Arizona Department of Water Resources August 2009 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 5 Central Highlands 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 5 CONTENTS Preface SECTION 5.0 Overview of the Central Highlands Planning Area 5.0.1 Geography 5.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 5.0.3 Climate 5.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Unique and Other Managed Waters 5.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 5.0.6 Water Supply Central Arizona Project Water Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 5.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand  Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 5.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Central Highlands Planning Area Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups and Studies Issue Surveys 5.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES SECTION 5.1  Water Resource Characteristics of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.1 Geography of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.2 Land Ownership in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.3 Climate of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Agua Fria Basin 1 1 3 4 4 13 21 23 24 29 29 32 33 36 37 40 42 42 44 49 52 52 56 57 58 62 64 66 67 68 69 70 74 80 81 83 86 89 95 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.7 Water Quality of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 5.2  Water Resource Characteristics of the Salt River Basin 5.2.1 Geography of the Salt River Basin 5.2.2 Land Ownership in the Salt River Basin 5.2.3 Climate of the Salt River Basin 5.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Salt River Basin 5.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Salt River Basin 5.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Salt River Basin 5.2.7 Water Quality of the Salt River Basin 5.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Salt River Basin 5.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 5.3  Water Resource Characteristics of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.1 Geography of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.2 Land Ownership in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.3 Climate of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.7 Water Quality of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin References and Supplemental Reading  SECTION 5.4  Water Resource Characteristics of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.1 Geography of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.2 Land Ownership in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.3 Climate of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.7 Water Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Upper Hassayampa Basin ii 98 103 107 111 114 118 119 121 124 127 134 137 143 148 153 156 166 167 169 171 174 180 183 188 191 195 199 204 205 207 209 212 217 219 224 228 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin References and Supplemental Reading 232 236 SECTION 5.5  Water Resource Characteristics of the Verde River Basin 5.5.1 Geography of the Verde River Basin 5.5.2 Land Ownership in the Verde River Basin 5.5.3 Climate of the Verde River Basin 5.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Verde River Basin 5.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Verde River Basin 5.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Verde River Basin 5.5.7 Water Quality of the Verde River Basin 5.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Verde River Basin 5.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin References and Supplemental Reading 240 240 241 243 246 251 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Appendix A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Central Highlands Planning Area through FY 2008 Appendix B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans Appendix C: Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings Appendix D: Rural Watershed Partnerships Issue Summary (2008) 331 260 269 285 292 297 315 333 337 345 351 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 FIGURES Figure 5.0-1 Figure 5.0-2 Figure 5.0-3 Figure 5.0-4 Figure 5.0-5 Figure 5.0-6 Figure 5.0-7 Figure 5.0-8 Figure 5.0-9 Figure 5.0-10 Figure 5.0-11 Figure 5.0-12 Figure 5.0-13 Figure 5.0-14 Figure 5.0-15 Figure 5.0-16 Figure 5.0-17 Figure 5.0-18 Figure 5.0-19 Figure 5.0-20 Figure 5.1-1 Figure 5.1-2 Figure 5.1-3 Figure 5.1-4 Figure 5.1-5 Figure 5.1-6 Figure 5.1-7 Figure 5.1-8 Figure 5.1-9 Figure 5.1-10 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Central Highlands Planning Area 3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona 4 Surface Geology of the Central Highlands Planning Area 5 Central Highlands USGS Watersheds 14 SRP Reservoir System Capacity 17 Average Temperature and Total Precipitation in the Central Highlands Planning Area from 1930-2002 21 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in the Central Highlands Planning Area 1930-2002 22 Arizona NOAA Climate Divisions 3 & 4 Winter (NovemberApril) Precipitation Departures from Average, 1000-1988, Reconstructed from Tree Rings 23 Central Highlands Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 25 Wildfires in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2002-2005 28 Central Highlands Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 31 Wilderness Areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area  34 Communities with a 2000 Census Population Greater than 1,000 in the Central Highlands Planning Area 39 Average Annual Water Supply Utilized in the Central Highlands Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 42 Water Stored on May 1st in SRP Reservoirs on the Verde and Salt Rivers, 1980-2006 44 Central Highlands Planning Area Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points 50 Central Highlands Planning Area Contamination Sites 55 Average Annual Central Highlands Planning Area Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 56 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 57 Agua Fria Basin Geographic Features 82 Agua Fria Basin Land Ownership 85 Agua Fria Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 88 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Agua Fria River near Mayer, water years 1940-2008 (Station #9512500)  90 Agua Fria Basin Surface Water Conditions 94 Agua Fria Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 97 Agua Fria Basin Groundwater Conditions 100 Agua Fria Basin Hydrographs 101 Agua Fria Basin Well Yields 102 Agua Fria Basin Water Quality Conditions 106 iv Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.1-11 Figure 5.1-12 Figure 5.2-1 Figure 5.2-2 Figure 5.2-3 Figure 5.2-4 Figure 5.2-5 Figure 5.2-6 Figure 5.2-7 Figure 5.2-8 Figure 5.2-9 Figure 5.2-10 Figure 5.2-11 Figure 5.2-12 Figure 5.3-1 Figure 5.3-2 Figure 5.3-3 Figure 5.3-4 Figure 5.3-5 Figure 5.3-6 Figure 5.3-7 Figure 5.3-8 Figure 5.3-9 Figure 5.3-10 Figure 5.3-11 Figure 5.3-12 Figure 5.4-1 Figure 5.4-2 Figure 5.4-3 Figure 5.4-4 Figure 5.4-5 Figure 5.4-6 Figure 5.4-7 Figure 5.4-8 Figure 5.4-9 Figure 5.4-10 Figure 5.4-11 Agua Fria Basin Cultural Water Demand Agua Fria Basin Adequacy Determinations Salt River Basin Geographic Features Salt River Basin Land Ownership Salt River Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Salt River near Roosevelt, water years 1914-2008 (Station #9498500)  Salt River Basin Surface Water Conditions Salt River Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Salt River Basin Groundwater Conditions Salt River Basin Hydrographs Salt River Basin Well Yields Salt River Basin Water Quality Conditions Salt River Basin Cultural Water Demand Salt River Basin Adequacy Determinations Tonto Creek Basin Geographic Features Tonto Creek Basin Land Ownership Tonto Creek Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt, water years 1941-2008 (Station #9499000)  Tonto Creek Basin Surface Water Conditions Tonto Creek Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Tonto Creek Basin Groundwater Conditions Tonto Creek Basin Hydrographs Tonto Creek Basin Well Yields Tonto Creek Basin Water Quality Conditions Tonto Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand Tonto Creek Basin Water Adequacy Determinations Upper Hassayampa Basin Geographic Features Upper Hassayampa Basin Land Ownership Upper Hassayampa Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Upper Hassayampa Basin Surface Water Conditions Upper Hassayampa Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Upper Hassayampa Basin Groundwater Conditions Upper Hassayampa Basin Hydrographs Upper Hassayampa Basin Well Yields Upper Hassayampa Basin Water Quality Conditions Upper Hassayampa Basin Cultural Water Demand Upper Hassayampa Basin Water Adequacy Determinations 110 113 120 123 126 128 133 136 139 140 142 147 152 155 168 170 173 175 179 182 185 186 187 190 194 198 206 208 211 216 218 221 222 223 227 231 235 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-1 Figure 5.5-2 Figure 5.5-3 Figure 5.5-4 Figure 5.5-5 Figure 5.5-6 Figure 5.5-6a Figure 5.5-6b Figure 5.5-7 Figure 5.5-8 Figure 5.5-9 Figure 5.5-10 Figure 5.5-11 Figure 5.5-11a Figure 5.5-11b Figure 5.5-11c Figure C-1 Figure C-2 Verde River Basin Geographic Features Verde River Basin Land Ownership Verde River Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Verde River Basin Surface Water Conditions Verde River Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Verde River Basin Groundwater Conditions Big Chino Sub-basin Groundwater Level Changes Verde Valley Sub-basin Groundwater Level Changes Verde River Basin Hydrographs Verde River Basin Well Yields Verde River Basin Water Quality Conditions Verde River Basin Cultural Water Demand Verde River Basin Adequacy Determinations Big Chino Sub-basin Adequacy Determinations Verde Canyon Sub-basin Adequacy Determinations Verde Valley Sub-basin Adequacy Determinations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points in Arizona vi 242 245 250 259 268 273 274 275 276 284 291 296 311 312 313 314 348 350 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 TABLES Table 5.0-1 Table 5.0-2 Table 5.0-3 Table 5.0-4 Table 5.0-5 Table 5.0-6 Table 5.0-7 Table 5.0-8 Table 5.0-9 Table 5.0-10 Table 5.0-11 Table 5.0-12 Table 5.0-13 Table 5.0-14 Table 5.0-15 Table 5.0-16 Table 5.0-17 Table 5.1-1 Table 5.1-2 Table 5.1-3 Table 5.1-4 Table 5.1-5 Table 5.1-6 Table 5.1-7 Table 5.1-8 Table 5.1-9 Table 5.1-10 Table 5.2-1 Table 5.2-2 Table 5.2-3 Instream Flow Claims in the Central Highlands Planning Area Threatened and endangered species in the Central Highlands Planning Area Wilderness areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2000 Census population in the Central Highlands Planning Area Communities in the Central Highlands Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water adequacy determinations in the Central Highlands Planning Area as of 12/2008 CAP subcontractors and transferred entitlements in the Central Highlands Planning Area Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Central Highlands Planning Area Contamination sites in the Central Highlands Planning Area Estimated water demand on the for Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations, c. 2005 (in acre-feet) Average annual municipal water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2006, excluding effluent, in the Central Highlands Planning Area Golf courses in the Central Highlands Planning Area (c. 2008) Agricultural water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area Industrial water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area Industrial mining demand in the Salt River Basin, 2001-2007 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area Climate Data for the Agua Fria Basin Streamflow Data for the Agua Fria Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Agua Fria Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Agua Fria Basin Springs in the Agua Fria Basin Groundwater Data for the Agua Fria Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Agua Fria Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Agua Fria Basin Effluent Generation in the Agua Fria Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria Basin Climate Data for the Salt River Basin Streamflow Data for the Salt River Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Salt River Basin 30 32 35 37 38 41 43 48 53 57 58 59 62 63 64 66 70 87 91 92 93 96 99 104 108 109 112 125 129 131 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-4 Table 5.2-5 Table 5.2-6 Table 5.2-7 Table 5.2-8 Table 5.2-9 Table 5.2-10 Table 5.3-1 Table 5.3-2 Table 5.3-3 Table 5.3-4 Table 5.3-5 Table 5.3-6 Table 5.3-7 Table 5.3-8 Table 5.3-9 Table 5.3-10 Table 5.4-1 Table 5.4-2 Table 5.4-3 Table 5.4-4 Table 5.4-5 Table 5.4-6 Table 5.4-7 Table 5.4-8 Table 5.4-9 Table 5.4-10 Table 5.5-1 Table 5.5-2 Table 5.5-3 Table 5.5-4 Table 5.5-5 Table 5.5-6 Table 5.5-7 Table 5.5-8 Table 5.5-9 Table 5.5-10 Table C-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Salt River Basin Springs in the Salt River Basin Groundwater Data for the Salt River Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Salt River Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Salt River Basin Effluent Generation in the Salt River Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin Climate Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Surface Water Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tonto Creek Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tonto Creek Basin Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin Groundwater Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Tonto Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Tonto Creek Basin Effluent Generation in the Tonto Creek Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin Climate Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Streamflow Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Groundwater Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Effluent Generation in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Climate Data for the Verde River Basin Streamflow Data for the Verde River Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Verde River Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Verde River Basin Springs in the Verde River Basin Groundwater Data for the Verde River Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Verde River Basin Effluent Generation in the Verde River Basin Water Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin Count of Surface Water Rights and Adjudications by Planning Area viii 132 135 138 144 149 150 154 172 176 177 178 181 184 189 192 193 196 210 213 214 215 217 220 225 229 230 233 247 252 255 257 261 271 286 293 294 298 349 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 5 – CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Preface 5.0 Overview of the Central Highlands Planning Area Volume 5, the Central Highlands Planning Area, is the fifth 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 Central Highlands Planning Area is composed of five groundwater basins oriented eastwest in central Arizona. (Figure 5.0-2) This planning area contains areas of higher elevation compared to many other parts of the state and is characterized by narrow valleys separated by steep mountain ranges. Elevation ranges from 1,500 feet to over 12,600 feet. Parts of nine counties are located within the planning area including Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Pinal, and The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning Yavapai counties. There are four Indian reservaareas (Figure 5.0-1). There is a separate Atlas tions within the planning area; the Fort Apache volume for each planning area, an executive (White Mountain Apache Tribe), San Carlos summary volume composed of background Apache, Tonto-Apache,and Yavapai-Apache information, and a resource sustainability as- Indian Reservations. sessment volume. “Planning areas” are an organizational concept that provide for a regional The 2000 Census planning area population perspective on supply, demand and water re- was approximately 142,850. Basin population source issues. A complete discussion of Atlas ranged from about 7,500 in the Tonto Creek organization, purpose and scope is found in Basin to over 88,000 in the Verde River Basin. Volume 1. Also included in Volume 1 is gen- Payson is the largest metropolitan area with eral 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. 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). Agriculture in the Verde River Basin. In 2001-2005 the agricultural demand sector was the largest in the planning area with approximately 38,000 acre-feet per year, representing 49% of the total demand. Section 5.0 Overview 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 2 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 about 13,600 residents in 2000. Other population centers include Camp Verde, Cottonwood/Verde Village/Clarkdale, Globe/Miami and Sedona. An average of about 83,200 acre-feet of water was used annually during the period 2001-2005 for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand). Of this total, approximately 63% was groundwater, 36% was surface water and 1% was effluent. The agricultural sector had the largest with approximately 37,500 acre-feet of demand a year - 45% of the total demand. Demand from the municipal sector averaged about 27,400 acre-feet a year (AFA) and industrial demand averaged about 18,300 AFA. 5.0.1 Geography The Central Highlands Planning Area encompasses about 13,900 square miles (sq. mi.) and includes the Agua Fria, Salt River, Tonto Creek, Upper Hassayampa and Verde River basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 5.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the Coconino Plateau Basin in the Western Plateau Planning Area, on the east by the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, on the south by the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area and the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA), and on the west by the Prescott AMA and the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (Figure 5.0-1). The planning area includes all Figure 5.0-2 Central Highlands Planning Area Section 5.0 Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 or part of three watersheds, which are discussed in section 5.0.2. Within the planning area, the Fort Apache Indian Reservation encompasses about 2,500 sq. mi. and the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, most of which is within the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, encompasses about 500 sq. mi. The two other reservations, Tonto-Apache and YavapaiApache, are relatively small, totaling only about 740 acres or 1.2 sq. mi. Agua Fria and Upper Hassayampa basins are included in this province. The northwestern part of the planning area falls within the Plateau Uplands physiographic province, which is characterized by high desert plateaus and incised canyons. Included in this province are the northern part of the Verde River Basin, and the northern edge of the Tonto Creek and Salt River basins. Elevation ranges from 1,500 feet at Saguaro Lake in the Salt River Basin to 12,633 feet at Humphreys Peak in the San Francisco Most of the planning area is within the Central Mountains at the northeastern edge of the Verde Highlands transition zone, located between the River Basin. High-elevation mountains are also Basin and Range Lowlands and Plateau Uplands found in the White Mountains in the eastern Provinces (Figure 5.0-3). It is characterized by portion of the Salt River Basin where Mt. Baldy, rugged mountains of igneous, metamorphic and at 11,403 feet, is the highest point. sedimentary rocks. The extreme southwestern part of the planning area extends into the Basin A unique geographic feature of the planning and Range Lowlands physiographic province, area is the Mogollon Rim, an escarpment that which is characterized by northwest-southeast defines the southern boundary of the Colorado trending mountain ranges separated by broad Plateau. The rim is approximately 7,000 feet in alluvial valleys. The southern portions of the elevation with sheer drops of 2,000 feet at some locations. The rim stretches for over a hundred Figure 5.0-3 Physiographic Regions of miles and forms much of the northeastern Arizona boundary of the planning area. The planning area contains diverse topography and a large elevational range, resulting in a wide diversity of vegetation types and ecosystems, the greatest of any planning area. Topography varies from desert basins in the Hassayampa Basin to deeply incised canyons along the Mogollon Rim and high mountain peaks. Because of the high elevations and associated higher rainfall and snowfall, this planning area contains the state’s most important water producing watersheds, the Salt and Verde rivers. These watersheds contain the greatest concentration of perennial streams found in the state, which in turn support extensive riparian habitat. 5.0.2 Hydrology1 Groundwater Hydrology Data source: Fenneman and Johnson, 1946 The Central Highlands Planning Area is char- Except as noted, much of the information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume II, ADWR August, 1994. (ADWR 1994a) 1 4 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 acterized by a band of mountains consisting of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks (Figure 5.0-4). High elevations, steep topography and extensive bedrock result in relatively high runoff and small water storage capabilities in the planning area as compared to alluvial basins in the southern part of the State. Alluvial and surficial deposits are relatively limited, occurring primarily in the western part of the planning area and along parts of the Verde River and Salt River drainages. Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992) divided the alluvial basins in south-central Arizona into five categories based on similar hydrologic and geologic characteristics. One of these, the “Highland Basins”, covers most of the planning area with the exception of the Upper Hassayampa Basin, categorized as a “West Basin”, and the southern half of the Agua Fria Basin, categorized as a “Central Basin”. Highland Basins The Highland Basins include the Salt River, Tonto Creek and Verde River basins, and the northern half of the Agua Fria Basin. Basinfill aquifers in the highlands are limited in areal extent and are hydrologically connected with stream alluvium. Consolidated rock aquifers surround and underlie the basin-fill aquifers and contribute underflow. Basin-fill aquifers also receive inflow from stream infiltration and mountain front recharge. Where the basin-fill aquifers are discontinuous, underflow between them may be restricted (Anderson, et al., 1992). Figure 5.0-4 Surface Geology of the Central Highlands Planning Area (Based on Reynolds, 1988) Section 5.0 Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Agua Fria Basin (northern half) Groundwater occurs in four geologic units in the Agua Fria Basin: basin-fill sands and gravels, volcanic rocks, conglomerates and igneous and metamorphic rocks. Groundwater occurs in volcanic rocks in the northeastern section of the basin that yield relatively small volumes of water. Conglomerates are found throughout the basin and contain the largest volumes of groundwater of any of the rock units. Due to faulting, this unit is separated into smaller discrete basins separated by low permeability crystalline rocks. boundary. The Salt River Basin contains four sub-basins shown on Figures 5.2-7 and 5.2.-9: Salt River Lakes, Salt River Canyon, Black River and White River. Principal aquifers differ between the sub-basins, with basin-fill and alluvial aquifers found in the western portion of the basin and limestone and volcanic aquifers in the eastern portion. In the northern part of the basin, groundwater flow in the C-aquifer is from north to south. Groundwater flow has not been characterized in the rest of the basin. Groundwater data are shown in Table 5.2-6. Groundwater recharge is Groundwater flow in the northern part of the estimated at 178,000 AFA. The only estimate basin is from the basin margins toward the Agua of groundwater in storage is 8.7 maf or more to Fria River drainage and then south (Figure a depth of 1,200 feet below land surface (bls). 5.1-7). The estimated volume of groundwater Water level change data are available for the recharge for the entire basin is 9,000 AFA. Globe-Miami area and near Young, in the Salt Groundwater storage estimates for the basin vary from 620,000 acre-feet to 3.5 million acre-feet (maf) (Table 5.1-6). The median well yield reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells in the basin is 300 gpm with relatively low yields found in the vicinity of Meyer and at other locations. Water levels in basin wells measured between 1990’91 and 2003-’04 were less than 100 feet bls. Water levels in several wells increased by as much as 15 feet during this period, but declined in wells near Cordes Junction (Figure 5.1-6). Water quality in the basin is generally good. In the northern part of the basin, arsenic was the drinking water parameter most frequently exceeded in measured wells and springs (Table 5.1-7). Salt River Basin The Salt River Basin is bounded on the west and southwest by the Sierra Ancha and Superstition Mountains, on the south by the Natanes Plateau and on the east by the White Mountains (see Figure 5.2-1). The Mogollon Rim, a 2,000-foot high escarpment, forms a natural groundwater divide along much of the basin’s northern Salt River, Salt River Basin. 