, after moving through a number of administrative steps, an application to appropriate surface water or construct a reservoir (3R, 4A, or 33) is determined to be for beneficial use and not conflict with vested rights or be a menace to public safety or against the interests and welfare of the public, it may be approved and the applicant issued a permit to appropriate. The permit allows the permit holder to construct diversion works, as needed, and put the water to beneficial use. If the terms of the permit are met, the applicant can submit proof of appropriation through an application of certification and may be issued a Certificate of Water Right (CWR). The CWR has a priority date that relates back to the date of application and is evidence of a perfected surface water right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date, but junior to all rights with an earlier (older) priority date. The CWR also specifies the extent and purpose of the right and may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture if not beneficially used. There are currently approximately 850 applications to appropriate pending with ADWR, and approximately 420 permits and over 7,000 certificates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. A CWR may also be issued based on a stockpond claim (38) if it is found that the facts stated in the claim are true and entitle the claimant to a water right for the stockpond. The priority date depends on the date that the owner of the stockpond filed the claim. If filed prior to March 17, 1996, the priority date is the date of construction. Otherwise, the priority date is the date of filing the claim. Regardless of the date, the CWR for a stockpond claim is junior to (a) Colorado River and other court decreed rights; (b) other rights acquired prior to June 12, 1919 and registered as a statement of claim; and (c) any other CWR issued pursuant to an application filed before August 27, 1977. To date, nearly 20,000 stockpond claims have been filed of which over 3,000 stockpond certificates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 168 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Unlike a CWR, the act of filing a statement of claim (36) does not in itself create a water right, nor does it constitute a judicial determination of the claim. Statements of claim are subject to challenge, but can be admitted “in evidence as a rebuttal presumption of the truth and accuracy of the information contained in the claim” (A.R.S. § 45-185). To date, nearly 30,000 statements of claim have been filed in Arizona. In addition to the applications and claims described above, ADWR’s registry of surface water right filings includes several rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These ‘adjudications’, in which a water right is determined by court action, may be initiated when one or more water users seek to know how their rights compare to the rights of other water users and/ or seek judicial relief from alleged interference with their rights by other water users. The court process establishes or confirms the validity of surface water rights and claims, determines whether these have been properly maintained over the years, and ranks them according to their priority. The result is a decree that may, in addition to establishing and confirming rights, specifies terms under which the decreed rights may be exercised if water shortages occur. Court decreed rights are considered the most valued or certain surface water rights because in the absence of abandonment or forfeiture, they are normally accepted as to their validity. More than 1,000 court-decreed rights are listed in ADWR’s registry and given the prefix “BB”. Further discussion of the major court decrees is provided in Volume 1. Although several surface water uses have been decreed, many claims and rights established before and after statehood have still not been examined to see if they remain valid. In addition, many water rights established under federal law and claimed by Indian tribes and the United States have not been quantified or prioritized. To better manage water resources in the state, these diverse rights and claims have been joined into large, comprehensive determinations. Figure C-1 General Stream AdjudicaArizona currently has two general stream tions in Arizona adjudications – the Gila Adjudication and the LCR Adjudication. The purpose of these judicial proceedings is to determine the nature, extent, and priority of water rights across the entire river systems. In addition to confirming existing state-based surface water rights, the adjudications will quantify and prioritize reserved water rights for Indian and non-Indian federal lands. The latter include military bases, national parks and monuments, and national forests. The adjudications will also determine which wells are pumping appropriable underground water (subflow) and therefore are subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The Gila and LCR Adjudications are being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa and Apache Counties, respectively. ADWR provides technical, legal and administrative support to the adjudication court, as described in A.R.S. § 45169 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 256. The Gila Adjudication was initiated in 1974 when SRP filed a petition to determine the water rights in the Salt River Watershed above the Granite Reef Diversion. Since that time, the adjudication area has grown and now covers over 53,000 square miles. It is divided into 7 watersheds and includes 12 Indian reservations and over 24,000 parties. The LCR Adjudication was initiated by a petition filed by Phelps Dodge in 1978. This adjudication now covers 27,000 square miles and includes 3 watersheds, 5 Indian reservations, and over 3,000 parties. A party is a person or entity that has filed one or more statement of claimant (SOC) in the adjudication. All parties who claim to have a water right within the river systems are required to file an SOC or risk the loss of their right. Well owners are also encouraged to file an SOC since the adjudication process may include water use from a well depending on the well’s location