6 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 River Lakes and Salt River Canyon sub-basins, respectively. Water levels in these measured wells are relatively shallow, at less than 100 feet bls. Water levels declined in all wells for which change data were available during the period 1990-’91 and 2003-’04 (Figure 5.2-7). The median well yield from large (>10-inch diameter) wells is 170 gpm. Most of the water quality measurements in the basin are in the vicinity of Globe-Miami, a copper mining center. The most commonly exceeded drinking water standard was cadmium, although other metals and fluoride concentrations were also elevated in measured wells (Table 5.2-7). Groundwater conditions in each sub-basin, from west to east, are discussed below. Salt River Lakes Sub-basin The Salt River Lakes Sub-basin occupies the western part of the Salt River Basin. Unconsolidated sands and gravels within the floodplains of streams and washes form an alluvial aquifer that is generally the most productive aquifer. A basin-fill aquifer underlies a large part of the sub-basin including the area around Globe, lower Tonto Creek, the Salt River reservoirs and Pinto Valley west of Miami. Along the Salt River and around Roosevelt Lake, the basin fill is up to 2,000 feet thick (ADWR, 1992). Recharge to the basin-fill aquifer occurs primarily along mountain fronts and from streams and lake infiltration. Within the sub-basin groundwater is found in granitic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. In the Globe-Miami area the Gila Conglomerate, composed of semi-consolidated to consolidated basin-fill sediments, forms a local aquifer. The Gila Conglomerate is up to 4,000 feet thick in this area and provides most of the area’s municipal and industrial water supply. A limestone aquifer also supplies water in the Globe-Miami area, and west of Globe several small basin-fill deposits form isolated groundwater aquifers (ADWR, 1992). Well yields are generally low in the southeast part of the sub-basin near Globe, and higher north of Globe. Granitic rocks provide small amounts of water for domestic and stock use in the sub-basin. Mining activities in the Globe-Miami area have impacted water quality in the alluvial aquifer along Pinal Creek and Miami Wash including elevated concentrations of sulfate and metals. Drinking water standards for cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, other metals and for total dissolved solids (TDS) have been equaled or exceeded in a number of wells in the area. Salt River Canyon Sub-basin In the western portion of the Salt River Canyon Sub-basin, sedimentary and igneous rocks, similar to those in the adjacent Salt River Lakes Sub-basin, are found. The groundwater flow system is complex with disconnected recharge areas and many water-bearing zones (USGS, 2005a). The rest of the sub-basin is composed primarily of sedimentary rocks, including limestones, sandstones, siltstones, shales and thin conglomerates. These rocks are exposed along the Mogollon Rim and at other locations in the sub-basin. The Natanes Plateau, along the southern boundary of the sub-basin, is composed of volcanic rock. There is little aquifer data for the area, but based on similar rock units in other areas, there may be useable amounts of water in the Supai Formation, Redwall Limestone, Coconino Sandstone and the undivided sandstones in the sub-basin. These formations may yield moderate amounts of water, up to 100 gpm, however yields can vary widely depending on sub-surface geology (ADWR, 1992). Recharge to the sedimentary rocks occurs mainly along the Mogollon Rim. Basin-fill and floodplain alluvial deposits are present along Cherry Creek near the western boundary of the sub-basin. The depth of basinfill deposits in this sub-basin was estimated to be less than 400 feet thick (ADWR, 1992). The Section 5.0 Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 only water level change data for the 1990-’91 to 2003-’04 time-period showed a modest water level decline in a shallow well near Young. Well yield data for the sub-basin show yields of less than 100 gpm to up to 2,000 gpm in the western part of the sub-basin (Figure 5.2-9). Water quality data are lacking for this sub-basin. White River Sub-basin The eastern portion of the White River Subbasin is covered with volcanic rocks and the western portion contains sedimentary rocks similar to those found in the Salt River Canyon Sub-basin. Groundwater occurs in fracture zones and the various volcanic flows, including cinder beds. Groundwater flow in the volcanic aquifer is discontinuous and well yields and water levels may vary widely over short distances. Precipitation in the area is relatively high and recharges the volcanic aquifer through infiltration into the fractured rock. Groundwater discharged from the volcanic aquifer contributes to the baseflow of the White River. Groundwater level and water quality data are lacking for the sub-basin. The only well yield data shows a yield between 100 and 500 gpm in a well between Whiteriver and Hon-dah (Figure 5.2-9). Hannagan Meadow showed a nitrate concentration exceeding drinking water standards. Tonto Creek Basin In the Tonto Creek Basin groundwater is found in stream alluvium, basin-fill sand and gravel, Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and Precambrian igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. The primary aquifer occurs in basin fill, which underlies a large portion of the basin, from near Rye to the southern basin boundary. The basin fill consists of coarse-grained conglomerate in the lower part of the basin and along the basin margins and locally is overlain by finegrained mudstone in the center of the basin. The conglomerate may be up to 500 feet thick. Groundwater is also found in the floodplain alluvium, which may be as much as 65 feet thick along Tonto Creek. Along this Creek, the basin Black River Sub-basin The Black River Sub-basin is covered almost entirely by volcanic rocks that include basalt flows, rhyolitic ash flows, tuffs and tuffaceous agglomerates that form layers over 3,000 feet thick in some areas. Wells in this area are generally low-yield and well depths of 400 to 800 feet are common. As in the White River Sub-basin, the volcanic aquifer is recharged through infiltration of precipitation. Discharge from the aquifer contributes to baseflow in the Black River. Groundwater level data are lacking for this sub-basin. Well yield data for two wells shows yields of less than 100 gpm in the northeastern part of the sub-basin and between Tributary to the Black River, Salt River Basin. Dis500 to 1,000 gpm south of Fort Apache. A sin- charge from the aquifer contributes to flow in the gle groundwater quality measurement taken at Black River. 8 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 fill and alluvial aquifers are recharged primarily by stream infiltration. Verde Canyon sub-basins as shown in Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-8. A limestone aquifer is utilized along the Mogollon Rim where groundwater movement and well yield are dependent on faults, fractures and solution cavities. Wells in the limestone aquifer generally yield less than 100 gpm. Fractured bedrock also yields small volumes of water to wells east of Payson (ADWR, 1992). These and other sedimentary-rock aquifers are recharged from precipitation on the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau (USGS, 2005a). Natural recharge and groundwater in storage estimates for the basin, sub-basins and local areas are listed in Table 5.5-6. Groundwater recharge estimates for the entire basin range from 107,000 AFA to more than 138,000 AFA. Groundwater in storage is estimated to range from 13 maf to more than 22 maf for the entire basin. Few water level measurements were taken in the basin in both 1990-‘91 and 2003-‘04 (Figure 5.5-6). Water level change measurements taken during different time periods are shown for the Groundwater flow directions are from the Big Chino Sub-basin (Figure 5.5-6A) and the Mogollon Rim to the south in the C-aquifer and Verde Valley Sub-basin (Figure 5.5-6B) and from north to south along the Rye Creek and Tonto are discussed in the sub-basin sections below. Creek drainages in the alluvial aquifer (Figure Well yield varies throughout the basin with the 5.3-7). Natural recharge for the basin has been most productive wells located in the Big Chino estimated at 17,000 to 37,000 AFA. Estimates Sub-basin (Figure 5.5-8). The median well of groundwater in storage range from 2.0 to 9.4 yield for the entire basin is 260 gpm reported maf. With one exception, all wells measured on registration forms for 262 large (>10-inch) in 2003-‘04 had a water level below 100 feet. diameter wells. Water levels in wells measured between 1990‘91 and 2003-‘04 were either slightly declining A number of hydrogeologic studies of the Big or slightly rising (Figure 5.3-7). The median Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins, and to a well yield reported on registration forms for lesser extent the Verde Canyon Sub-basin, have large (>10-inch) diameter wells was 120 gpm. been conducted and are briefly referenced here. Since most of the basin is National Forest land, These studies, many of them recent, contain there has been little basin-wide groundwater detailed information about the groundwater development and aquifer characteristics are not and surface water systems in the basin and are well defined. Groundwater quality is generally referenced in this section and in the Verde River good, although drinking water standards for Basin references and supplemental reading. arsenic, radionuclides, nitrate and organics have Each sub-basin is discussed below from north been equaled or exceeded in some wells. to south across the basin. Verde River Basin The Verde River Basin is a relatively large basin that encompasses part of the Coconino Plateau in its northern portion with the Mogollon Rim defining its eastern boundary. It is characterized by steep canyons, rugged mountains and by broad alluvial valleys in the north and westcentral portions of the basin. The basin is divided into the Big Chino, Verde Valley and Big Chino Sub-basin The Big Chino Sub-basin has an area of about 1,850 square miles. The principal aquifer consists of basin-fill sediments interbedded with volcanic rocks of Cenozoic age that fill the subbasin. This basin-fill aquifer is commonly referred to as the Chino Valley Unit and is the major source of water for irrigation and domestic purposes. Chino Valley runs northwest to south- Section 5.0 Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 east from Seligman to Paulden. Well yields in Chino Valley wells are commonly greater than 1,000 gpm to greater than 2,000 gpm. A carbonate aquifer comprised of Paleozoic rocks underlies most of the Big Chino Valley Sub-basin and the area north of the Verde River near Paulden. It is assumed that there is a hydraulic connection between the two aquifers in the Big Chino Valley and the Williamson Valley, which runs north-south along the southeastern sub-basin boundary. The general location of aquifers and other features are shown in the graphic from Wirt, 2005. Groundwater outflow from the Big Chino Subbasin occurs as base flow in the Verde River 113o30' o 113 00' 35o30' 112o00' Aubrey Valley VERDE RIVER WA TERSHED COLORADO RIVER WA TERSHED Seligman o Picacho Butte William s o BILL WILLIAMS MOUNTAIN Ash For k o * * BI G D Paulde n o 0 10 10 Drake o V er Carbonate Aquifer R iv de Williamson Valley er Little Chino Basin-fill Aquifer N R IM Verde Valley Aquifer Agua Fria Basin-fill Aquifer 20 MILES 20 KILOMETERS LO BLAC K HILLS SANTA MARIA MOUNTAINS 34o30' U Sy Ca cam ny or on e A L ES BIG CHINO SUB- BASIN BOUNDARY M SULLIVAN BUTTES GO Matterhorn K Big Chino Basin-fill Aquifer 35 00' MO AC JUNIPER MOUNTAINS o 0 * BL Groundwater occurs under unconfined and confined (artesian) conditions in the basin-fill aquifer. Artesian conditions occur primarily where buried lava flows and coarse-grained sediments are interbedded with clays and volcanic ash. In the northwesternmost part of the sub-basin, basin-fill deposits may be as much as 2,500 feet thick. Further south and west of Paulden in the Williamson Valley, the thickness of the alluvium is estimated at 2,000 feet. In the eastern part of the Big Chino Sub-basin, the carbonate aquifer is the primary regional aquifer. This aquifer is dry west of the Mesa Butte Fault, which occurs north of Drake and runs northeastward, and between Williams and the Big Chino Valley (USGS, 2006). Alluvial sands and gravels along the major washes also yield water to wells and are utilized as a local water supply in the sub-basin. ite Mountain on the south and from Big Black Mesa and Bill Williams Mountain on the east side and from runoff in major washes. Recharge also occurs via groundwater inflow from the Little Chino Sub-basin (Prescott AMA) north of Del Rio Springs. In 1999, this groundwater inflow was estimated at 1,800 AFA (Nelson, 2002). The Williamson Valley and Paulden areas are the most arid regions in the Verde River Basin. Prescott o BRADSHAW MOUNTAINS EXPLANATION Carbonate aquifer; moderate to high permeability; beneath Colorado Plateau Carbonate aquifer; moderate to high permeability; Transition Zone; connected to Colorado Plateau Groundwater flow in the basin-fill aquiCarbonate remnant; moderate to high permeability; Transition Zone; disconnected from Colorado Plateau fer is toward the Big Chino Wash drainIgneous and metamorphic rocks; low permeability Basin-fill aquifer , moderate to high permeability; Transition Zone, boundary age and then south. Groundwater flow in dashed where likely interconnected with adjacent aquifer Verde River watershed boundary the carbonate aquifer is toward the north Big Chino Fault; U, upthrown side; D, downthrown side (Figure 5.5-6). Recharge occurs from Limestone Canyon monocline, symbol indicates vertical dip of beds mountain front recharge along the Juniper and Santa Maria Mountains on the Regional aquifers in the vicinity of the Big Chino Basin. Modiwest side of the sub-basin, from Gran- fied figure from Wirt, 2005 10 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 and is currently estimated at about 17,700 AFA. Base flow at the Verde River near Paulden (gage number 9503700, see Figure 5.5-4) has declined at an annual rate of about 380 AFA since the mid-1990s (USGS, 2006). The average annual recharge volume for the sub-basin was estimated at 30,300 AFA for the period 1990-2003 (Blasch and others, 2006). McGavock (2003) estimated that there was 10 maf of groundwater in storage in the sub-basin to a depth of 1,200 feet bls. Figure 5.5-6A shows water level changes in the sub-basin from 1992 to 2003-‘04 and water level elevation during 2003-‘04. More than half the wells measured showed some decline although water level increases of more than 15 feet were measured in wells south of Seligman. Well yields exceeding 2,000 gpm are found along the Big Chino Wash drainage (Figure 5.5-8). Water quality is generally good in the sub-basin with some occurrence of arsenic at levels that equal or exceed the drinking water standard in wells in the Paulden area. Verde Valley Sub-basin The Verde Valley Sub-basin is the largest subbasin in the Verde River Basin with an area of about 2,500 square miles. The principal aquifer is the Verde Formation, which consists of a thick sequence of tertiary limestones and sandstones. The estimated depth of the formation reaches 4,200 feet based on aeromagnetic and gravity data (USGS, 2006). The formation flanks the Verde River for some distance from the Camp Verde area to north of Cottonwood. Other aquifers include the carbonate aquifer and an alluvial aquifer located along the Verde River. The carbonate aquifer, primarily sandstone of the Supai Formation and the underlying Redwall and Martin limestones is the main groundwater supply for Sedona. Locally perched groundwater in fractured or decomposed granite and in volcanic rocks provide small amounts of water in many locations. Groundwater occurs primar- ily under unconfined conditions although confined conditions occur locally within the Verde Formation. All three aquifers are hydraulically connected. Most groundwater enters the sub-basin from the Coconino Plateau. Groundwater moves through the carbonate aquifer and discharges at springs and seeps along tributaries of the Verde River, or flows into the Verde Formation and streamchannel alluvium (USGS, 2006). The Oak Creek Fault system is an important influence on the transmission of water between aquifers and to the surface, as evidenced by the large number of major springs along Oak Creek (see Figure 5.5-5). Groundwater primarily flows toward the Verde River drainage and exits the sub-basin in the southeast through alluvium and volcanic rocks along the river (Figure 5.5-6). Groundwater recharge to the Verde Formation aquifer is from high elevation precipitation along the Mogollon Rim and on the Coconino Plateau with additional contributions from stream infiltration. The carbonate aquifer also receives recharge from high altitudes along the Mogollon Rim, and from an area between the San Francisco Peaks and Bill Williams Mountain (USGS, 2006). Most recharge comes from winter precipitation. Groundwater recharge was estimated at 167,470 AFA on average during the period 1990-2003 (Blasch and others, 2006). An estimate of groundwater in storage is not available for the sub-basin. Figure 5.5-6B shows water level changes in the sub-basin from 1994 to 2003-‘04 and water level elevation during 2003-‘04. More than half the wells measured showed some decline although water level increases of more than 30 feet were measured at a few scattered locations. Reported well yields generally range from less than 100 gpm to 1,000 gpm in the sub-basin (Figure 5.5-8). Groundwater is generally of good quality at most locations, although the drinking water standard for arsenic has been Section 5.0 Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 equaled or exceeded in a number of wells (see Table 5.5-7). Verde Canyon Sub-basin There is relatively little groundwater development in the Verde Canyon Sub-basin with the exception of the Payson area. Basalt flows, conglomerates and semi-consolidated silt units cover a large part of the sub-basin. The groundwater system is complex, with disconnected recharge areas and multiple waterbearing zones. Because of its complexity, knowledge of the groundwater system is often limited to local analysis of spring and well data. Groundwater recharge originates primarily along the crest of the Mogollon Rim, where precipitation and snowmelt percolate through permeable volcanic, limestone or sandstone units (USGS 2005a). Spring discharge and stream base flow appear to be the largest components of aquifer outflow. Sedona. Well yields in the area typically range from 20 to 80 gpm. An exploratory well drilled near Strawberry in 2000 encountered water in the Redwall Limestone at about 1,380 feet (Corkhill, 2000). At nearby Pine most wells are completed in the Supai Formation, which is composed of sandstone, siltstone and mudstone with some interbedded limestone. Well yields in Pine are typically lower than Strawberry and range from 10 to 30 gpm. These relatively low well yields suggest a more localized groundwater system (USGS, 2005a). Little water level change data are available with one well near Pine showing a modest water level increase between 1990-‘91 and 2003-‘04. However, a nearby domestic well experienced a decline of about 160 feet between 1993 and 2003-‘04 (Figure 5.5-7, hydrograph V). There is little water use in the southern half of the sub-basin where unconsolidated sediments are found. Water quality is generally good in the subIn Payson groundwater is withdrawn primar- basin although the drinking water standards for ily from fractured and faulted granite. Most arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, selenium wells are shallow, although the Town of Pay- and organics have been equaled or exceeded son has conducted exploratory drilling north of in wells in the Payson area and for arsenic in the town where deep water-bearing zones were Pine. found. A recent study suggests that a segment of the Diamond Rim fault system northeast of West Basins Payson may have groundwater supply potential The Upper Hassayampa Basin was defined by (Gæaorama, 2006). The shallow water-bearing Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992) as a “West zones around Payson depend on winter recharge Basin”. These basins are generally arid and and are therefore very sensitive to drought. Wa- groundwater inflow and outflow are relatively ter in deeper fracture systems in the area may be small with little or no stream baseflow. fed from the Mogollon Rim and less affected by drought. Water levels in wells measured in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Payson area in 2003-‘04 varied from 115 feet to The main aquifer in the Upper Hassayampa 339 feet bls. Water levels in most of these wells Basin is basin-fill deposits found along valleys declined by more than 30 feet between 1990- between the mountains. These deposits consist ‘91 and 2003-‘04 (Figure 5.5-6). Well yields in of gravel, sand, silt and clay. In the mountainous, eastern part of the basin, fractured crystalline the area are typically less than 500 gpm. and consolidated sedimentary rocks yield small In Strawberry, most wells are completed in the amounts of water to wells. Near Wagoner, stream Schnebly Hill Formation, a sandstone unit that deposits overlying crystalline rock are up to 135 is the major component of the “Red Rocks” of feet thick. North of the Vulture Mountains, in 12 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 the southwestern part of the basin, the basin fill The wells yield less than 20 gpm and have water varies from a few tens of feet thick to over 1,000 levels ranging from 21 to 23 feet below ground feet thick near the middle of the valley. surface (Black Canyon City, 2006). Arsenic and fluoride concentrations at levels that equal Groundwater flow is generally from north to or exceed drinking water standards have been south. Groundwater recharge is estimated at detected in springs and wells near Black Canyon 8,000 AFA and groundwater in storage is esti- City and at Castle Hot Springs. mated to range from 1.0 to 1.1 maf. Water levels in wells measured in 2003-‘04 varied from Surface Water Hydrology 20 feet bls near Wickenburg to 817 feet bls near Congress. Water level change data from wells The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides measured in 1990-‘91 and 2003-‘04 show rela- and subdivides the United States into tively stable groundwater levels (Figures 5.4-6 successively smaller hydrologic units based on and 5.4-7). The median well yield in the basin hydrologic features. These units are classified was 125 gpm reported on registration forms into four levels. From largest to smallest these for 61 large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Table are: regions, subregions, accounting units 5.4-6). Groundwater quality is generally good and cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code although drinking water standards for arsenic (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level and other metals have been equaled or exceeded in the system is used to identify any hydrologic in wells near Wickenburg. area (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting units, which are Central Basins used by the USGS for designing and managing The southern half of the Agua Fria Basin was the National Water Data Network. There are categorized by Anderson, Freethey and Tucci portions of three watersheds in the planning (1992) as a “Central Basin”. Central basins are area at the accounting unit level: the Agua Fria characterized by deep alluvial sediments with River-Lower Gila River, the Salt River and the small to moderate amounts of mountain front Verde River (Figure 5.0-5). recharge and streamflow infiltration. The Agua Fria-Lower Gila River Agua Fria Basin (southern half) The Agua Fria-Lower Gila River Watershed The principal aquifers in the Agua Fria Basin are upper basin fill, which occurs under unconfined conditions, and sedimentary rock (conglomerate), which is found throughout the basin and contains the largest volume of groundwater. Water level data are sparse in this portion of the basin. A domestic well located in unconsolidated sediments near Black Canyon City had a measured water level of 43 feet bls in 2003-‘04 (Figure 5.1-7). Well yields in the unconsolidated sediments may be as high as 1,000 gpm or more although most are less than 500 gpm (Figure 5.1-9). In Black Canyon City the Water Improvement District obtains water Flood flow on the Agua Fria River near Black Canfrom wells completed in precambrian schist. yon City. Section 5.0 Overview 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 extends from near Prescott to south of Gila Bend in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. It includes the drainage areas of the Agua Fria River, the Hassayampa River and the Gila River from below its confluence with the Salt River to Painted Rock Dam. Within the planning area, this watershed covers the Agua Fria and the Upper Hassayampa basins. during major flood events and is tributary to the Gila River a short distance downstream of the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers near Goodyear in the Phoenix AMA. The Agua Fria River is perennial along several reaches within the Agua Fria Basin: above Lake Pleasant south of Black Canyon City; through portions of the Agua Fria National Monument; and in the northern part of the basin (see Figure 5.1-6). The Agua Fria River drains an area of about Tributaries to the Agua Fria River with peren2,700 square miles with elevations ranging from nial reaches include Little Ash, Sycamore and 7,800 feet in the Bradshaw Mountains, which Silver creeks. Other tributaries to the river are define part of its western boundary, to 1,570 generally intermittent or ephemeral. feet at Lake Pleasant, which is impounded by New Waddell Dam at the southern boundary of The Hassayampa River originates in the the Agua Fria Basin. The Agua Fria River only northern Bradshaw Mountains and flows flows below the dam when water is released through the Upper Hassayampa Basin and the Figure 5.0-5 Central Highlands USGS Watersheds (USGS, 2005b) 14 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 recorded was 123,076 acre-feet in 1980, and its median flow was 7,457 acre-feet (see Table 5.4-2). There are approximately 460 total springs in the watershed. Only five springs with a discharge of 10 gpm or greater have been reported; all located in the Agua Fria Basin. Discharges from those major springs were last measured during or prior to 1982, therefore these rates may not be indicative of current conditions. The Agua Fria River is perennial at several reaches The largest spring, Castle Spring, discharges approximately 340 gpm from Precambrian within the Agua Fria Basin: above Lake Pleasant south of Black Canyon City; through portions of the rocks at a temperature of 131°F. Castle Spring Agua Fria National Monument; and in the northern is located northwest of Lake Pleasant at Castle part of the basin Hot Springs, reportedly Arizona’s first resort, Phoenix AMA to its confluence with the Gila opened in 1896. The four other major springs River. The river drains a total of about 1,470 have discharge rates less than 100 gpm and are square miles. It is perennial in the northern located in the northeastern portion of the basin portion of the Upper Hassayampa Basin in the (see Figure 5.1-6). There are 14 minor springs vicinity of Groom Creek, and in a reach south (discharge of 1-10 gpm) in the watershed, also of Wickenburg. A major fault crosses the river located in the Agua Fria Basin. While there are seven miles downstream from Wickenburg no major or minor springs reported in the Upper at “the Narrows”, which forms the southern Hassayampa Basin, there are approximately boundary of the basin. At this point, the entire 164 to 166 springs with a discharge of less than flow of the river sinks into the streambed. The 1 gpm. only other perennial reaches within the basin are short reaches of Minnehaha, Ash, Weaver Within the watershed, reaches of Turkey Creek in the Agua Fria Basin, and Cash Mine Creek, and Antelope creeks (AGFD, 1993). French Gulch and the Hassayampa River in the Three streamflow gages are currently active Upper Hassayampa Basin have surface waters in the watershed; all located in the Agua Fria with impaired water quality. Parameters of Basin. Included are real-time gages on the Agua concern include cadmium, copper, zinc, pH and Fria River near Humboldt, Mayer and Rock lead due to mining activities in the area. Springs. The maximum recoded annual flow in the watershed was 360,541 acre-feet at the The Salt River Rock Springs gage in 1992. The median annual The surface water characteristics of the Salt flow at this location is 19,692 acre-feet and the River Watershed are influenced by precipitation minimum annual flow was 1,528 acre-feet in patterns, topography and geology. The Salt River 1975 (see Table 5.1-2). There are currently no and Tonto Creek basins comprise most of the operating streamflow gages in the Hassayampa watershed with the exception of the westernmost River drainage of the watershed. The gage with part, which extends to the confluence of the Salt the longest record (35 years), located north of and Gila rivers in the Phoenix AMA. The Salt Wickenburg, was discontinued in 1982. During River is the largest tributary of the Gila River its period of operation, the highest annual flow with a drainage area of about 5,980 square miles. Section 5.0 Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Its headwaters are the White and Black rivers that originate in the high elevations of the Salt River Basin where winter snow accumulation is critical to downstream water supplies. This area is the most prolific producer of surface water in Arizona with unit runoff values as high as 674 acre-feet/square mile (12.6 inches) in the drainage of the East Fork of the White River. (See Figure 5.2-4). By comparison, the Tonto Creek Basin has a unit runoff of about 160 acrefeet/square mile (3.1 inches). (ADWR, 1992) Within the planning area, the elevation of the watershed ranges from near 11,400 feet in the White Mountains to 1,500 feet at Saguaro Lake. There are many perennial streams in the Salt River Watershed, particularly in the Salt River Basin (see Figures 5.2-5 and 5.3-6). The Salt River and Tonto Creek are both perennial throughout their lengths in the planning area. Numerous small streams that begin along the Mogollon Rim and the White Mountains feed tributaries of the Salt River and Tonto Creek. Perennial flow in these streams is primarily due to geologic features (e.g. joints and fractures) Salt River. There are many perennial streams in that cause groundwater to surface and discharge the Salt River Watershed, particularly in the Salt River Basin to streams. SRP water supply and satisfy obligations to the Surface water from the watershed flows into Gila River Indian Community in accordance Theodore Roosevelt Lake, and is subsequently with the Arizona Water Settlement Act (Act). released to a series of three downstream reser- The Act also allocated 3,500 AFA from the resvoirs along the Salt River, Apache Lake, Can- ervoir to improve the water supply situation in yon Lake and Saguaro Lake. These reservoirs northern Gila County, of which 3,000 AFA will and their associated dams are operated by the be used by Payson. Surface water stored in the Salt River Project (SRP) for the benefit of ag- Salt and Verde reservoir system is generally not ricultural, municipal and industrial users in the available for use in the Central Highlands PlanPhoenix metropolitan area. Figure 5.0-6 shows ning Area. the capacity of the SRP reservoir system on both the Salt and the Verde rivers. Also shown is The Salt River system dams were constructed C.C. Cragin Reservoir, formerly known as Blue beginning in 1911 with completion of Roosevelt Ridge Reservoir. Water stored at C.C. Cragin, Dam. Mormon Flat Dam was completed in located in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, is 1926, followed by Horse Mesa in 1927 and diverted by pipeline to the East Verde River in Stewart Mountain in 1930. Prior to dam conthe Verde River Watershed to supplement the struction, the flow in the Salt River was heavi- 16 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 SRP Reservoir System Capacity inCapacity Acre-Feet Figure 5.0-6 SRP Reservoir System C.C. Cragin Dam 6720’ 6720’ Horseshoe Dam 2026’ Horseshoe - 2000’ 109,217 AF 1798’ Roosevelt Dam 2218’ Top of Safety of Dams East Clear Creek Storage: 15,000 AF 2151’ Top of Conservation C.C. Cragin 15,000 AF 2100’ - Horse Mesa Dam 1914’ Bartlett Dam Mormon Flat Dam 1660.5’ Mountain 1610.5’ Dam 1529’ Roosevelt Lake 1,653,043 AF Apache Lake 245,138 AF Bartlett - 1748’ Stewart 178,186 AF Verde River Storage: 287,403 AF 1506’ - Canyon Lake 57,852 AF Saguaro Lake 69,765 AF VERDE CONSERVATION STORAGE: 302,403 AF Total SRP Storage: 2,328,201 AF 01/09/07 REF/SVRSCIAF-2 Figure courtesy of SRP (2006) est in the spring and early summer. Flow is now regulated in response to flood control and downstream water demand. As a result, flows below the reservoirs are generally highest during June-August when water demand is greatest in the Phoenix metropolitan area or when high inflow to the reservoirs necessitates release of water from the dams. In February 1980, a wet winter combined with a storm that dropped up to ten inches of rainfall on the watershed resulted in the largest controlled flood ever to go down the Salt River. Releases from Roosevelt Dam peaked at 180,000 cfs and the water level behind the dam was inches from overflowing the crest (SRP, 2007a). Annual streamflow of the Salt River fluctuates widely. The nearest gage upstream from Roosevelt Lake, with a contributing drainage area of 4,306 mi2, has been in operation since 1913. The maximum annual flow was over 2.4 maf in 1916, median annual flow has been 518,499 acre-feet and mean annual flow 644,942 acre-feet. In 2002, an extreme drought year, flow into Roosevelt Lake was at its minimum, about SALT CONSERVATION STORAGE: 2,025,798 AF 153,000 acre-feet (Table 5.2-2). Except for changes due to timber harvesting and beaver removal, the upstream reaches of the river have not been significantly altered (Tellman et al., 1997). Typically, timber harvesting and fire in mature forests temporarily increases watershed yields due to elimination of the plant cover. As woody and herbaceous vegetation becomes established, streamflows decline. Recent severe fires in the basin resulted in significant increases in peak flow at several locations. (Neary, et al., 2003) In the Tonto Creek Basin there is one currently operating, real-time streamflow gage located near the community of Roosevelt north of Gun Creek. The maximum annual flow at this point was more than 469,000 acre-feet in 1978. The median annual flow has been about 66,000 acre-feet since 1940. Similar to the record low flow in the Salt River, the minimum annual flow was about 2,900 acre-feet in 2002 (Table 5.3-2). Section 5.0 Overview 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 There are a relatively large number of major springs in the Salt River Watershed. In the Tonto Creek Basin, several major springs are located below the Mogollon Rim where groundwater is discharged from southward dipping rocks of a limestone aquifer. Tonto Spring at the headwaters of Tonto Creek is the largest spring in the Tonto Creek Basin with a measured discharge of 1,291 gpm. Its flow has been relatively stable, and its isotopic and specific-conductance data are similar to those for Fossil Springs in the Verde River Watershed. This suggests that the same limestone aquifer supplies both springs, which are located approximately 20 miles apart (USGS, 2005a). In the Salt River Basin, a high concentration of major springs occurs near McNary, where springs emanate from fractured basalt. Alchesay Spring, which issues from the Supai Formation along the North Fork of the White River, has the greatest reported discharge measurement in the watershed (over 9,000 gpm). Travertine deposition due to high concentrations of calcium carbonate in source waters occurs at this spring and at Warm Spring along the Salt River (ADWR, 1992). Several lakes and streams in the watershed have impaired water quality. Reaches of Tonto Creek and Christopher Creek in the Tonto Creek Basin have exceeded standards for E. coli and nitrate. The entire reach of Pinto Creek in the Salt River Basin has exceeded the standard for copper due to mining activities in the area. Two lakes in the Salt River Basin have impaired waters including Canyon Lake (dissolved oxygen) and Crescent Lake (high pH) (see Tables 5.2-7 and 5.3-7). Verde River Most of the Verde River watershed, and its major watercourse, the Verde River, is located within the boundaries of the Verde River Basin. Within the planning area, the elevation of the Verde River watershed ranges from about 12,600 feet at Humphrey’s Peak to about 1,750 Verde River near Paulden Gage, Verde River Basin. The Central Highlands Planning Area contains the state’s most important water producing watersheds, the Salt River and the Verde River which contain the greatest concentration of perennial streams in the state. 18 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 feet at Bartlett Dam. The entire watershed encompasses about 6,188 sq. mi. and extends into the Phoenix AMA to the confluence of the Verde River with the Salt River. The upper parts of the watershed include Big Chino Wash, which originates east of the Aubrey Cliffs northwest of Seligman, and Oak Creek which originates on the Coconino Plateau in the northeastern part of the watershed. Big Chino Wash is an ephemeral stream that flows southeasterly to Sullivan Lake while Oak Creek is a perennial stream that merges with the Verde River south of Cottonwood. Creek, then southward through two reservoirs, Horseshoe and Bartlett, before its confluence with the Salt River. Bartlett Dam was constructed between 1936-1939 to store water for irrigation and other uses in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Ten miles upstream, Horseshoe Dam was completed in 1946 by Phelps Dodge for the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association under a water exchange agreement. Both reservoirs are operated by SRP. Below Granite Creek, the Verde River flows eastward to Perkinsville, southeastward to Fossil Sullivan Lake Dam, Verde River Basin. The Verde River is perennial throughout its length from just below Sullivan Lake Dam. The Verde River is perennial throughout its length from just below Sullivan Lake Dam. Almost all the major perennial tributaries to the The Verde River originates in a steep-walled river drain areas to the north and east. In advolcanic rock canyon near Paulden below dition to Oak Creek, other major tributaries are Sullivan Lake Dam (now almost entirely filled Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, Sycamore with sediment). Springs feed the headwaters Creek (at Fort McDowell) and East Verde Rivnear the upper end of Stillman Lake. The lake is a narrow, 3,900 foot-long, 20-acre impoundment formed from sediment deposited in the river at the Granite Creek confluence causing the river to back-up in its channel. (USFWS, 2007). Just below the confluence with Granite Creek, a large diffuse spring network, including Big Chino Spring and Sullivan Lake Spring, sustain perennial flow in the river. A USGS study found that discharge from the springs below Sullivan Lake Dam are derived from three groundwater sources; the western part of the Coconino Plateau, the Big Chino Sub-basin and the Little Chino Sub-basin (part of the Prescott AMA) (USGS, 2006). Another USGS study used geochemical data to estimate the various base flow contributions to the Verde River. It reported that 80-86% of the base flow is from the Big Chino Sub-basin, 14% from the Little Chino Sub-basin, 10-15% from the DevonianCambrian zone of the regional carbonate aquifer and <6% from the Mississippi-Devonian sequence of the regional carbonate aquifer (USGS, 2005c). Section 5.0 Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 er. Stream flows in the watershed can be substantial given the relatively high elevation and associated high rainfall and snowfall. Several stream gages on the Verde and its tributaries have reported annual maximum flows exceeding one million AFA. These gages are the Oak Creek gage near Cornville, the Verde River below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam gage and the Verde River at Bartlett Reservoir near Cave Creek gage. The median flows at these gages are about 531,000 acre-feet, 131,000 acre-feet and 245,000 acre-feet, respectively (see Table 5.5-2). The lowest flow reported at the Oak Creek gage was about 214,500 acrefeet in 1956. south of Camp Verde and below the Mogollon Rim north of Payson. Here, water infiltrating through sedimentary rocks discharges at springs along the face of the rim at fractures or at the interface of permeable and less permeable rocks. Impaired surface waters in the Verde Watershed occur along the East Verde River (selenium), Oak Creek (E. coli), Pecks and Stoneman lakes (dissolved oxygen, high pH and nutrients), Whitehorse Lake (dissolved oxygen) and along reaches of the Verde River (turbidity). (See Table 5.5-7 and Figure 5.5-9). Many major and minor springs occur in the Verde River Basin (see Table 5.5-5) including Fossil Springs, near Strawberry, with a total discharge of over 21,000 gpm. Fossil Springs consist of several dozen discharge points with most of the flow emanating from about a half dozen points. The largest of the springs reportedly issues from the Fossil Springs fault while other springs issue from the Naco Formation near its contact with the underlying Redwall limestone (Gæaorama Inc., 2006). The Naco Formation consists of interbedded grayish limestone and limey claystone and is located between the overlying Supai Formation and the Redwall limestone in this area. The chemistry of the springs below the Mogollon Rim is characteristic of water from the Coconino Aquifer, suggesting its source. Fossil Springs contain elevated concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate as well as chloride and sulfate (USGS, 2005a). Calcium carbonate precipitates out below the springs and forms travertine dams along Fossil Creek. Major springs also occur along upper and lower Oak Creek. In the north half of Oak Creek Canyon, water moves along fractured rock of the Oak Creek fault zone to discharge at springs along the creek (Owen-Joyce, 1983). Several springs are also found along lower Oak Creek, 20 Oak Creek, Verde River Basin. In the north half of Oak Creek Canyon, water moves along fractured rock of the Oak Creek fault zone to discharge at springs along the creek Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.0.3 Climate2 The high country of the Mogollon Rim is a significant topographic barrier to regional airflow, making the climate of the Central Highlands Planning Area wetter and cooler than the rest of the state. The area-weighted average of water-year precipitation for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Arizona Climate Divisions 3 and 4 (covers Yavapai and Gila counties, respectively) is 16.8 inches, which is greater than the statewide average of 12.1 inches. A climate division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona is divided into seven climate divisions. The area-weighted average water-year temperature for the planning area is 59.3°F, compared to the statewide average of 59.9°F. While average temperatures are slightly cooler than the statewide average, they have been warming during the last 70+ years (Figure 5.0-7). Recent studies show an observed increase, throughout much of the West, in the fraction of winter precipitation falling as rain, rather than snow, at low-to-middle elevations (up to around 8,000 feet). If this trend continues, the timing, amount and distribution of spring runoff is likely to be affected. Figure 5.0-7 Average Temperature and Total Precipitation in the Central Highlands Planning Area from 1930-2002 64 30 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 63 25 62 Precipitation (in) Temperature ( o F) 61 60 20 15 59 58 10 57 56 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year) 5 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year) Horizontal lines are average temperature and precipitation, respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values, Data are from U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Figure author: CLIMAS Information in this section was provided by the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, October 2006 2 Section 5.0 Overview 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Precipitation in the Central Highlands Planning Area has a bi-modal pattern (both winter and summer precipitation peaks) characteristic of Arizona (Figure 5.0-8); however, the planning area receives a greater fraction of its precipitation during the winter months than, for example, southeastern Arizona. During winter, precipitation comes during the passage of frontal storm systems moving west-to-east guided by the jet stream, typically located north of Arizona, but occasionally traversing the state. As moist air masses encounter the Mogollon Rim they are lifted and cooled, which condenses water vapor and enhances precipitation. Winter precipitation stored as snow is important for planning area water resources. Cooler temperatures and less intense sunlight during winter combine to reduce evaporation, and, in most years, allow snow cover to persist until spring, when gradually melting snow replenishes surface water supplies. During the summer monsoon season, atmospheric circulation shifts and brings moisture from the south and east to the planning area. Storms during this season are driven primarily by convection (heat-driven upward motion), aided by topography, which can force air parcels upward to heights where water vapor condenses. Summer convective thunderstorms tend to occur in spatially scattered cells. Many storms originate over the high elevations in the Central Highlands Planning Area and move downward and outward over the deserts. The planning area receives over 37% of its annual precipitation during July-September, which helps replenish streamflow and recharge groundwater aquifers, especially in the shallow fractured aquifers Figure 5.0-8 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in the Central Highlands Planning Area 1930-2002 3 80 Temperature 75 Precipitation 2.5 70 2 1.5 60 Temperature o F Precipitation (in) 65 55 1 50 0.5 45 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 40 Data are from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Figure author: CLIMAS 22 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.0-9 Arizona NOAA Climate Divisions 3 & 4 Winter (November-April) Precipitation Departures from Average, 1000-1988, Reconstructed from Tree Rings 150 Precipitation anomaly (inches) 100 50 0 −50 −100 −150 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Year Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Data: Fenbiao Ni, The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author:CLIMAS near Payson. However, summer precipitation is generally less hydrologically effective than winter precipitation because of greater evaporation rates and the spatial discontinuity of the storms. Figure 5.0-9 shows long-term changes in areaweighted average winter (November-April) precipitation for NOAA Arizona Climate Divisions 3 and 4 based on three-ring reconstructions. The record indicates recurrent drought in each century, with notable winter dry periods in the mid-1100s, late 1500s, late 1600s, and late 1700s. Notable winter wet periods include the early 1200s, the mid-1800s, and early 1900s. Precipitation variability on time scales of 10-30 years is likely related to shifts in Pacific Ocean circulation patterns, though recent research also points to the influence of the North Atlantic Ocean. Shorter-term variations can be attributed to ocean-atmosphere variations related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. During El Niño episodes, there are greater chances for above-average winter precipitation, as storm tracks across North America are shifted farther south than normal. La Niña conditions are reliably associated with below-average winter precipitation. 5.