relative to streams and other factors. However, a person does not obtain a right to use water by filing an SOC nor is an SOC a legal permit to use water. Rights to use water must be acquired in accordance with state or federal law. Each year, ADWR sends summons to new surface water appropriators and well owners in the adjudication areas that direct them to file an SOC. In response, the number of SOCs filed in the adjudications continues to increase as new water uses are initiated. To date, nearly 81,000 SOCs have been filed in the Gila Adjudication and over 14,000 SOCs have been filed in the LCR Adjudication. ADWR maintains a separate registry of these adjudication filings on behalf of the Superior Court and assigns each a unique number with the prefix “39”. Table C-1 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication filings for each planning area. The table was generated by querying ADWR’s surface water right and SOC registries in February 2009. Files are only counted in the table if they include sufficient locational information (Township, Range, and Section) to allow a POD and/or POU to be mapped within the planning area. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. However, no attempt was made to avoid counting multiple filings for the same POD/POU which can result if a landowner or lessee has two or more filings or if different applicants each have at least one filing. Since many SOCs list surface water right filings as their basis of claim, multiple filings are common and account, in part, for the large number of filings. Sorting through multiple filings is one of the challenges facing the Department and the adjudication courts. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication filings are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs). Figure C-2 shows the location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points mapped reflect the relatively large number of stockponds and reservoirs that have been constructed across the state as well as diversions from streams and springs. Locations for registered wells, many of which are referenced as the basis of claim in SOCs, are also shown in Figure C-2. Instream flow filings are not shown as these filings do not have points of diversion. Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 170 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Table C-1 Count of Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings by Planning Area1 TYPE OF FILING PLANNING AREA TOTAL BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Eastern Plateau 134 163 196 373 3,289 3,275 12,099 19,529 Southeastern 483 395 716 898 8,288 6,415 19,288 36,483 Upper Colorado River 0 224 329 469 2,858 2,084 0 5,964 Central Highlands 1 287 625 897 8,517 3,928 25,443 39,698 Western Plateau 0 415 207 554 1,177 1,270 324 3,947 Lower Colorado River 0 26 48 86 355 304 2,323 3,142 Active Management Areas 1 269 341 687 4,072 2,913 27,134 35,417 Total 619 1,779 2,462 3,964 28,556 20,189 86,611 144,180 Notes: 1 Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) and/or Place of Use (POU) to be mapped within the planning area. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a given planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to unsufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD/POU are counted. 2 Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. 3 Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). 4 Statement of claimant of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 171 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 172 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 173 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIX D Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices 174 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 APPENDIXD: D:RURAL RURALWATERSHED WATERSHEDPARTNERSHIPS PARTNERSHIPSISSUE ISSUESUMMARY SUMMARY(2008) (2008) APPENDIX Ruralwatershed watershedpartnership partnershipparticipants, participants,projects, projects,accomplishments accomplishmentsand and issues summarized belowSome and partnerships grouped by Rural issues areare summarized below. planning area. Some partnerships include more than one planning area as noted. include more than one planning area as noted. Watershed Partnership Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Primary Participants Flagstaff Coconino County Williams Sedona Page Tusayan TNC Grand Canyon Trust Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe ADWR ADEQ State Land NRCD NAU USGS USBoR USFS National Parks US Fish and Wildlife Grand Canyon National Park AZ Game and Fish Doney Park Water Co. Projects & Accomplishments x x x x x x x x x x 175 4 categories of potential water augmentation projects have been identified along with their associated costs. Groundwater study and conceptual model completed Phase I Water Demand Study for Coconino Plateau Growth Impacts Study Western Navajo Pipeline Study Development of study for importing C aquifer groundwater east of Flagstaff has been completed. Flagstaff, Hopi and Navajo are exploring cooperative opportunities for developing C aquifer groundwater. Flagstaff purchased Red Gap Ranch for possible future development of groundwater. Hopi HSR initiated. Water Supply Appraisal Study Completed, which identifies current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. Issues x x x x x x x x x x x x x Continued growth throughout entire plateau region Limited and deep groundwater supplies. Drought sensitive surface water supplies of Williams, Flagstaff and others Groundwater salinity issues in northeastern part of plateau Numerous water haulers with few hauling stations that are sometimes cutoff during drought Unable to get adequate water supply designation under current definition Growth in Page with no current means of additional supply ESA issues with groundwater usage and impacts on perennial streams Potential limitation of groundwater usage resulting from reserved groundwater rights of Indians Uncertainty of Indian water right settlements (LCR & Colorado River) Proposed San Juan Paiute reservation west of Flagstaff Potential impacts on springs in Grand Canyon and also on