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions reflect the effects of geography, climate and cultural activities and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development. Discussed in this section is vegetation, riparian protection through the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program, instream flow claims, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected Section 5.0 Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 from development as national monuments, surveyed on the Apache-Sitgreaves National wilderness areas and preserves and unique and Forest above 7,500 feet showed 40% mortality other managed waters. in both mid-and high-elevation sites. Researchers found that while insects and disease were as3 Vegetation sociated with the mortality, they appeared to be secondary agents on already drought-stressed Three of Arizona’s five ecoregions are included trees (USDA, 2008) in the planning area: the Arizona mountains forests, which cover most of the area, the Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean Sonoran Desert in the southwest, and an montane conifer forests commonly occur extension of the Colorado Plateau shrublands in between about 7,200 to 8,700 feet. Above the norther Verde River Basin. Because of the 8,000 feet in areas that receive from 25 to 30 wide elevation range in the planning area, there inches of annual rainfall, the forest contains a are many biotic communities, ranging from mix of conifers that may include Douglas-fir, Sonoran desertscrub in the Upper Hassayampa white fir, limber pine, blue spruce and white Basin to subalpine grassland and subalpine pine, with ponderosa pine on warmer slopes. conifer forest in the high elevations of the Salt Aspen and Gambel oak are prominent in these River and Verde River basins. A very small area forests following disturbances. Below 8,000 of alpine tundra is found above 12,000 feet on feet in areas that receive about 18 to 26 inches the San Francisco Peaks in the Verde River of annual precipitation, the mix of species gives Basin (this small area is not distinguishable way to almost pure stands of ponderosa pine. on Figure 5.0-10). Much of the planning area The forest stretching from near Flagstaff along is covered by Rocky Mountain and Madrean the Mogollon Rim to the White Mountains montane conifer forests, interior chaparral and region is the largest ponderosa pine forest on the Great Basin conifer woodlands. continent (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). About half of the precipitation occurs during the growing Areas of subalpine grassland and subalpine for- season, which permits forests to exist on less than ests are found at high elevations in the White 25 inches of annual rainfall, making them some Mountains and on the San Francisco Peaks. of the driest forests in North America (Brown, The subalpine conifer forests are limited to 1982). In the planning area these forests extend relatively small isolated mountaintop stands at elevations of 8,500 to almost 12,000 feet with annual precipitation from 30 to 40 inches a year. These forests consist of dense stands of fir, spruce and aspen trees. 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 (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). Recent surveys of aspen sites show that low-elevation dry sites on the Coconino National Forest (<7,500 feet) Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean montane experienced 95% mortality since 2000. Sites conifer forest, Clover Springs Area, Verde River Basin. 3 Except as noted, information in this section is from Brown and Lowe, 1980 and from AZGF, 2004. 24 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.0 Overview 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 across the entire northern boundary and are also Interior chaparral is found at lower elevations found at higher elevations in other locations in (4,000-6,000 feet) in areas that receive 13 to the planning area (Figure 5.0-10). 23 inches of annual precipitation. Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the The high elevation subalpine and montane same height with occasional taller shrubs or conifer forests receive much of their annual small trees. Chaparral communities typically precipitation as snow. Because of forest are a mix of several shrubby species such density, sunlight reaches the ground and snow as mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and melts slowly, releasing snowmelt gradually to manzanita and commonly include cactus, agave, streams. Snowfall accumulations in this area of and yucca. Chaparral plants are well adapted to the state are critical to the Phoenix metropolitan drought conditions. area water supply. Semi-desert grasslands occur in valleys Great Basin conifer (piñon-juniper) woodlands between the desert and woodlands or chaparral cover areas below the ponderosa pine forest at at elevations between 3,500 and 5,000 feet that elevations between about 5,000 and 7,500 feet receive annual precipitation of 10 to 15 inches. that receive about 10 to 20 inches of annual Semi-desert grasslands are found in the Upper precipitation. Extensive stands exist throughout Hassayampa and Agua Fria basins and south the planning area as shown on Figure 5.0-10. of Payson in the Tonto Creek Basin. Desert Bark beetle infestations have affected large grasslands often contain a mixture of grasses, areas of piñon pine in the White Mountains in shrubs and small trees. recent years although activity decreased in most areas in 2007 (USDA, 2008). A small extension of Mohave desertscrub is found in the western part of the Upper Madrean evergreen woodland occurs in small Hassayampa Basin. While many of the same areas in the eastern part of the Tonto Creek and plants found in the other Arizona deserts occur western part of the Salt River basins at elevations here, some are indicative of the Mohave Desert of about 5,000 to 6,000 feet. This mild winter- such as the Joshua tree and certain cacti and wet summer woodland consists of evergreen endemic ephemeral plants, most of which are oak, juniper and piñon pine. This community is winter annuals (Brown, 1982). The community more commonly found in southeastern Arizona is shrub-dominated and creosote bush and and the Sierra Madre of Mexico. In this northern bursage are often dominant species. Mohave reach it occurs above or within interior chaparral desertscrub is typically found at elevations and below and along drainages within the Great Basin conifer woodland (Brown, 1982). Plains and Great Basin grasslands, primarily composed of mixed or short-grass communities, occur in several parts of the planning area at elevations between 5,000 and 7,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches of annual precipitation. These areas are located primarily in Chino Valley and in small areas on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation south of Fort Apache. The piñon-juniper woodland is often Interior chaparral, Salt River Basin. intermixed with this grassland. 26 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 below about 3,500 feet that receive 5 to 11 Tonto Creek. Along the Hassayampa River at inches of annual rainfall. Wickenburg, riparian vegetation consists of cottonwood-willow, mesquite and strand while Arizona Upland Sonoran desertscrub covers conifer-oak and mixed broadleaf are found at parts of the planning area below about 3,500 the Hassayampa River headwaters. feet in the Upper Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Tonto Creek and Salt River basins. The community In their study of the change in riparian vegetaoccurs primarily on slopes and sloping plains tion in the southwest, Webb and others (2007) at elevations of 980 to over 3,000 feet where remarked that “The Verde River….has the largit merges with interior chaparral or semidesert est number of species of woody riparian veggrassland with average annual precipitation etation that we observed…” They found that between 8 to 16 inches. Vegetation is scrubland riparian vegetation had generally increased or low woodland in appearance with blue and along the entire length of the Verde River and foothill palo verde, ironwood, mesquite and its tributaries, following a series of large floods cat-claw acacia as common tree species. Cacti between 1891 and 1940. They noted that ripariare extremely important in this subdivision an vegetation along the Salt River had increased including saguaro, cholla and barrel cacti. somewhat upstream from Roosevelt Dam de(Brown, 1982) spite a number of severe floods between 1978 and 1995. Riparian vegetation also increased Extensive reaches of riparian vegetation oc- along the Agua Fria River upstream from New cur throughout the planning area. Areas that Waddell Dam. Riparian vegetation along the have been mapped along perennial streams are Hassayampa River was also found to have inshown in Figure 5.0-12. Along the Verde River creased at several sites although the impact of and several of its tributaries, riparian vegetation drought, resulting in mortality of young trees, is composed of mixed broadleaf, cottonwood- was noted near the downstream end of the Haswillow, mesquite and strand vegetation (ripar- sayampa River Preserve south of Wickenburg. ian obligate plants adapted to periodic flooding, scouring, or soil deposition). Conifer-Oak ripar- Several years of drought combined with high ian obligate habitat is found at higher elevations tree densities resulted in the largest outbreak along West Clear Creek and the East Verde Riv- of pine bark beetle populations ever recorded er. Mixed broadleaf, mesquite and strand veg- in Arizona during 2002 – 2004. This outbreak etation is found along three perennial reaches of the Agua Fria River. Two tributaries to the Agua Fria River, Little Ash Creek and Sycamore Creek also contain significant mixed broadleaf vegetation (NEMO, 2006). In the higher elevation headwaters area of the Black River, riparian habitat is composed of wet meadow, mountain scrub and conifer-oak vegetation. At lower elevations mixed broadleaf and strand vegetation are found along the Black River. Along the Salt River, riparian vegetation is composed of mesquite, strand and tamarisk. In the Tonto Creek Basin, mixed broadleaf, cottonwood-willow, strand and mesquite vegetation are found along Riparian vegetation along the Agua Fria River. Section 5.0 Overview 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 killed millions of piñon and ponderosa pine trees. In 2003 bark beetle mortality was detected on about 763,000 acres in Arizona and New Mexico, with most of the mortality occurring in Arizona (USFS, 2003). Areas most affected were trees at the lower end of their elevational range. Drought conditions improved in 2004 and 2005, and mortality decreased substantially as a result of both higher precipitation and because many of the trees in the most susceptible areas were already dead. Based on aerial surveys conducted in 2004 by the U.S. Forest Service, there were several areas of ponderosa pine infestation in the planning area. Areas with substantial bark beetle-caused ponderosa pine mortality occurred on parts of the Fort Apache Indian reservation, on lands west and north of the reservation, areas southwest of Bellemont, and areas west of Interstate 17 in the vicinity of Crown King. Data from aerial surveys recorded 2.1 million acres of piñon-juniper woodland and 1.3 million acres of ponderosa pine were affected in Arizona and New Mexico during 2002 – 2004 (USDA, 2007). Wildfire risk increases with the number of dead trees in the landscape, which provide fuel for fires. There were several major wildfires in the Central Highlands Planning Area during the severe drought years between 2002 and 2005 (see Figure 5.0-11). The Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002, Arizona’s largest ever, consumed about 462,600 acres, much of it in the north-central part of the Salt River Basin. The Willow Fire (2004) burned almost 120,000 acres southwest of Payson in the Tonto Creek and Verde River basins and the Cave Creek Complex Fire (2005) Figure 5.0-11 Wildfires in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2002-2005 (USFS 2007) 28 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 burned 243,800 acres in the east-central part of ning Area through 2008 is found in Appendix A the Agua Fria Basin and adjacent areas in the of this volume. A description of the program, Verde River Basin and Phoenix AMA. a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Volume 1. In the Southwest, fire can be among the most significant watershed disturbance agents, Instream Flow Claims particularly to peak stream flows. In areas severely burned by the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire, An instream flow water right is a non-diversionpeak flows were as much as 2,350 times greater ary appropriation of surface water for recreation than previously measured, the highest known and wildlife use. An application to appropriate post-fire peak flow in the Southwest. Increased public water for instream flow purposes moves peak flows can degrade stream channels through a number of administrative steps culmiand make them unstable, increase sediment nating in the Department’s approval or rejection production and cause flood damage. (Neary and of the application. Streamflow measurement others, 2003) Drought, wildfire and long-term data, a study that substantiates the streamflow climate change involving warmer temperatures volume requested and quantifies the relationwith earlier springs and less snow cover could ship between the claimed beneficial use(s) and result in vegetative changes in the planning area the requested streamflow rates are required bewith implications for runoff, infiltration and fore the Department will issue a permit to apwater supplies. propriate. Following approval of a permit, the permit holder has four years to demonstrate that Arizona Water Protection Fund Prothe instream flow right is being used in a mangrams ner consistent with the terms of the issued permit. After the permit holder submits proof of the The objective of the Arizona Water Protection appropriation, the Department issues the permit Fund (AWPF) program is to provide funds for holder a Certificate of Water Right (CWR) with protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers a priority date that relates back to the date of the and streams and associated riparian habitats. application. A CWR evidences a perfected surTwenty-eight riparian restoration projects in face water right that is superior to all other surthe Central Highlands Planning Area have been face water rights with a later priority date, but funded by the AWPF through 2008. Nineteen junior to all right with an earlier (older) priority of these projects were funded in the Verde Riv- date. All permits and certificates are for specific er Basin, primarily involving research, fencing uses at specific places and are endorsed with the and stream restoration on the Verde River. Four priority date and extent and purpose(s) of the projects were funded in the Salt River Basin in- right(s). The right must be beneficially used or it cluding restoration projects on Cherry Creek, may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture. Canyon Creek and at Lofer Cienega. Two stream restoration projects in the Agua Fria Basin on Thirty-nine applications for instream flow Ash Creek and Lynx Creek, and an erosion re- claims have been filed in the Central Highsearch and fencing and revegetation project in lands Planning Area. The applications are listDakini Valley in the Tonto Creek Basin have ed in Table 5.0-1 and shown on Figure 5.0-12. also been funded. In the Upper Hassayampa Claims have been filed in all the basins in the Basin, one project has been funded involving a planning area and 11 certificates have been isconstructed wetland. A list of projects and proj- sued. Certificates have been issued for claims ect types funded in the Central Highlands Plan- on: Ash Creek in the Agua Fria Basin; Christo- Section 5.0 Overview 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-1 Instream flow applications in the Central Highlands Planning Area Table 5.0-1 Instream Flow Claims in the Central Highlands Planning Area (08/2008) Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 1 Apache Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96801.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 2 Ash Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-96411.0 96411 96411 1/5/1995 3 Big Bug Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96802.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 4 Canyon Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96816.0 Pending Pending 9/30/2005 5 Cherry Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96609.0 Pending Pending 6/30/1999 6 Christopher Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96575.0 96575 96575 4/23/1998 7 Cienega Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96803.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 8 Coon Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96742.0 Pending Pending 6/18/2003 9 East Verde River Tonto National Forest 33-90310.0 90310 90310 11/26/1985 10 Fossil Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96622.0 Pending Pending 12/1/1999 11 Foster Creek Coconino National Forest 33-95370.0 Pending Pending 2/2/1990 12 Haigler Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96571.0 Pending Pending 10/31/1997 13 Hassayampa River Nature Conservancy 33-92304.0 92304 92304 1/20/1987 14 Jones Creek Coconino National Forest 33-95371.0 Pending Pending 2/2/1990 15 Oak Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90106.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 16 Pinto Creek Tonto National Forest 33-89109.0 89109 89109 12/14/1983 17 Rarick Canyon Coconino National Forest 33-90109.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 18 Red Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96743.0 Pending Pending 6/18/2003 19 Reynolds Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96570.0 96570 96570 10/31/1997 20 Sheepshead Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90111.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 21 Spring Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90114.0 90114 90114 7/29/1985 22 Spring Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96815.0 Pending Pending 9/28/2005 23 Sycamore Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90113.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 24 Sycamore Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96509.0 96509 96509 5/15/1996 25 Sycamore Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96804.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 26 Tangle Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96743.0 Pending Pending 1/31/2007 27 Tonto Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96684.0 Pending Pending 11/15/2000 28 Turkey Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96708.0 Pending Pending 1/29/2002 29 Verde River Tonto National Forest 33-90309.0 90309 90309 11/26/1985 30 Verde River Prescott National Forest 33-94374.0 Pending Pending 12/2/1988 31 Verde River Phelps Dodge Corp. 33-96760.0 Pending Pending 6/3/2004 32 Verde River Nature Conservancy 33-96876 Pending Pending 7/18/2008 33 Verde River Arizona Game & Fish 33-96877 Pending Pending 8/6/2008 34 Walker Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90108.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 35 Walnut Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96800.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 36 West Clear Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90110.0 90110 90110 7/29/1985 37 West Clear Creek Johnson, James A. 33-96178.0 Pending Pending 3/20/1992 38 Wet Beaver Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90112.0 90112 90112 7/29/1985 39 Workman Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96618.0 Pending Pending 10/26/1999 30 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 pher Creek in the Tonto Creek Basin; the East Verde River, Spring Creek, Sycamore Creek (near Sunflower), the Verde River, West Clear Creek and Wet Beaver Creek in the Verde River Basin; the Hassayampa River in the Upper Hassayampa River Basin; and Pinto Creek and Reynolds Creek in the Salt River Basin. Some of the certificates cover extensive reaches of the streams as shown on Figure 5.0-12. 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. In the Salt River watershed, SRP has developed the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) to minimize and mitigate the impacts of operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake to the Threatened and Endangered Species southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, Yuma clapper rail and western yellow-billed A number of listed threatened and endangered cuckoo (a candidate for ESA protection). Under species may be present in the Central Highlands the plan, SRP will acquire and protect at least Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish 1,500 acres of riparian habitat in perpetuity and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of 2008 are along the San Pedro, Verde, and Gila rivers, or shown in Table 5.0-2. Presence of a listed other river systems in Arizona, and implement species may be a critical consideration in water other conservation measures to protect up to Table 5.0-2 Threatened and endangered species in the Central Highlands Planning Area Common Name Apache (Arizona) Trout Threatened Endangered X Elevation/Habitat >5000 ft./cold mountain streams Arizona Agave X 3,000 ft./steep, rocky granite slopes, or level hilltops, near chaparral; New River and Sierra Ancha Mountains Arizona Cliff-rose X <4,000 ft./white soils of tertiary limestone lakebed deposits Arizona hedgehog cactus X 3,700-5,200 ft./ecotone between interior chapparal and madrean evergreen woodland Bald Eagle X California Brown Pelican Chiricahua Leopard Frog Varies/large trees or cliffs near water X X Desert pupfish X Gila Chub X Gila topminnow X Varies/lakes and rivers 3,300-8,900ft./streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds and stock tanks <5,000 ft./shallow springs, small streams and marshes. Tolerates saline and warm water 2,000-5,500 ft./pools, springs, cienegas and streams <4,500 ft./small streams, springs and cienegas and vegetated shallows An “endangered species” is defined by the 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 foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 4 Section 5.0 Overview 32 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-2 Threatened and endangered species in the Central Highlands Planning Area (Cont) Common Name Gila trout Threatened X Lesser long-nosed bat Loach Minnow X X X Razorback sucker San Francisco Peaks groundsel X X Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Spikedace <6,000 ft./desert scrub with agave and columnar cacti <8,000ft./benthic species of small to large perennial streams 4,000-12,000 ft. /chapparal, woodland and forests 4,100-9,000 ft./canyons and dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure <6,000 ft./riverine and lacustrine areas; not in fast moving water >10,900 ft./Alpine tundra X <8,500 ft./cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams <6,000 ft./moderate to large perennial streams with gravel cobble substrates X Yuma Clapper Rail Elevation/Habitat 5,000-10,000 ft./small, high mountain streams X Mexican Gray Wolf Mexican Spotted Owl Endangered X <4,500 ft./Fresh water and brackish marshes Source: USFWS 2008, AZGF 2008 750 additional acres of habitat. The Plan also includes rescue of bald eagle eggs and nestlings whose nests are threatened by inundation, monitoring of the species and habitat at Roosevelt Lake and in the mitigation areas, and other measures. Following SRPs commitment to implementation of the Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a 50-year permit to SRP to “take” endangered southwestern willow flycatchers, threatened bald eagles, endangered Yuma clapper rails and yellow-billed cuckoos incidental to operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake.5 (USFWS, 2003) Horseshoe storage space that became colonized by a population of southwestern willow flycatchers and other covered species that may be adversely impacted by refilling the reservoir. The HCP will minimize and mitigate for take of the covered species by operating Horseshoe to maintain the riparian forest, acquiring 200 acres of replacement habitat and other actions (73 Federal Register 62525 et seq.). National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Four national monuments that protect prehisA habitat conservation plan (HCP) has also been toric dwellings are located in the planning area adopted for Horseshoe and Bartlett reservoirs (see figure 5.0-13). Montezuma Castle, Tonto on the Verde River. Drought conditions resulted and Tuzigoot National Monuments are small in establishment of riparian species in the sites containing cliff dwellings or pueblos. TonAs defined by the ESA, take means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in other conduct.” (16 U.S.C. section 1531[18]) 5 33 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 to National Monument is located along Tonto Creek in the Salt River Basin while the others are located in the Verde Valley in the Verde River Basin. Agua Fria National Monument, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, covers 71,700 acres in the Agua Fria Basin (see Figure 5.1-2). It contains at least 450 prehistoric sites, four major settlement areas and the Agua Fria River canyon, which contains a perennial reach of the river. All or portions of 21 wilderness areas, encompassing 788,000 acres, are also found within the planning area. Wilderness areas are designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect the designated area in its natural condition. Designated areas, their size, basin location and a brief description of the area are listed in Table 5.0-3 and shown on Figure 5.0-13. All wilderness areas are located on National Forest Service lands with the exception of the Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Most of the wilderness areas protect riparian habitat, rivers and streams and are located in the Verde River Basin. The Hassayampa River Preserve, located south of Wickenburg, was established in 1986 by The Nature Conservancy. The preserve protects spring-fed Palm Lake, a four-acre pond and marsh habitat that attracts water birds and provides habitat for endangered fish. The Hassayampa River is perennial within the preserve and supports lush streamside habitat. Figure 5.0-13 Wilderness Areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area (Wilderness Data Source: National Atlas of the United States 2005, Land Ownership Data Source: ALRIS 2006) Section 5.0 Overview 34 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-3 Wilderness areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area Wilderness Area Acres Basin Description Three springs and important riparian area including Apache Creek Apache Creek 5,488 Verde River Bear Wallow 11,336 Salt River (part) Castle Creek 25,536 Agua Fria Cedar Bench 16,127 Verde River Fossil Creek 10,400 Verde River Granite Mountain 9,747 Verde River Hassayampa River Canyon 11,840 Mountain characterized by granite boulders, some the size of a house, stacked one atop the other to elevations that exceed 7,600 feet. Includes several miles of the Hassayampa River and Upper Hassayampa riparian habitat. Hellsgate 37,399 Tonto Creek Major canyon, Tonto Creek with deep pools of water and impassable falls Juniper Mesa 7,708 Verde River Flat topped mesa, great variety of wildlife Mazatzal Mountains, chaparral and pine vegetation with narrow, vertical walled canyons. Includes portion of Verde Wild and Scenic River Mazatzal 250,053 Verde River, Tonto Creek Munds Mountain 18,069 Verde River Pine Mountain 20,100 Agua Fria, Verde River Red Rock Secret Mountain 48,263 Verde River Salome 18,515 Salt River Salt River Canyon 32,088 Salt River Sierra Ancha 21,007 Salt River Superstition 160,135 Salt River (part) Sycamore Canyon 57,916 Verde River West Clear Creek 15,267 Verde River Wet Beaver Creek 6,178 Verde River Woodchute 5,553 Agua Fria Total Acres in Planning Area Alpine forest of mixed conifers and aspens. Bear Wallow drainage with rich streamside habitat. Bradshaw Mountains, prominent granite peaks, vegetation range from saguaro to pine Located along Verde Rim, borders portion of Verde Wild and Scenic River Extremely diverse riparian area, 1,600 foot deep canyon, travertine deposits, springs Munds and Lee mountains, Jacks, Woods and Rattlesnake canyons, Courthouse Butte and Bell Rock Island of tall timber, surrounded by brush-covered desert mountains with hot, dry mesas and deep canyons. Red rock pinnacles, arches and slot canyons, rock art and prehistoric dwellings Upper/perennial reaches of Salome Creek and Workman Creek Portions of the Salt River and spectacular canyon Box canyons, high cliffs, prehistoric dwellings Rugged mountains, rock formations, large vegetation range, prehistoric dwellings, riparian habitat Large canyon with desert riparian area. Extends from near Williams to Verde Valley Deep, narrow canyon with many pools of water Major canyon in red rock rim country Views, ponderosa pine, pinon and juniper 788,000 Source: BLM 2006, USFS 2007 35 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Approximately 1,000 acres of land at the headwaters of the Verde River are protected by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and The Nature Conservancy. These lands include the Verde River Springs Preserve (TNC) and the Upper Verde River Wildlife Area (AZGF). (TNC, 2008) Unique and Other Managed Waters Several “unique waters”, designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) pursuant to A.C.C. R18-11-112, as having exceptional recreational or ecological significance and/or providing habitat for threatened or endangered species, have been identified in the planning area. These include: • Oak Creek, including the West Fork of Oak Creek in the Verde River Basin • Snake Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River in the Salt River Basin • Hay Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River in the Salt River Basin • Stinky Creek, from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River in the Salt River Basin • Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to the boundary of the San Carlos Indian Reservation in the Salt River Basin. Other managed surface water in the planning area include two streams designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers and a lake. Congress adopted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in October 1968 to preserve selected rivers that possess “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values” in their free-flowing condition for the benefit of present and future generations. About 40 miles of the 170-mile long Verde River has been designated a Wild and Scenic River. The Scenic River Area begins about six miles south of Camp Verde and extends to the boundary of the Mazatzal Wilderness in T11N, R6E; a reach of 18.3 miles. South of this reach, the Wild River Area continues for another 22.2 miles to the river’s confluence with Red Creek within section 34, T9½N, R6E (see Figure 5.5-4). Under the Act the river area must be managed in a manner that protects and enhances its “outstandingly remarkable values” (NWSR, 2007) In 2004, Arizona Public Service Company surrendered a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to operate hydroelectric power plants at Irving and Childs on Fossil Creek in the Verde River Basin near Strawberry. As part of the decommissioning they agreed to remove project features and restore the landscape. These two historic power plants were constructed beginning in 1908 and operated by turbines driven by water diverted from Fossil Creek. This diversion captured most of the natural spring fed flow of the creek and fundamentally changed the character of the stream. The springs that supply the base flow Irving Power Plant and Fossil Creek, Verde River Basin. Section 5.0 Overview 36 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 of Fossil Creek are rich in calcium carbonate that precipitates out and forms travertine dams. Without the natural flow and travertine deposition the stream was no longer a series of pools impounded by travertine dams. Following restoration of flow, native fish were removed and non-native fish eradicated from the stream in order to reestablish fish native to the system. In March 2009, 16.8 miles of Fossil Creek became only the second watercourse in the state to be designated as a Wild and Scenic River. This designation requires that the USFS prepare a management plan to protect the creek. (USFWS, 2007). In May 2009, a decision and finding of no significant impact for the environmental assessment was released, finding that the best alternative was that proposed in the Assessment. (USFWS, 2009) 5.0.5 Population The 2000 Census populations for each basin and Indian reservation in the planning area, listed from highest to lowest, are shown in Table 5.0-4. The most populous basin by far is the Verde River Basin with more than 88,000 residents or 62% of the planning area total. The 2005 estimated Stillman Lake is a narrow, 20-acre water body in population of the Verde River Basin was almost the Verde River Basin formed above a natural 102,000 residents. Historic, current and projected sediment dam near the headwaters of the Verde basin populations are shown in the basin cultural River south of Paulden and below Sullivan Dam. water demand tables. The Census 2000 planning The Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. area population was about 142,850 and Arizona Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Rec- Department of Economic Security (DES) lamation are working together to manage Stillman population projections forecast another 100,000 Lake for native fish by eliminating non-native residents by 2030 (see Table 5.0-5). species. A draft Environmental Impact Assessment was released in March 2007 that proposed Shown in Table 5.0-5 are incorporated and unusing a chemical piscicide to remove non-native incorporated communities in the planning area fish and then restock the lake with native species with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 and growth rates for two time periods. Communities are Table 5.0-4 2000 Census population in the Central Highlisted from highest to lowest lands Planning Area population in 2000 and their location is shown on Figure Basin/Reservation 2000 Census Population 5.0-14. The planning area Verde River 88,242 population grew by 38.5% between 1990 and 2000 and Yavapai-Apache 743 by 16.6% between 2000 and Salt River 31,381 2006. A number of communities lack data for 1990 or Fort Apache 10,385 2006, but it appears that there San Carlos Apache Unk has been considerable growth in smaller communities in the Upper Hassayampa 10,479 planning area. Of note is the Agua Fria 8,210 large number of communities in this planning area with Tonto Creek 7,537 populations between 1,000 Tonto Apache 132 and 5,000. Many of these Unk = Unknown 37 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-5 Communities in the Central Highlands Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Basin 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Payson* Verde River 8,377 13,620 62.6% 15,812 16.1% 22,631 Cottonwood-Verde Village Verde River 7,037 10,610 50.8% 11,328 6.8% 18,765 Sedona* Verde River 7,720 10,192 32.0% 11,080 8.7% 13,776 Camp Verde* Verde River 6,243 9,451 51.4% 11,779 24.6% 19,131 Cottonwood* Verde River 5,918 9,179 55.1% 11,201 22.0% 17,584 Salt River 6,062 7,486 23.5% 7,497 0.1% 8,614 Verde River 3,034 5,245 72.9% 6,566 25.2% 10,735 Salt River 3,775 5,220 38.3% 5,931 13.6% 8,409 4,515 5,082 12.6% 6,195 21.9% 12,340 Communities Globe* Big Park Whiteriver Wickenburg* Upper Hassayampa Percent Percent 2006 Pop. Change 1990Change 2000Estimate 2000 2006 Projected 2030 Pop. Clarkdale* Verde River 2,144 3,422 59.6% 3,680 7.5% 4,712 Paulden Verde River NA 3,420 -- 5,342 56.2% 11,411 Agua Fria 1,841 3,344 81.6% 4,237 26.7% 7,059 Verde River 2,089 3,335 59.6% 4,075 22.2% 6,413 Black Canyon City Agua Fria 1,811 2,697 48.9% 3,224 19.5% 4,887 Central Hts./Midland City Salt River 2,969 2,694 -9.3% NA -- NA Verde River 1,711 2,664 55.7% 3,302 23.9% 4,888 Cordes Lakes Agua Fria NA 2,058 -- 2,877 39.8% 5,462 Miami* Salt River 2,018 1,936 -4.1% 1,959 1.2% 2,100 Verde River 1,181 1,931 63.5% NA -- NA Salt River 1,942 1,794 -7.6% NA -- NA 1,717 -- 2,272 32.3% 4,026 Agua Fria NA 1,408 -- 1,602 13.8% 2,254 Tonto Creek NA 1,536 -- 2,973 93.6% 5,237 Salt River 1,254 1,331 6.1% NA -- 1,382 Munds Park Verde River NA 1,250 -- 1,876 50.1% 3,433 Parks Verde River NA 1,137 -- 1,550 36.3% 2,575 Canyon Day Salt River 857 1,092 27.4% NA -- NA Strawberry Verde River 630 1,028 63.2% NA -- NA Spring Valley Agua Fria NA 1,019 -- 1,332 30.7% 2,321 Mountainaire Verde River Lake Montezuma Cornville Kachina Village Pine Claypool Congress Upper Hassayampa Mayer Sun Valley/Star Valley Cibecue NA 1,014 -- 1,222 20.5% 1,738 Total >1,000 UNK 117,912 -- UNK --- UNK Remainder UNK 24,938 -- UNK --- UNK 103,150 142,850 38.5% 166,632 16.6% 243,585 Total Source: DES, 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006; AZCommerce, 2008a and 2008b; Wickenburg, 2003 Notes: 2006 population is 2006 estimate for incorporated communities and 2006 projection for unincorporated communities Gila and Maricopa county projections are limited NA = not available * = incorporated communities Section 5.0 Overview 38 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 smaller communities are “satellite” communities of nearby incorporated areas; e.g. Kachina Village, Munds Park, Parks and Mountainaire are all located near Flagstaff, just outside of the planning area. There were eight incorporated communities within the planning area in 2000. The community of Star Valley, east of Payson, incorporated in 2005 due to concerns that the Town of Payson would take water from that area to serve new developments (Payson Roundup, 2005). In 2006 Payson was the largest community in the planning area with more than 15,800 residents, followed by Cottonwood-Verde Village, Sedona, Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Globe. The median age in many communities is considerably older than the state average of 34.2 years. Sedona, Congress, Big Park, Black Canyon City, and Clarkdale had median ages of over 45 reported in the 2000 Census. Rapid growth occurred in several areas between 1990 and 2000 census including Big Park, Payson, Pine/Strawberry, Lake Montezuma and the Verde Valley communities of Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale and Cornville. The Verde Valley area population represents about 32% of the population of Yavapai County (Dava & Associates, 2003). Between 2000 and 2006, Star Valley east of Payson, grew by almost 94%, the fastest growth rate reported in the planning area. Population projections for 2030 are not currently available for a number of communities; however, the planning area population is projected to increase by 46% by 2030. Figure 5.0-14 Communities with a 2000 Census Population Greater than 1,000 in the Central Highlands Planning Area 39 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Population Growth and Water Use Growing Smarter and Local Planning The state 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. Yavapai, Maricopa and Pinal counties fit the population criteria. There is relatively little population or water development within the Maricopa and Pinal county sections of the planning area. About 4,800 square miles (35%) of Yavapai County is located within the planning area, the largest area of any of the nine counties located within it. The Yavapai County water resources element includes an overview of the watersheds in the county, a statement of goals and objectives regarding water supply, water quality and protection of water resources, and an evaluation of existing water use data. Also included is a discussion of the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee (WAC), a group tasked with development of a regional water management strategy that helps support the water resource goals in the general plan. (Dava & Associates, Inc., 2003). City of Sedona, Verde River Basin. Sedona is one of five communities in the Central Highlands Planning Area required to have a water resources element in their general plan. The Act also requires that twenty-three communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. In the Central Highlands Planning Area this requirement applies to the communities of Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Globe, and Sedona. As of August 2009 all communities had completed a water resource element. Plans must consider water demand and water resource availability in conjunction with growth, land use and infrastructure. References to completed plans are listed in basin references in this volume and may contain useful information for water resource planning. Water System Plans and Annual Reports Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state were required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. In addition, the information will allow the State to provide regional planning assistance to help communities prepare for, mitigate and respond to drought. An Annual Water Use Report must be submitted each year by the systems that includes information on water pumped, diverted and received, water delivered to customers and effluent used or received. The System Water Plan must be updated and submitted every five years and consist of three components, a 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 had been submitted by 94 community water systems in the planning area. All of the larger systems submitted plans and were used to prepare this document. Annual water report information and a list of water plans are found in Appendix B. Section 5.0 Overview 40 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Water Adequacy Program The Department’s Water Adequacy Program also relates 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 adopted, cities and towns within the county may not approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate water supply. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy before the final plat can be approved. In September 2008 the Town of Clarkdale adopted the provisions of SB 1575. Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water Adequacy Reports), including the reason for the inadequate determination, are provided in basin tables and maps and are summarized in Table 5.0-6. Also shown in the basin sections are approved applications for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This application is typically associated with large, master planned communities. The service areas of seven water providers in the planning area have been designated as having an adequate water supply. If a subdivision is served by one of these designated water providers, a separate adequacy determination is not required. As of May, 2009 these included: • City of Globe • Town of Wickenburg • Little Park Water Company (Village of Oak Creek) • Big Park Water Company (Village of Oak Creek) • American Ranch Domestic Water Improvement District (American Ranch Development near Prescott) • Verde Santa Fe Water Company (Verde Santa Fe Development at Cornville) • CDC Wickenburg Water, LLC (Wickenburg Ranch Estates) Table 5.0-6 Water adequacy determinations in the Central Highlands Planning Area as of 12/2008 Number of Subdivisions Number of Lots1 Number of Adequate Determinations Number of Inadequate Determinations Approx. Percent Inadequate Agua Fria 15 >1,177 >973 204 17% Salt River 17 >968 106 >862 89% Tonto Creek 62 4,305 441 3,864 90% Upper Hassayampa 28 2,235 1,896 339 15% Verde River 430 >32,053 >24,218 >7,835 24% TOTAL 552 >40,617 >27,634 >12,983 32% Basin Source: ADWR 2008b Notes: 1 Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions; actual number is larger 41 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.0.6 Water Supply Water supplies in the Central Highlands Planning Area include surface water, groundwater and effluent. Central Arizona Project (CAP) water diverted from the Colorado River via the CAP canal is stored in the planning area but is not utilized within it. Surface water from local streams is used extensively for agricultural irrigation in the Verde River Basin and to some extent in the Salt River Basin where it is also diverted to meet mining demand, primarily outside of the planning area. It is estimated that about 36% of the total water demand in the planning area is met with surface water. Groundwater is the primary water supply in the planning area, accounting for about 63% of the demand. Effluent is utilized for golf course irrigation in the Tonto Creek and Verde River basins, contributing 1% of the planning area’s water supply. Figure 5.0-15 Average Annual Water Supply Utilized in the Central Highlands Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Effluent 1,000 Surfacewater 29,850 Groundwater 52,350 Total Demand = 83,200 For purposes of the Atlas, water diverted from a watercourse or spring is considered surface water and if it is pumped from wells it is accounted for as groundwater. This is reflected in the cultural water demand tables in each basin section. Central Arizona Project Water New Waddell Dam, located on the Agua Fria River in the Phoenix Active Management Area, stores CAP water in Lake Pleasant located in the Agua Fria Basin. This water is not a direct supply for the planning area. The dam also stores Agua Fria River water and provides flood control. In the winter, water is pumped from the CAP canal to Lake Pleasant. When demand increases in the summer, water is released through the same canal to downstream CAP contractors within the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) service area; Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties. Six municipal and industrial water providers or water users and three Indian Tribes in the planning area were allocated an entitlement of CAP water (Table 5.0-7). In order to physically acquire water under their respective subcontracts, it was anticipated that subcontractors located outside of the CAP service area would exchange their CAP entitlement for a locally available surface water supply that was held by a downstream senior water right holder located within the CAP service area. The CAP entitlements held by Indian Tribes could also be included in any future, potential water settlement. Due to environmental issues associated with the potential exchange of its CAP entitlement for East Verde River water rights held by SRP, the town of Payson chose to sell its CAP entitlement to the City of Scottsdale. The transfer process was completed in 1994. The money ac- Section 5.0 Overview 42 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-7 CAP subcontractors and transferred entitlements in the Central Highlands Planning Area1 CAP Entitlement (acre-feet) CAP Entitlement Transferred (acre-feet) Gross Proceeds from Transfer1 Camp Verde Water System, Inc. 1,443 1,443 $1,443,000 Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. 1,789 1,789 $1,789,000 332 332 $332,000 Town of Payson 4,995 4,995 $4,995,000 Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc. 2,916 CAP Subcontractor Mayer Domestic Water Improvement District Pine Water Co. San Carlos Apache Tribe Tonto-Apache Tribe Yavapai-Apache Tribe 161 61,645 128 1,200 Does not reflect the reduction associated with equivalency charges and capital costs due to CAWCD or other fees associated with the entitlement transfer actions. 1 quired from the sale was deposited into a trust fund managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of developing alternative water supplies for Payson. In accordance with each trust fund agreement, the Department provides oversight regarding expenditures from these accounts to ensure that trust fund monies are used to defray expenses associated with “designing, constructing, acIn response to the proposed transfer of Payson’s quiring and/or developing an alternative water CAP subcontract to Scottsdale, the Department supply in an amount which may include, but is developed a transfer policy to govern the trans- not limited to, a combined net increase” in the fer of a CAP entitlement from a subcontractor subcontractor’s “water system capacity to relocated outside of the CAP service area. Subse- place the CAP allocation” that it sold. quent to the adoption of this policy, Camp Verde Water System, Inc., Cottonwood Water Works, Plans regarding the CAP entitlements held by Inc. and the Mayer Domestic Water Improve- Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc. and Pine Water Comment District decided to transfer their subcon- pany are not known. The San Carlos Apache tracts to Scottsdale. Monies resulting from the Tribe leases a portion of its CAP allocation to sale of these entitlements were also placed in the City of Scottsdale and as exchange water separate trust fund accounts for each entity. Ta- for use by Freeport McMoRan at Morenci in ble 5.0-7 lists the entitlement volumes that were the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. The eventually transferred to Scottsdale and the Tonto-Apache and the Yavapai-Apache tribes gross proceeds that resulted from the respective have no current uses or exchanges. transactions. 