supplies to Havasupai and Hualapai reservations Access to water development on public lands Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Watershed Partnership MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments x x x Numeric Groundwater Model completed Strategic Plan has been completed to address water conservation and management on the Plateau Attempting to obtain Congressional Authority to complete a Feasibility Study of the water alternatives identified Issues x x x x x x x x Prescott Flagstaff Cottonwood Sedona Chino Valley Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) Prescott Valley Williams Clarkdale Payson x x x Projected water demands through 2040 have been identified A request for 70,000 acre-feet of CAP reallocation water has been submitted to ADWR for consideration. Completed Colorado River Supply Study x x x x x x x x Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Limited groundwater data for entire region Minor Arsenic issues in Woody Mtn. Well field (9-14 ppb) Unregulated lot splits Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Extremely high cost of water augmentation projects Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water and other Colorado River supplies Congressional Support for completion of a Feasibility Study Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Limited supplies to meet projected demands ESA issues impacting potential ground and surface water supplies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water and other Colorado River supplies Funding for Colorado River infrastructure Water quality issues in Verde Valley and Flagstaff Upper Basin/Lower Basin issues with Colorado River affect potential for use Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 176 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Watershed Partnership Little Colorado Watershed Coordinating Council (Formerly Little Colorado River MultiObjective Management Partnership (LCRMOM)) EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Winslow Holbrook Navajo County NRCD/RCD NAU USBoR COE x x x Development and Ecosystem Restoration Program study for the Montane Forest Regimes completed. Watershed reconnaissance study completed Completed Watershed Based Plan Issues x x x x x x x x x NDWR NTUA x NDEQ NHA x ADWR Navajo Nation Projects & Accomplishments USBoR BIA COE HIS x x x Survey of agricultural lands in Upper Basin Groundwater elevation survey of NTUA wells Water Quality ATLAS Navajo Drought Report Western Navajo Water Supply Study x x x x x x x 177 Potential impacts on groundwater from power plants Water quality issues involving arsenic and TDS Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Limited groundwater data for entire region Invasive species (Tamarisk) ESA issues Drought impacts on surface water supplies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Lack of technical groundwater data Limited groundwater supplies to meet projected demands Water quality issues Prone to impacts from drought Unresolved water right claims to LCR, Colorado R. & San Juan R. Upper Basin/Lower Basin issues with Colorado River Gallup to Window Rock Pipeline in jeopardy (financial, upper/lower basin issues, ESA and others) Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Watershed Partnership EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Show Low Pinetop Pinetop-Lakeside Watershed Enhancement Partnership Lakeside Navajo County Projects & Accomplishments x x x x Show Low Creek Irrigation District x Local Citizenry LCRWCC x ADWR AZ Game & Fish x Snowflake Holbrook Show Low Taylor Winslow Navajo County Silver Creek ID Silver Creek Watershed Partnership x x x Groundwater elevations study GPS survey of agricultural lands Preliminary water budget completed. Received 319 Grant to address water quality issues in Rainbow Lake Water Protection Fund Grant for Billy Creek Project Completed Watershed Based Plan Obtained TRIF Grant to conduct groundwater age dating Silver Creek channel and riparian restoration study completed. Value Engineering Analysis of Unsafe Dams completed Silver Creek HSR Show Low Creek Watershed Partnership Upper Little Colorado River Watershed NAU Springerville Eagar Greer Nutrioso Apache County Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LCRWCC ADWR Issues x x x Aerial mapping survey and GIS coverage of the Little Colorado River and tributaries completed. Geomorphic and biological x x x Drought impacts on surface water supplies and springs resulting in impacts on agriculture and cattle ranching Seasonal demands impacting peak demands Growth Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Limited groundwater data Potential impacts on groundwater system from Cholla Power plant Drought impacts on surface water supplies for agriculture Several high hazard unsafe dams Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Perception of no real supply problem Water quality concerns in some areas (salinity) Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Limited groundwater data Potential impacts to the groundwater system from TEPCO generating station. Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights 178 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 2 Watershed Partnership Partnership EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Round Valley Irrigation District Local Citizens and Special Interest Groups LCRWCC Projects & Accomplishments x x ADWR AZG&F NRCS/RCD USBoR ADEQ x USFS x x x 179 assessment of the LCR completed. Stream riparian restoration project Round Valley Irrigation Delivery System partially upgraded. Preliminary water budget completed Reconstruction of River Reservoir Dam completed. Interconnection of Springerville and Eagar’s wastewater treatment facilities is complete Completed Watershed Based Plan Issues x x x x x x x settlements Proposed development in Greer and impacts on Little Colorado River Drought impacts on forage for grazing and surface water availability for agriculture Potential impacts on tourism due to drought Funding issues for water delivery infrastructure Political differences between Springerville and Eagar Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Appendices