43 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Surface Water Surface water in the planning area is subject to complex legal conditions which affect use of the supply. Discussed in this section are the surface water supplies that are physically available, the legal framework that regulates its use and a discussion of the surface water rights system in Arizona. tation, the quantity of flow and water levels in reservoirs along the rivers can fluctuate widely due to climatic variations. Dams and reservoirs on the Salt and Verde rivers are operated by SRP to store and release water for the benefit of agricultural, municipal and industrial users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. These supplies are generally not available for use in the planning area except for small amounts used for recreation and other purposes Physical Supplies The Salt and Verde rivers, as well as the Gila at each reservoir. The water stored in the SRP River located south of the planning area, are reservoir system illustrates the relationship bethe primary in-state sources of surface water in tween downstream water demand and precipitaArizona. Relatively high elevations along the tion and snowfall in the watershed. As shown Mogollon Rim and in the White Mountains, in Figure 5.0-16, storage has fluctuated as water with associated rainfall and snowfall, make the is collected and then released to meet water deSalt and Verde watersheds extremely produc- mands. For example, the impact of drought contive. However, because flows in the Salt and ditions can be observed during 1989 and again Verde rivers are strongly influenced by precipi- beginning in the late 1990s, and storage recovFigure 5.0-16 Water Stored on May 1st in SRP Reservoirs on the Verde and Salt Rivers, 1980-2006 2,400,000 2,200,000 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 acre-feet 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 0 Year Section 5.0 Overview 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ery is seen in 2005 following a wet winter. As of July 1, 2009, storage in the Salt River system was 94% of capacity. The total capacity of the SRP reservoir system is shown on Figure 5.0-6. Capacity on the Salt River system is over 2.0 maf, primarily at Roosevelt Lake. The capacity of the reservoir was increased by 20% with completion of a 77-foot dam heightening project in 1996. By comparison, the Verde River system reservoirs are considerably smaller with a storage capacity of about 302,000 acre-feet and average annual inflows exceeding storage capacity. Consequently, the Verde reservoirs are managed to minimize the potential for spill during the winter months, with releases of water during the fall, winter and spring (Ester and Reigle, 2001). Storage volumes in the Verde River reservoirs, particularly in Horseshoe Lake, have been reduced to almost zero at times during recent drought years. On June 1, 2007, storage in the total Verde system had been reduced to 27% of capacity but by June 1, 2009 had increased to 63% of capacity. In addition to providing a major source of water to the Phoenix metropolitan area, surface water generated in the planning area is an important supply for cultural water uses in the Salt River, Tonto Creek and Verde River basins where it also supports extensive riparian habitat. In the Verde River Basin surface water is used for golf course irrigation and springs supply Jerome’s municipal water supply. Surface water is diverted from the Verde River for agricultural use primarily in the Verde Valley Sub-basin of the Verde River Basin where most farming occurs along the river. During periods of drought, surface water shortfalls are met by groundwater pumping. (ADWR, 2000) Reportedly, a relatively small volume of surface water is also utilized for irrigation in the Big Chino Valley (WAC, 2004). 45 Agriculture in the Verde River Basin. Surface water is diverted from the Verde River for agricultural use primarily in the Verde Valley Sub-basin of the Verde River Basin where most farming occurs along the river. In the Salt River drainage upstream of the Salt River reservoirs, surface water diversions are primarily for irrigation from Tonto Creek and its tributaries and along the Salt River. At elevations above 4,000 feet, surface water from springs and streams has supplied small irrigated parcels (ADWR, 1992). It is not known if surface water availability has been an issue for surface water users upstream of Roosevelt Dam during periods of drought. A relatively small amount of surface water has been diverted from Pinal Creek for operations at the Miami Mine in the Salt River Basin. Larger volumes of surface water, often more than 5,000 AFA have been transferred from the Salt River Basin via the Black River to the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area pursuant to water exchange agreements described below. The location of surface water resources are shown on surface water condition maps and maps showing perennial and intermittent streams and major springs for each basin. Data on streamflow, flood ALERT equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs are listed in tables in the Water Resource Characteristics sections for each basin. Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Legal Availability Ongoing water rights adjudications, court decrees, water exchange agreements, settlements and state statutes all affect the use of surface water supplies in the planning area and are discussed below. In addition, environmental laws, instream flow rights and environmental protection designations assign surface water supplies to environmental purposes. These are discussed further in Section 5.0.4 and include the Endangered Species Act and associated habitat conservation plans, and the designation of waterways as preserves, wild and scenic rivers and unique waters. In Arizona 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. The surface water rights system is further discussed in a later sub-section. Arizona has two general stream adjudications in progress to determine the nature, extent and priority of water rights across the entire Gila River and Little Colorado River systems. The adjudications will recognize existing water right settlements and decrees (see discussion below) and adjudicate all remaining water rights claims in the river systems. Pertinent to the Central Highlands Planning Area, the Gila River Adjudication is being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The Gila Adjudication was initiated by petitions filed by several parties in the 1970’s, including Salt River Project, Phelps Dodge Corporation and the Buckeye Irrigation Company. The petitions were consolidated in 1981 into a single proceeding. The Gila Adjudication includes seven adjudication watersheds - Upper Salt, San Pedro, Agua Fria, Up- per Gila, Lower Gila, Verde, and Upper Santa Cruz. The entire Upper Salt, Agua Fria and almost all of the Verde adjudication watersheds and part of the Lower Gila adjudication watershed are within the planning area boundaries (see Figure 5.0-17). These watersheds do not coincide with the 6-digit HUC watersheds discussed previously and shown in Figure 5.0-5. The entire Gila Adjudication includes over 24,000 parties. Several court determinations currently affect surface water supply availability in the planning area including the Verde Ditch, Kent and Benson-Allison decrees. The Verde Ditch extends approximately 17 miles along the Verde River from north of I-17 to south of Camp Verde. The Verde Ditch Decree (1909) proportionately divided ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the Verde Ditch without reference to a priority date or use. It also stipulates that water in the lower portion of the ditch be one third of the flow of the upper portion to ensure adequate supplies for all ditch owners. The Kent Decree (1910) determined that almost 240,000 irrigable acres in the Salt River Valley had a right to water diverted from the Salt and Verde rivers and included certain tribal provisions, but did not establish rights along the Verde River. Determination of Verde River water rights has been included in the Gila Adjudication proceedings. The Benson-Allison Decree (1917) concerns lands in the Phoenix AMA that are entitled to divert water from the Salt, Agua Fria and Gila rivers. Certain legal agreements and settlements that operate within the Central Highlands Planning Area allow for the movement of surface water between groundwater basins and planning areas. As previously mentioned, surface water stored in the Salt and Verde reservoirs are primarily allocated for use outside of the planning area. In addition, surface water from the Black Section 5.0 Overview 46 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 River in the Salt River Basin is diverted for use in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Pursuant to complex exchange agreements with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, SRP and the Central Arizona Project, Freeport McMoRan (previously Phelps Dodge) diverts surface water from the Black River for use at the Morenci Mine. The Freeport McMoRan surface water diversions are located at the Black River Pump Station and conveyed over the Natanes Plateau and into Willow Creek. In 2005, approximately 5,372 acre-feet were diverted from the Black River for this purpose. In 2007, this volume was only C.C. Cragin Reservoir, Photo courtesy of SRP 271 acre-feet. the water stored at C.C. Cragin Reservoir as a To compensate downstream water users for di- water supply for the town. It proposes to conversions from the Black River, Phelps Dodge struct a $30 - $40 million pipeline and treatment historically diverted water into the Central plant to transport and deliver 3,000 acre-feet of Highlands Planning Area from two locations in water annually to the community. Another 500 the Little Colorado River Planning Area; Show acre-feet is dedicated to other northern Gila Low Lake and Blue Ridge Reservoir (now C.C. County communities. Water diverted from C.C. Cragin Reservoir). Water from Show Low Cragin Reservoir that passes through the Verde Lake, located five miles south of the Town of River Basin (via East Verde River) and is not Show Low, was transferred to Forestdale Creek, used in the basin, is not reflected in the surface a tributary to the Salt River. This transfer water use estimates and water demand table for ceased in 2005 with Phelps Dodge’s decision to the Verde River Basin. permanently abandon its Show Low Lake water rights, and transfer its property interests in In addition to the Arizona Water Settlement Act, Show Low Lake and dam to the City of Show a tribal water rights claim that affects water supLow. The Salt River Basin water demand table ply availability in the planning area is the White takes into account both the water removed from Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act (Act). The Act was introduced in and replaced into the Salt River Basin. 2009 to resolve the tribe’s water claims and C.C. Cragin Reservoir, located approximately provide a reliable drinking water supply. If ad25 miles north of Payson, was acquired by SRP opted as introduced, it would allocate an annual from Phelps Dodge Corporation in February water right of 52,000 AFA to the tribe through 2005 as part of the Arizona Water Settlement a combination of surface water and CAP waAct. The reservoir satisfies obligations to the ter. It would also authorize funding for a needed Gila River Indian Community, and will be used drinking water project, the Miner Flat Project. to supplement SRP’s water supply and to as- The project consists of a small dam, reservoir sist in improving the water supply situation in and pipeline, estimated to cost approximately northern Gila County in accordance with the Act $128 million. (SRP, 2007b). The Town of Payson has a longterm agreement with SRP to utilize a portion of 47 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Surface water supply availability may also be affected by state statute. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. 45-555) allows the transportation of groundwater pumped from the Big Chino Sub-basin into the Prescott AMA. There are concerns that increased groundwater withdrawals in this sub-basin may contribute to reduced flows in the headwaters of the Verde River and affect availability of surface water. The relative contribution of the proposed pumping to Verde River flow is the matter of considerable debate (see Groundwater section below). determined is complex. Each type of surface water right filing is assigned a unique number as explained in Appendix C and shown in Table 5.0-8. All parties who use water or claim to have a water right within the river system are required to file a statement of claimant or SOC (39) in the adjudication, or risk loss of their right. This includes reserved water rights for public lands and Indian reservations, of which only some have been quantified or prioritized. Other surface water right filings are discussed below. Surface Water Right System In addition to rights to surface water that exist through decrees, settlements, agreements and statutes, there are many existing uses whose rights have not been adjudicated. As described in detail in Appendix C, the legal framework and process under which surface water right applications and claims are administered and A Certificate of Water Right (CWR) may be issued if the terms of the permit to appropriate water (3R, 4A or 33, and in certain cases 38) are met. CWRs retain the original permit application number. Statements of claim of right to use public waters (36) have also been filed, but their filing does not in itself create a water right. Surface water rights can also be determined Table 5.0-8 Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Central Highlands Planning Area1 Type of Filing Basin Total BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Agua Fria 0 27 104 208 1,153 518 2,792 4,802 Salt River 1 17 162 96 2,235 712 4,294 7,517 Tonto Creek 0 15 79 37 678 341 2,353 3,503 Upper Hassayampa 0 48 76 130 718 210 1,963 3,145 Verde River 0 180 204 426 3,733 2,147 14,041 20,731 Total 1 287 625 897 8,517 3,928 25,443 39,698 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) to be mapped within the basin. If a file lists more than one POD in a given basin, it is only counted once in the table for that basin. Numerous surface water right filings are not counted here due to unsufficient information on POD locations. However, multiple filings for the same POD 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 claim of right to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. Section 5.0 Overview 48 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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. Groundwater Compared to the deep alluvial basins found in the southern part of Arizona, high elevations, steep topography and extensive areas of bedrock in the Central Highlands Planning Area translate into relatively minimal groundwater storage capabilities and high runoff. These conditions result in limited, drought-sensitive water supplies for some communities, such as Pine, Strawberry, Payson, Black Canyon City and Mayer. Areas of unconsolidated sediments are relatively limited as shown on the groundwater conditions maps for each basin in sections 5.15.5. Many basin-fill aquifers in the planning area are narrow and surrounded by low water yielding consolidated rocks. Areas of relatively high water yield include basin-fill deposits in the Big Chino Sub-basin, Verde Valley Subbasin, north of Globe in the Salt River Lakes Sub-basin and near Wickenburg in the Upper Hassayampa Basin. Table 5.0-8 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 39,698 filings that specify surface water diversion points and places of use in the planning area, 3,184 CWRs have been issued to date. Figure 5.0-17 shows the 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 5.0-17. In much of the northern half of the Agua Fria Basin, parts of the Salt River Basin including Results from the Department’s investigation the entire eastern portion, and the Verde Canyon of surface water right and adjudication filings Sub-basin, groundwater occurs in volcanic rocks are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports that yield relatively small volumes of water. (HSRs). Within the Central Highlands Planning These conditions pose groundwater supply Area, a preliminary HSR has been published challenges for Payson and other communities in for the Upper Salt River Watershed (ADWR, the planning area. In Pine, Strawberry and near 1992). Globe, groundwater is found in relatively low yield sedimentary rocks. The location of surface water resources are shown on surface water condition maps and maps Water availability problems resulted in an showing perennial and intermittent streams and ACC-imposed moratorium on the installation major springs for each basin, and in basin tables of any new meters by Pine Water Company in that contain data on streamflow, flood ALERT 2006. Recently, deep wells in the area have equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs encountered a more productive aquifer than in the Water Resource Characteristics sections that found in the currently utilized shallow for each basin. wells. In July 2009 the Pine/Strawberry Water Improvement District voted to purchase Brooke Utilities, which serves the communities, with the intent to obtain water from deeper, more productive wells. (Payson Roundup, 2009) 49 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview 50 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 quality, well lift and pumpage records. Included are hydrographs for statewide Index Wells and Automated Groundwater Monitoring Sites (Automated Wells), which can be searched and downloaded to access local information for planning, drought mitigation and other Although groundwater supplies may be limited purposes. in some areas, it is the primary water supply in the planning area. Well pumpage averaged Approximately 1,700 wells are designated as about 52,350 AFA during the period 2001 to Index Wells statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI sites (GWSI sites are primarily wells but include 2005. other types of sites such as springs and drains). The Department’s Groundwater Site Inventory Typically, Index Wells are visited once each (GWSI) database, the main repository for year by the Department’s field staff to obtain statewide groundwater well data, is available on a long-term record of groundwater level flucthe Department’s website (www.azwater.gov). tuations. Approximately 200 of the GWSI sites The GWSI database contains of over 42,000 are designated as Automated Wells. These sysrecords of wells and over 210,000 groundwater tems measure water levels four times daily and level records statewide. GWSI contains spatial store the data electronically. Automated wells and geographical data, owner information, well are established to better understand the water construction and geologic data and historic supply situation in areas of the state where data groundwater data including water level, water 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 sites or areas affected by drought. Sedimentary rocks with moderate yields are found in the southern half of the Agua Fria Basin, while Precambrian schist near Black Canyon City yields relatively small volumes of water to wells. Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of Index Wells and Automated Wells as of January 2009. At that time there were a total of 156 Index Wells and 13 Automated Sites in the Central Highlands Planning Area. The latter are located in all but the Salt River Basin. Updated maps showing the location of Index and Automated wells may be viewed at the Department’s website. Automated Groundwater Monitoring Site in the Upper Hassayampa Basin. Information on major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, aquifer flow direction and water level changes are found in groundwater data tables, groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and well yield maps for each basin in the Water Resource Characteristics sections. Section 5.0 Overview 51 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Transportation of groundwater between groundwater basins is prohibited in Arizona unless specifically allowed in statute. In 1991, the Arizona statutes were amended to allow certain governmental entities to transport groundwater from the Big Chino Sub-basin of the Verde River groundwater basin into the Prescott AMA. Under A.R.S. 45-555(E), the City of Prescott can withdraw and transport an amount not to exceed 14,000 AFA from the Big Chino Sub-basin into the Prescott AMA. The actual volume that can be transported during a year depends on several factors listed in the statute. With respect to the City of Prescott’s 2007 Application for Modification of Designation of Assured Water Supply, the Director of ADWR issued a determination that recognized 8,067.4 acre-feet per year as the volume of groundwater Prescott is legally entitled to transport from the Big Chino Sub-basin under A.R.S. § 45-555(E). This decision and order is currently under appeal with the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Director’s final decision is expected in late 2009. In addition to the groundwater the City of Prescott is allowed to transport under A.R.S. § 45-555(E), cities and towns in the Prescott AMA are allowed to withdraw groundwater associated with historically irrigated acres (HIA) in the Big Chino Sub-basin and transport the groundwater into the Prescott AMA. (A.R.S. §45-555 (A) through (D)) The Department will make a determination regarding the volume of groundwater that a city or town can transport from HIA lands after it has finalized Administrative Rules for this process. The allotment associated with HIA is three acre-feet per acre per year. An important issue facing the Central Highlands Planning Area is the potential for additional groundwater withdrawals from the Big Chino Sub-basin to reduce flows in the headwaters area of the Verde River with possible environmental impacts associated with reduced flows and the 52 construction of pipelines and other infrastructure to transport the groundwater. Although a number of studies have been conducted to investigate the connection of Big Chino Subbasin groundwater with the headwaters of the Verde River, the relative contribution of the various potential sources is still a matter of speculation (McGavock, 2003). Effluent Effluent is a water supply for golf course irrigation in the Tonto Creek and Verde River basins, totaling about 1,000 acre-feet within the planning area. Effluent used in the Tonto Creek Basin is generated in the Verde River Basin at the American Gulch WWTP (Table 5.5-9). Data were not available to the Department for all wastewater treatment facilities. From data that were available, it appears that limited volumes of effluent are produced in the Agua Fria and Tonto Creek basins. Approximately 2,600 acre-feet are generated in the Salt River Basin, primarily on the White Mountain Apache Reservation and at Globe and Miami. In the Upper Hassayampa Basin, the Wickenburg wastewater treatment plant generates about 580 acre-feet of effluent a year. About 6,200 acre-feet of effluent is generated annually in the Verde River Basin, primarily at facilities located in Cottonwood, Kachina Village, Payson and Sedona. Effluent is discharged to watercourses, wildlife areas, evaporation ponds and infiltration basins. The Town of Clarkdale wastewater treatment plant discharges effluent onto mine tailings for dust control (USBOR, 2003). In total, about 9,500 acre-feet of effluent are currently generated annually within the planning area. Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Su- Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 perfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, state designated sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. All are found in the planning area. Table 5.0-9 lists the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of each site except LUST sites. The location of all contamination sites is shown on Figure 5.0-18. tailings. The mine site covers about 153 acres and includes tailings, retention ponds and mine shafts. The adjacent smelter site occupies about 182 acres of tailings, smelter ash and slag. The smelter operated from the late 1800s until the early 1960s. Contaminants are a result of the mining and smelter activities and include arsenic, lead and other metals. A remedial investigation and a feasibility study to evaluate remedial actions are underway. (EPA, 2009) There is one DOD site, Camp Navajo, located The Iron King Mine and Humboldt Smelter near Bellemont in the Verde River Basin. This Superfund site was listed in September 2008. site was used for over 50 years for land disposal The mine was active from 1904 until 1969 and of excess, obsolete and unserviceable munitions extracted lead, gold, silver, zinc and copper. where they were destroyed by burning or More recently, fertilizer was made from the by detonation. The site is being cleaned up Table 5.0-9 Contamination sites in the Central Highlands Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT GROUNDWATER BASIN Superfund Sites Iron King Mine and Humbolt Smelter Soil, Groundwater - Arsenic, Lead, Other Metals Verde River Department of Defense Sites/Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) Sites Camp Navajo, Bellemont Soil, Groundwater - Metals, Volatile Organic Compounds, Solvents, White Phosphorous, Unexploded Ordnance Verde River WQARF Sites Payson PCE Groundwater - Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Verde River Tonto/Cherry Groundwater - Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) Verde River Pinal Creek Groundwater, Surface Water - Metals, Radiochemicals, TDS, Acidity Salt River Voluntary Remediation Sites APS Globe Manufactured Gas Plant Former Bunker C AST Location Former Shell Service Station Soil, Groundwater - Hydrocarbons, Cyanide, Arsenic, Lead Soil - Total petroleum hydrocarbons, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Groundwater - PAHs (Benzo(a)pyrene) Salt River Verde River Verde River Sources: ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b Section 5.0 Overview 53 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 There are also two WQARF sites in the Payson area. At the Payson PCE site, groundwater is contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE). Two groundwater treatment systems capture and treat the contaminated water, which following treatment is delivered to the town as drinking water. The treatment system will operate until approximately 2033 or until PCE concentrations are below the Aquifer Water Quality Standard (AWQS). (ADEQ, 2009a) PCE and trichloroethene (TCE) contaminate groundwater at the Tonto and Cherry site where well monitoring and soil gas surveys have been Camp Navajo, Verde River Basin. This site was conducted. A Proposed Remedial Action Plan used for over 50 years for land disposal of excess, and Record of Decision (ROD) were completed obsolete and unserviceable munitions where they in 2008. PCE concentrations have been were destroyed by burning or by detonation. decreasing as the compound naturally breaks according to RCRA standards under the DOD’s down and all domestic drinking water wells at Installation Restoration Program. The RCRA the site are now below the AWQS. (ADEQ, program regulates the management of hazardous 2009b) waste handlers which includes generators, transporters and facilities for treatment, storage Four active VRP sites are located in the planning and disposal (ADEQ, 2002). area with hydrocarbon and metal contamination The Pinal Creek WQARF Site, located in the vicinity of Miami-Globe, is contaminated from mining and mineral processing in the area that began in 1878. Groundwater contamination was first observed in the 1930s in the alluvial aquifer of Miami Wash. By the time the first areawide investigation of groundwater and surface water was conducted in 1979-81, there was widespread contamination. By the end of 2007, approximately 107 million pounds of heavy metals had been removed from area aquifers. Following treatment, this water was released to Pinal Creek, reused for mining purposes, or evaporated at the mines. As a result of remediation activities, the perennial and ephemeral reaches of Pinal Creek, Miami Wash and Bloody Tanks Wash were removed from the State’s list of impaired water bodies. Site-wide monitoring is on going including monthly sampling of 80-100 wells, four surface water sites and treated effluent at the Lower Pinal Creek treatment plant .(ADEQ, 2008) 54 of soil, groundwater and surface water. 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). There are 143 active LUST sites in the planning area. Thirty one sites are located near Globe in the Salt River Basin, 22 sites are located in and around Wickenburg in the Upper Hassayampa Basin, 21 sites occur in the vicinity of Payson and Star Valley in the Verde River and Tonto Creek basins, and there are ten sites near Clarkdale and Cottonwood in the Verde River Basin. Ash Fork, Black Canyon City, Camp Verde, Munds Park, Sedona and Seligman each contain another 5 to 10 sites. Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview 55 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area averaged approximately 83,200 AFA during the period from 2001 to 2005. As shown in Figure 5.0-19, the agricultural demand sector was the largest use sector with approximately 37,500 acre-feet of demand, 45% of the total. Most agricultural demand was located in the Verde River and Salt River basins. About 62% of the agricultural demand was met by surface water diverted primarily from the Verde and Salt rivers and from Tonto Creek. Municipal demand was the second largest water demand sector with about 33% of the total planning area demand or an annual average of 27,400 acrefeet during the period 2001-2005. Municipal demand is primarily met by groundwater. Industrial demand, mainly related to mining, accounted for 18,300 acre-feet, 22% of the total average demand during this period. Almost all the surface water diverted for industrial purposes, about 5,700 AFA during 2001-2005, was transported out of the planning area for use at the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. As shown in Figure 5.0-20 basin demand varied substantially in the planning area. More than half of the water demand in the planning area was in the Verde Basin, 29% is in the Salt River Basin and the remaining basins have smaller and comparable volumes of water demand. Several recent studies provide detailed information on irrigation water use in the Verde River Basin. The Verde River Watershed Study Report (ADWR, 2000) contains information on water demand for most of the basin. The Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee (WAC) Figure 5.0-19 Average Annual Central Highlands Planning Area Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 40,000 35,000 acre-feet 30,000 25,000 675 750 23,400 20,000 324 15,000 26,000 5,700 10,000 5,000 14,100 12,260 0 Agricultural groundwater Municipal surface water Section 5.0 Overview Industrial effluent 56 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.0-20 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Upper Hassayampa 3,900 Agua Fria 3,300 Tonto Creek 4,050 Salt River 24,050 residing on the reservation with about 5,900 residents at Whiteriver, the tribal capital. Other residents reside in smaller communities and on rural lands. Water service is provided to an unknown number of customers by the Whiteriver Regional System. Production from system wells has declined over the last few years, resulting in summer drinking water shortages. The tribe plans to construct a relatively small diversion project on the North Fork of the White River in 2009 and is pursuing a long term water development project, the Miner Flat Project, through the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act introduced in 2008 The settlement would also allocated 52,000 AFA through a combination of surface water and CAP (Kyl, 2008). Verde River 46,900 There are no recent agricultural surface water demand estimates available for the Fort Apache completed a water use study of the Big Chino Reservation. Table 5.0-10 shows an estimate Sub-basin in 2004 and participated in a USBOR from the 1992 Preliminary HSR for the Upper study of the Verde Valley in 2003 that are useful Salt River Watershed. Agricultural groundwater sources of water demand information. demand is estimated at approximately 200 AFA. (USGS, 2007) Tribal Water Demand Water demand on the San Carlos Apache ResThe largest Indian reservation in the planning ervation portion within the planning area is asarea is the Fort Apache (White Mountain Apache sumed to be primarily due to agricultural irrigaTribe), the fourth largest reservation in terms of tion of orchard crops. Using agricultural and size within Arizona. Although the northern part industrial demand estimates in the Hydrographof the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation is within the planning area directly Table 5.0-10 Estimated water demand on the for south of the Fort Apache Indian ReservaApache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, almost all its population and water tions, c. 2005 (in acre-feet) demand is in the Southeastern Arizona Agricultural Municipal Planning Area. Water demand on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is associated with domestic and agricultural uses as well as a number of tribal enterprises including timber industries, a ski resort and a casino/ hotel at Hon-dah. In 2006, there were approximately 12,000 tribal members 57 Fort Apache San Carlos Apache (groundwater/ surface water) 200/3690 (groundwater/ surface water) 0/70 0 700/601 Total 200/3760 700/60 Sources: ADWR 1992, Truini et al 2005, USGS 2007 1 Assumes 94 gpcd at Whiteriver and 40 gpcd elsewhere. Commercial demand outside of Whiteriver not included. Sixty acre-feet of surface water is used at Cedar Creek. Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed, (ADWR 1992) and per capita assumptions derived from a 2005 study by Truini et al. (2005) on other reservations, it is estimated that the annual demand of the two largest tribes in the planning area was about 4,500 acre-feet (Table 5.0-10). The Tonto Apache and Yavapai-Apache Indian Reservations and tribal populations are relatively small and demand estimates were not available to the Department. The Tonto Apache Indian Reservation is the smallest land base reservation in Arizona at 85 acres. Principal water demands are associated with the Mazatzal Casino and restaurant, and tribal offices. Water service is provided by the Tonto Apache Water System. The 656-acre Yavapai-Apache Indian Reservation is located on five separate parcels with its tribal headquarters at Middle Verde. This parcel is served water by the Middle Verde Indian Water System while other parcels are served by private water companies that also serve adjacent, non-reservation lands. Tribal lands include irrigated farmland, residences and commercial businesses. The tribe operates the Cliff Castle Casino and motel north of Camp Verde (see Figure 5.5-2). (ITCA, 2003) to 2005 was 27,425 acre-feet. Ninety-five percent of this demand was met by groundwater. A small amount of surface water is used in the Salt River Basin at Salt River lake facilities and on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation at Cedar Creek, a small community southeast of Carrizo. In the Verde River Basin surface water is used at several locations including the Beaver Valley Water Company, Bonita Water Company (Payson), Camp Navajo, Kohl’s Ranch, Pine Water Association, Stoneman Lake Water Company and the Town of Jerome, which uses about 80 AFA of the 400 AFA it diverts from 12 springs (Town of Jerome, 2008). Effluent is used for turf irrigation in the Verde River and Tonto Creek basins. Primary municipal demand centers are located around Cottonwood, Globe-Miami, Payson, Sedona and Wickenburg. Municipal demand in the Verde River Basin accounts for 59% of the total municipal demand. By comparison, there is relatively little municipal water demand in the Agua Fria Basin. It is estimated that about eleven percent of the planning area population is not served by a municipal water provider. Eight water providers served 450 acre-feet or more in 2006 for a total of 14,158 acre-feet. Municipal Demand Their demand in 1991, 2000 and 2006 are shown in Table 5.0-12 and discussed briefly below. Municipal demand is summarized by ground- Prior to 2006, municipal utilities served only water basin and water supply in Table 5.0-11. Globe, Payson and Wickenburg. Beginning in Average annual demand during the period 2001 2005, the City of Cottonwood began acquisiTable 5.0-11 Average annual municipal water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Basin Groundwater Surface Water Agua Fria 1,800 <3002 Salt River 4,000 Tonto Creek 2,400 Upper Hassayampa 2,600 15,200 600 Verde River Total Municipal 26,000 750 Sources: USGS 2007, ADWR 2008c 1 Effluent figures are for golf course and other turf irrigation in 2006 2 Assume 150 acre-feet for computation purposes Section 5.0 Overview Effluent1 215 460 675 Total 1,800 <4150 2,600 2,600 16,260 27,425 58 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-12 Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2006, excluding effluent, in the Central Highlands Planning Area Basin/Water Provider 1991 2000 2006 (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Salt River Arizona Water Company-Miami City of Globe Upper Hassayampa Town of Wickenburg Verde River Arizona Water Company - Sedona Big Park Water Company - Village of Oak Creek Camp Verde Water System Inc. City of Cottonwood (Cottonwood Water Works, Clemenceau W.C., Verde Santa Fe, Cordes Lakes Cottonwood Systems) Cottonwood Water Works - Cottonwood and Clarkdale Cordes Lakes Water Company Town of Payson 1,031 1,446 1,194 1,558 968 1,603 1,249 1,717 1,944 1,764 2,816 3,332 539 248 799 357 879 472 NA NA 3,145 1,321 590 1,089 2,065 1,128 1,550 NA NA 1,815 Sources: ADWR 2007 and 2004 Notes: City of Cottonwood acquired several systems in 2006. The combined system withdrawals are shown for all years) Payson and Globe receive water from outside their basins. NA=not applicable tion of the four private water companies serving the town; Clemenceau Water Company, Cordes Lakes Water Company (Cottonwood Systems), Cottonwood Water Works and the Verde Santa Fe Water Company. By 2007, the City of Clarkdale had acquired the Cottonwood Water Works system serving Clarkdale. Municipallyowned systems have more flexible water ratesetting ability than private water companies, which are regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission. In addition, municipal utilities have the authority to enact water conservation ordinances. These authorities may enable municipal utilities to better manage water resources within water service areas. Water provider issues are discussed in section 5.0.8. Arizona Water Company-Miami The towns of Miami-Claypool are served by 59 Arizona Water Company. About 87% of the approximately 3,250 connections are residential. The Miami water system is served by 17 wells and has a two-way emergency interconnection with the City of Globe. Water levels in wells ranged from 109 feet to 860 feet below land surface in 2006. (Arizona Water Company, 2007a) In 2006, 968 acre-feet was pumped from 13 wells. Of this total, 641 acre-feet was delivered for residential use, 245 for commercial use and 10 for “other”. City of Globe The City of Globe has an adequate water supply designation and serves about 7,700 customers from five active wells. Four of these wells are located in the Safford Basin in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. About two-thirds of the water demand is residential and one-third is non- Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 dona. The system has 14 active wells and about 5,500 connections, of which 78% are residential. Sedona has a high percentage of seasonal residents, and daily visitors contribute to a relatively high use rate of 244 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (USBOR, 2003). The system also serves commercial customers and turf facilities. The service area includes central Sedona from Red Rock Loop Road to east of downtown. The Valley Vista “sub-system” serves an area south of Verde Valley School Road, mostly west of Highway 179. Arizona Water Company maintains an emergency two-way interconnection with the Oak Creek Water Company. Groundwater depth average about 220 feet in utility wells. (Arizona Water Company, 2007b) In 2006, 3,332 acre-feet was withdrawn from nine wells. Of this total, 2,077 acre-feet was delivered to residential customers, 938 to commercial customers and 58 to “other”. Arizona Water Company Offices in Miami ,Arizona. residential. The City has a water conservation plan that it credits with helping to keep water demand in check. Water levels in wells ranged from 40 feet to 650 feet below land surface in 2005. (City of Globe, 2005) In 2006, Globe withdrew 1,603 acre-feet from five wells and delivered 938 acre-feet to residential, 353 acrefeet to commercial, 60 acre-feet to turf and 90 acre-feet to “other”. Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company serves the Village of Oak Creek, an unincorporated community south of Sedona along Highway 179. It has about 2,800 connections, of which 91% are residential, and a per capita rate of about 198 gpcd (USBOR, 2003). It does not serve turf facilities. Depth to water in the seven system wells averages about 390 feet and water levels are reportedly stable. Big Park Water Company has an interconnection with Little Park Water Company. (BPWC and LPWC, 2007) Both companies have designations of Adequate Water Supply. In 2007, Big Park withdrew almost 880 acre-feet of water from six wells and delivered 0.3 acre-feet to Little Park Water Company, 684 acre-feet to residential and 150 acre-feet to commercial customers. Town of Wickenburg The Wickenburg municipal water system serves groundwater to about 5,100 residents. In 2007 it withdrew almost 1,730 acre-feet from four wells. Of this, 895 acre-feet was delivered to residential customers, 630 to commercial and 204 to “other”. It operates the Wickenburg WWTP which treated 444 acre-feet of effluent in 2007, all of which was discharged to infiltration Camp Verde Water System, Inc. The Camp Verde Water System is a private ponds. water company consisting of the larger Mongini System and smaller Verde River Estates System. Arizona Water Company-Sedona Arizona Water Company serves the town of Se- There is no physical interconnection between Section 5.0 Overview 60 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 the two systems. There are a total of four active wells that serve both systems. In 2006, 460 acrefeet was withdrawn by the Mongini System, which served 265 acre-feet to residential and 183 acre-feet to commercial customers. Twelve acre-feet was withdrawn by the Verde River Estates System of which eight acre-feet was delivered to residential customers in 2007. Cities of Cottonwood and Clarkdale Prior to 2006, Cottonwood Water Works and Cordes Lakes Water Company were the two large private water companies serving the City of Cottonwood. The Cottonwood Water Works system also served the community of Clarkdale with a combined 4,600 connections of which 97% were residential. The Cordes Lakes Water Company served a population of almost 7,700 consisting of six separate systems in the Verde Village area. (A separate, smaller Cordes Lakes Water Company System serves the community of Cordes Lakes in the Agua Fria Basin). The estimated gpcd rate of Cottonwood was about 148 gpcd and Clarkdale about 193 gpcd (USBOR, 2003). Town of Payson The Town of Payson pumps groundwater from 32 active wells to about 14,000 residents. Most wells are located in the Verde River Basin and some are in the Tonto Creek Basin. It also supplies water to parts of the Tonto Apache Indian Reservation. The town estimates that there are also about 300 to 400 domestic wells operating within its service area. Because the local granite aquifer has limited storage capacity, Payson is drought-sensitive and dependent on sufficient rainfall and snowmelt for an adequate drinking water supply (City of Payson, 2007). Payson monitors water levels in its wells regularly to gauge water supply availability and has aggressive water conservation, effluent reuse and drought programs. Water levels in wells trigger the town’s drought response. Payson’s water demand declined by 7% between 2002 and 2003, which it attributes to conservation efforts (Maguire, 2005). In 2006 Payson withdrew 1,815 acre-feet from 35 wells. It delivered 31 acre-feet to the Tonto Apache Indian Reservation, 1,299 acre-feet to residential customers and 390 acre-feet to commercial customers. In 2006, the City of Cottonwood acquired four systems: Cottonwood Water Works, Cordes Lakes, Clemenceau and Verde Santa Fe. These systems withdrew a total of about 3,150 acrefeet of water from 28 wells in 2006. Separate deliveries to residential and non-residential customers were not reported on the 2006 Community Water System annual reports. In 2009, the City received a Designation of Adequate Water Supply for its water service area. About 80% of Payson’s population is connected to the Northern Gila County Sanitary District sewer system that provides wastewater treatment for Payson and much of the surrounding area. Current system inflows are about 800,000 gallons daily, or 50% of capacity. The District’s effluent is used for a variety of irrigation projects and ground water recharge, including the Green Valley Lake project. The 48-acre Green Valley Park was developed jointly by the Town of Payson Water Department and the Sanitary District. Treated effluent from the district’s water treatIn 2007, The City of Clarkdale acquired the ment plant fills a 10.5-acre lake used for boating Cottonwood Water Works-Clarkdale system and fishing and adjacent irrigated areas and recwhich served about 3,000 people and pumped reational facilities. (Payson Regional Economic about 400 acre-feet in 2006 (Cottonwood Water Development Corporation, 2006) Another efWorks, 2007). fluent recharge project, Rumsey Park, is in the pilot phase. 61 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-13 Golf courses in the Central Highlands Planning Area (c. 2008) Facility Basin # of Demand Holes (acre-feet) Cobre Valley Country Club - Globe* Salt River 9 Chaparral Pines Golf Course - Payson Tonto Basin 18 Rim Golf Course - Payson Tonto Basin 18 Los Caballeros Golf Club - Wickenburg Upper Hassayampa 18 Wickenburg Country Club Upper Hassayampa 9 Beaver Creek Country Club - Lake Montezuma* Verde River 18 Canyon Mesa Golf Course - Sedona* Verde River 9 Forest Highlands Verde River 36 Oak Creek Country Club - Village of Oak Creek* Verde River 18 Payson Golf Course - Payson Verde River 18 Pine Shadows - Cottonwood* Verde River 9 Pinewood Country Club - Munds Park* Verde River 18 Poco Diablo Golf Course - Sedona* Verde River 9 Sedona Golf Resort - Sedona* Verde River 18 Seven Canyons Four Seasons Golf Course - Sedona Verde River 18 Talking Rock - Northwest of Prescott* Verde River 18 Verde River 18 Verde Santa Fe - Cottonwood* Source: ADWR 2000, ADWR 2008c Notes: * These golf courses are served by their own wells and considered to be industrial users Golf course demand by municipal and industrial facilities, basin location and source of water is listed in Table 5.0-13. Total golf course demand was about 5,700 acre-feet in 2008, almost 7% of the total planning area demand. Effluent is an important water supply for golf course irrigation, accounting for 17% of the golf course demand in 2006. Municipal water providers served about 2,200 acre-feet to golf courses in 2008. Of this, 1,555 was groundwater and almost 680 acrefeet was effluent. Golf courses with their own facility wells, considered “industrial users”, used about 2,400 acre-feet of groundwater, 800 acre-feet of surface water and 300 acre-feet of effluent in 2008. The demand of these golf courses is included in the industrial category. Most golf courses are located in the Verde River Basin. Agricultural Demand Agricultural demand in the planning area averaged about 37,500 AFA, or 45% of the 211 108/107 108/108 423 211 490 113 150/150 701 132/309 98 270/269 34 456 423 400 401/55 Water Supply Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater Surface Water/Effluent Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent total cultural demand during the 2001-2005 time-period. Most irrigation was for pasture. As listed in Table 5.0-14, there is agricultural demand in all basins but most (72%) was located in the Verde River Basin. An estimated 6,400 acres were in agricultural production in the Verde River Basin, primarily in the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins. Total demand was estimated at 27,100 AFA. The predominant crop grown was pasture, which is typically deficit irrigated. Groundwater was the primary supply in the Big Chino Sub-basin while surface water was predominantly utilized in the Verde Valley Sub-basin. Approximately 11,000 AFA of groundwater was withdrawn during 2001-2205 basin wide (USGS, 2007). An additional 15,200 AFA was diverted in the Verde Valley Sub-basin and 700 AFA in the Big Chino Sub-basin during this period. Detailed maps showing recent and historic irrigation in the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins and much of the Verde Canyon Sub-basin are found Section 5.0 Overview 62 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-14 Agricultural water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area 1991-1995 (acre-feet) 1996-2000 (acre-feet) 2001-2005 (acre-feet) Agua Fria 1,500 Groundwater 1,300 1,300 Total 1,300 1,300 1,500 Salt River Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 Surface Water 6,400 6,400 6,400 Total 6,900 6,900 6,900 Tonto Creek Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 Surface Water 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total 1,500 1,500 1,500 Upper Hassayampa Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 Total <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 Verde River Groundwater 8,100 8,400 11,100 Surface Water 11,500 12,500 16,000 Total 19,600 20,900 27,100 Source: USGS 2007, ADWR 2005 Notes: Volumes <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acre-feet for computational purposes in the Verde River Watershed Study Report (ADWR, 2000). This study also includes a description of the irrigation associations, including information on acreage, water supply and facilities. More recent maps of irrigated lands are found in the WAC and BOR Reports (WAC, 2004 and USBOR, 2003). Most recent irrigation in the Big Chino Subbasin is located along Big Chino Wash about 15 miles northwest of Paulden, along Williamson Valley Wash and near Paulden. A smaller number of acres have been irrigated in the Walnut Creek area near the western sub-basin boundary. Irrigation methods were predominantly flood or sprinkler irrigation. Pasture was the most prevalent crop as well as alfalfa, small grains and corn. (WAC, 2004) were located along the Verde River or its major tributaries. During drought, approximately 1,200 irrigation wells in the Verde Valley may have been used to meet irrigation demands. Agricultural lands were located primarily along the Verde River north and south of Camp Verde, where a number of ditch companies have served water to about 2,800 acres. Irrigated lands were also located near the communities of Cornville and Page Springs. Pasture was grown on about two-thirds of the irrigated land. Other crops included alfalfa, corn, wheat, vegetables and orchards. (ADWR, 2000) Although agricultural demand estimates are uncertain in parts of the planning area due to a lack of both reporting and recent field studies, it does appear that agricultural demand has declined in the Verde River Basin compared with demand prior to 1990. Agricultural demand may continue to decline in part due to groundwater transportation activities. In 2004, the City of Prescott, in partnership with the Town of Prescott Valley, purchased the JWK Ranch in the Big Chino Sub-basin for the anticipated purpose of retiring agricultural use and pumping groundwater to the Prescott Active Management Area pursuant to A.R.S.§ 45-555. The final determination of the allowable transportation volume has not been made. Small areas of irrigated acreage were located in the Agua Fria Basin north of Cordes Junction and in the Upper Hassayampa Basin north of Wagoner (see Figures 5.1-11 and 5.4-10). An estimated 1,500 AFA of groundwater was withdrawn during 2001-2005 About 30 irrigation associations recently diverted surface water in the Verde Valley Sub- In the Tonto Creek Basin the Gisela Community basin. Most of the irrigated lands in the sub-basin Ditch Association has delivered surface water 63 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 diverted from Tonto Creek through a 3-mile long ditch to about 144 acres near the community of Gisela, east of Rye (see Figure 5.3-10). Reportedly, much more water was diverted than used due to system configuration, but the excess was assumed to return to the creek. Agricultural lands consisted of pasture and orchard. Some acreage may have been irrigated with groundwater. (ADWR, 1992) A relatively small amount of groundwater-supplied irrigation also occured in the lower reaches of Tonto Creek. A total of 1,500 AFA of groundwater and surface water was used during 20012005. The USGS recently estimated that about 270 acres were actively farmed in the Tonto Creek Basin (USGS 2007). estimated to be about 3,700 acre-feet of surface water with 1,050 acres in production. Only about 20 acres were irrigated with surface water and 200 acre-feet of groundwater on the portion of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation located in the planning area, with an associated demand of about 70 AFA. (ADWR, 1992) Industrial Demand Industrial demand in the planning area averaged almost 18,300 AFA during the period 2001-2005. As summarized in Table 5.0-15, industrial demand consists of mining (including sand and gravel operations and cement production), golf course irrigation served by facility water systems and a dairy. These same use categories that are served Annual agricultural demand in the Salt River Basin was estimated at about 7,200 acre-feet between 2001-2005 and Table 5.0-15 Industrial water demand in the Central Highwas primarily associated with lands Planning Area pasture irrigation for livestock raising operations. Most of the 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 irrigated areas were in Pleasant Type/Basin Water Demand (acre-feet) Valley near Young and near the Mining Total 17,900 14,100 14,160 community of Fort Apache. An Salt River Groundwater 10,300 7,300 7,860 estimated 3,200 acre-feet of de2 Surface Water 6,300 6,600 4,900 mand was located on non-reserTonto Creek vation lands with about 650 acres Groundwater 0 200 200 in production. Approximately Verde River 2,700 acre-feet of surface wa1,300 0 1,200 Groundwater ter and 500 acre-feet of groundGolf Course Total 2,910 3,010 3,334 water were used. Historically, Salt River Groundwater 210 210 210 small tracts of irrigated land Verde River 1 were located throughout the baGroundwater 1,900 2,000 2,000 sin including along the Salt RivSurface Water 800 800 800 er upstream of Roosevelt Lake, Effluent UNK UNK 324 north of Globe and in the White Dairy/Feedlot Total 790 790 790 Mountains. Recent field investiUpper Hassayampa gations have not been conducted 790 790 790 Groundwater in this basin and the USGS NaTotal 21,600 17,900 18,300 tional Gap Analysis Program did Source: ADEQ 2005, ADMMR 2005, ADWR 2000, ADWR 2008c, USGS 2007 not identify irrigated acreage in UNK = Unknown these areas (see Figure 5.2-10). 1 Two golf courses also received effluent, see Table 5.0-9 for more Agricultural demand on the Fort information. Apache Indian Reservation was 2 Most of the surface water diverted for mining in the Salt River Basin was water transported to the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area for use at the Morenci Mine. Section 5.0 Overview 64 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 by a municipal water system are accounted for as municipal demand. There was likely other industrial demand in the planning area associated with additional sand and gravel operations and other types of industrial uses that are not reflected in Table 5.0-15 due to a lack of data. rod mill that produces continuous-cast copper rod used as the feedstock for the wire and cable industry. A planned 2008 restart of the mine was postponed due to economic conditions and the mine continues to be held on a care and maintenance status. (Freeport-McMoRan, 2009) Most of the industrial demand during the 20012005 time period was copper mining-related operations in the Salt River Basin and surface water exported from the basin via the Black River to the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Average mining demand during 2001-2005 was comparable to that during 1996-2000 although the proportion of surface water utilized declined. Mining activity has, however declined from pre-1996 levels. Water use by the mining sector varies depending on the quantity of material mined and how it is processed. Outside of the AMAs, water use by mines is generally not required to be disclosed. Mining has been an important industry in the planning area for many years with a number of mines commencing operation in the late 1800s and early 1990s. Historically significant mines no longer in operation include the Vulture Gold Mine near Wickenburg that was in production sporadically for about a hundred years beginning in 1864, and the United Verde Mine at Jerome/ Clarkdale, which operated from 1876 to 1953. The United Verde Mine was at one time the largest copper mine in Arizona, producing three million pounds of copper per month. A number of smaller mining operations were located around Crown King and north of Castle Hot Springs in the Agua Fria Basin. While some existing mines have been out of production in recent years, mining may resume at some sites (e.g. Miami) if determined to be economically feasible. The BHP Pinto Valley Division includes the Pinto Valley Mine and the Miami Unit. The Pinto Valley Mine, an open-pit mine located northwest of Miami, began operation in 1974. Sulfide mining and milling operations ceased in 1998 although mining of a limited amount of waste rock continued. Full copper mining operations resumed in 2007, however by 2009, mining operations had been suspended and operations returned to care and maintenance (Home, 2009). The Miami Unit is a leach operation that recovers copper from the old Miami mine block cave area and leaching of the Miami No. 2 tailings pile (Phillips and others, 2000). The Miami unit is currently on care and maintenance status, although the SXEW unit is processing leach solutions that continue to be cycled through the leachable materials (Mining Technology, 2009). Mining operations at the Miami Mine, currently owned by Freeport-McMoRan, began in 1910. Active mining has ceased and current (2009) activity involves smelter operations and a copper 65 The Quadra Carlota Copper Mine, an open pit mine located about six miles west of Miami, reopened in 2008. It produced ore intermittently from 1929 to 1964 (Mindat, 2009). The existing mine is a heap leach-solvent extraction-electrowinning (SXEW) operation that produces copper cathode. With an 11-year mine life, up to 75 million pounds per year of copper cathode may be produced (Quadra Mining LTD., 2009). Anticipated water use at the mine is estimated at 650 AFA (M3 Engineering & Techology Corp., 2006). Available data for the most recent year (2007) show an estimated groundwater demand by mines in the Salt River Basin of approximately 7,200 acre-feet: 6,460 acre-feet at the FreeportMcMoran Miami Mine; 20 acre-feet at the BHP Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Magma Miami Mine and 756 acre-feet at the BHP Pinto Valley Mine. There was no reported surface water use in the Miami area from 20042007. Annual water demand for 2001-2007 by each mine, as well as diversions from the Salt River Basin to the Morenci Mine are listed in Table 5.0-16. In addition to metal mining, sand and gravel and cement operations are included in the mining category. During 2001-2005, an average of approximately 1,200 AFA of groundwater was used in the Verde River Basin by several sand Cobre Golf Course, Salt River Basin. This golf and gravel operations and Phoenix Cement, course is one of the 10 golf courses in the basin a manufacturer of Portland Cement located served by its own wells and considered to be an near Clarkdale. A cement plant has recently “industrial” course. commenced operations near Drake, northwest The Parker Dairy, located east of Congress in of Paulden, that may use about 80 acre-feet of the Upper Hassayampa Basin, began operations in 1987. It houses over 7,000 dairy cows and water per year (Wirt, 2005). has an estimated annual groundwater demand As shown in Table 5.0-13, ten of the seventeen of about 800 acre-feet. known golf courses in the planning area are “industrial” courses located primarily in the Verde River Basin. Industrial golf courses 5.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Central Highlands Planning Area receive at least some water from facility wells and not from a municipal water provider. During 2001-2005, an average of more than A number of complex water resource issues exist 3,300 AFA was used by industrial golf courses. in the Central Highlands Planning Area. Issues Of this total, groundwater demand averaged have been identified in water resource studies, about 2,200 AFA. Three courses used a total of by community watershed groups, through the almost 800 acre-feet of surface water annually distribution of surveys, and from other sources. and two courses used a total of about 324 acre- Issues and planning, conservation and research activities are discussed in this section. feet of municipal effluent a year. Table 5.0-16 Industrial mining demand in the Salt River Basin, 2001-2007 Mine Freeport-McMoran Miami1 BHP Miami BHP Pinto Valley Freeport-McMoRan Morenci (diversions to the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area) 2001 2002 Water supply groundwater surface water groundwater groundwater 8,513 54 na 483 7,092 14 na 425 surface water 5,314 5,219 2003 2004 2005 Water Demand (acre-feet) 6,460 6,460 6,460 119 na na na na 300 367 586 899 6,448 5,245 5,372 2006 2007 6,460 na 20 945 6,460 na 20 756 4,970 271 1 2004-2007 demand not reported. Shown is demand estimated by the USGS na = not available Source: ADWR 2008 Section 5.0 Overview 66 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Planning and Conservation Many communities in the planning area are facing rapid population growth in a region of the state where physical and legal access to water supplies creates significant challenges. These challenges have resulted in the formation of several community watershed groups, water resource studies and planning and drought response and water conservation efforts. Yavapai County is a major governmental entity in the planning area with the largest county land base. Because the County had a population of over 125,000 in the 2000 Census, it is required to include a water resource element in its General Plan. Its plan recognizes the need for public education and sees the county’s role as a facilitator of sound water resource management practices. The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, along with cities, towns, tribes and the Department of Water Resources created the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to provide a water management strategy for Yavapai County. The goals of the county’s general plan as they compare with the activities of the WAC are included in Yavapai County’s General Plan. Verde River Basin southwest of Sedona. imposes a water-development impact fee on new development. New residential subdivisions are limited to 20 lots and builders must provide their own sources of water without impacting Payson’s water supplies (Maguire, 2005). Payson has a conservation water rate structure, a water conservation education program and a drought plan. Supply augmentation activities include using effluent for turf irrigation and groundwater recharge, and development of a program to transport 3,000 acre-feet of water from C.C. Cragin reservoir to Payson as provided for under the Arizona Water Rights The City of Cottonwood acquired private Settlement Act. water companies to improve water resource management. The town is a participant in the Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) are WAC as are a number of communities in the county-level voluntary groups created to Verde River Basin including Sedona, Clarkdale coordinate drought public awareness, provide impact assessment information to local and and Camp Verde. state leaders, and implement and initiate local The Town of Payson is the largest community in drought mitigation and response actions. These the planning area. Because its water system is groups are coordinated by local representatives drought sensitive and the community faces rapid of Arizona Cooperative Extension and County population growth, the Town has undertaken Emergency Management and supported by a variety of water resource management ADWR’s Statewide Drought Program. To date, activities. It has adopted ordinances that place a group has been formed in Yavapai County. conservation and no-impact requirements on More information on LDIGs may be found at new developments including prohibitions on http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/drought/LDIG. swimming pools, turf and evaporative coolers html. in buildings over 3,000 square feet. It also 67 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Watershed Groups and Studies • • Seasonal demand/peaking problems Potential impacts resulting from the transfer of Big Chino water to Prescott and Prescott Valley Several groups have formed in the planning area to address water resource issues. Among the most active groups are the Citizens Legal: • Private water companies and domestic Water Advocacy Group, Coconino Plateau water improvement district conflicts Water Advisory Group, Mogollon Highlands • Interbasin transfer conflicts resulting Partnership, Northern Arizona Municipal Water from Payson’s ability to pump from two Users Association, Upper Agua Fria Watershed separate basins Partnership, Verde Valley Water Users, Inc., • Unresolved Indian Water Rights settleVerde Watershed Association and the Yavapai ments County Water Advisory Committee. In 2005, • Subflow decision and impact on legal Congress passed the Northern Arizona Land access to water Exchange and Verde River Partnership Act, but to date no appropriations to fund the partnership Water Quality: • Water quality issues in Verde Valley have been made. A description of those groups • Potential impacts from septic systems that are part of the Department’s Rural Watershed • Ability to meet new arsenic standard Initiative Program, including participants, activities and issues, is found in Appendix D. Funding: • Limited funding resources for planning, Two of the groups mentioned above and listed in projects, infrastructure and studies Appendix D encompass more than one planning • High cost of water augmentation projarea. Primary issues identified by these groups ects that pertain to the Central Highlands Planning • Costs associated with hauling water area are summarized as follows: • Infrastructure needs for private and public water companies Growth: Drought: • Unregulated lot splits • Drought sensitive groundwater and sur• Proposed growth in Mayer, Bensch face water supplies Ranch, Spring Valley and elsewhere • Drought sensitivity in Pine and Straw• Thousands of private domestic wells berry and more pending Environmental: • Significant projected growth • ESA issues involving groundwater usWater Supplies and Demand: age impacts on perennial streams • Limited and deep groundwater supplies • Critical habitat area in Verde Valley for • Access to water development on public Willow Flycatcher lands • Environmental issues pertaining to Fos• Limited groundwater data sil Creek and the Verde River • Limited supplies to meet projected de• Invasive species mands • Limited water resources to meet current Other: • Poorly constructed and maintained demands infrastructure in some areas • Environmental, supply, treatment, trans• Competition between watershed groups portation and financing costs associated for funding and technical support with augmentation from C.C. Cragin reservoir Section 5.0 Overview 68 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 A number of studies have been conducted in parts of the planning area, particularly in the Verde River Basin. Many of these studies were undertaken as a result of initiatives by watershed groups and communities. Some of the noteworthy regional studies have been mentioned in previous sections and an extensive list of studies are included in the references and suggested reading section found at the end of each basin section in this volume. In addition, several studies are in process or have recently been finalized. The USBOR along with Gila County, the Town of Payson and a number of participating agencies is finalizing the Mogollon Rim Water Resources Management Study, which covers the Payson, Pine, Strawberry and Star Valley area. Northern Arizona University used USGS geophysical data to construct a 3-D geologic model that represents the subsurface geologic framework within the Big Chino Subbasin and Prescott AMA. The model aids in understanding how groundwater flows within and between these areas (Fry, 2006) The USBOR in cooperation with Yavapai County WAC and the Department are in the process of developing the Central Yavapai Highlands Water Resource Management Study. The study group includes WAC members, NGOs and state and federal agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has produced a rapid watershed assessment (RWA) for three watersheds in the planning area: the Agua Fria River, Carrizo Creek and Hassayampa River watersheds. These watersheds extend beyond the planning area boundaries. An RWA is a concise report containing information on natural resource conditions and concerns at the 8-digit HUC level. They are intended to provide sufficient information and analysis to generate an appraisal of the conservation needs of the watershed as well as serve other uses. (Reports are available online at http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ rwa.html). 69 Arizona NEMO (Non-point Education for Municipal Officials) has produced watershed based plans for the Salt, Upper Agua Fria and Verde Watersheds. These plans characterize and classify watershed features. The goal of NEMO is to educate land-use decision makers to make choices and take actions that will lessen nonpoint source pollution and protect natural resources. (Plans are available online at http:// www.srnr.arizona.edu/nemo/). Issue Surveys The Department conducted a rural water resources survey in 2003 to compile information for the public and help identify the needs of growing communities. This survey was also intended to gather information on drought impacts for incorporation into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes. The Department completed a report of the findings from the survey in 2004 (ADWR, 2004). There were 36 water provider and jurisdiction respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area, and 24 numerically ranked issues. Respondents were asked to rank 18 issues. Infrastructure issues, particularly inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements, were ranked among the top five issues by many respondents. Future water supply concerns and drought problems also ranked relatively high (Table 5.0-17). At the time of the survey, concerns about the utility’s ability to meet the new arsenic standard (with a compliance date of 2006) and lowering water tables near wells ranked relatively high as concerns; 33% and 25% respectively. In a separate question, about half of respondents noted at least one drought impact. Primary drought impacts noted were increased demand, increased peak demand and lowered groundwater levels. Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 The Department conducted another, more concise survey of water providers in 2004. 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, 74 water providers in the Central Highlands Planning Area, with a total of approximately 60,600 service connections, were willing to participate and provide information on water supply, demand and infrastructure and to rank a list of seven issues. Water providers were asked to rank 7 issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. Of the 74 water providers that responded to the survey, 66 ranked issues. These respondents include some of the largest water providers in the planning area including the City of Globe, Payson Water Company, Big Park Water Company and City of Cottonwood. Responses to the 2003 questionnaire are not directly comparable to the 2004 survey due to differences in the form and wording of the surveys. In addition, water quality and groundwater level conditions were not included as issues in the 2004 survey. Nevertheless, responses to certain issues are similar as shown in Table 5.0-16. The 2004 responses indicate that issues related to infrastructure, drought and inadequate supplies to meet future demands are the most prevalent concerns. The identification of drought related water supply problems was particularly the case for respondents in the Verde River Basin. 5.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics Sections 5.1 through 5.5 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the groundwater basins in the Central Highlands Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is Table 5.0-17 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Percent of 2003 respondents Percent of 2004 respondents that ranked issue as one of the reporting issue was a moderate top 5 (of 18) or major concern 8% 13% 4 18 8 15 29 32 21 36 Inadequate capital to pay for 33 38 infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply 21 38 problems Source: ADWR, 2004 Note: 2003 respondents consist of 19 water providers and 5 jurisdictions. 2004 respondents included 66 water providers Section 5.0 Overview 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 found in Section 1.3 of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes general information that applies to all of the basins and the purpose of the information. This information is organized in the order in which the characteristics are discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.5. 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. Surface water maps display runoff contours Geographic Features and the location of reservoirs and gages. Also Geographic features maps are included to shown are 1st and 2nd order streams, and 3rd present a general orientation to principal land order streams with gages. features, roads, counties and cities, towns and places in the groundwater basin. Criteria for including stream gage stations in the basin tables are that there is at least one year of record, and annual streamflow statistics are Land Ownership The distribution and type of land ownership in included only if there are at least three years of a basin has implications for land and water use. record. There are different types of stations and Large amounts of private land typically translate those that only serve repeater functions were into opportunities for land development and not included. associated water demand, whereas federal lands are typically maintained for a purpose with little Flood gage information is presented to direct associated water use. State owned land may be the reader to sources of additional precipitation sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing and flow information that can be used in water and farming. The extent of state owned lands resource planning. Large reservoir storage is due to a number of legislative actions. The information provides data on the amount of State Enabling Act of 1910 and the Act that water stored in the basin, its uses, and ownership. established the Territory of Arizona in 1863 set Because of the large number of small reservoirs, aside sections 2, 16, 32 and 36 in each township and less reliable data, individual small reservoir to be held in trust by the state for educational data is not provided. The number of stockponds purposes. Other legislation authorized additional is a general indicator of small scale surface water state trust lands for specified purposes, which capture and livestock demand. Runoff contours are identified for each basin (ASLD, 2006). reflect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication Climate of the amount of runoff that can be expected at Climate data including temperature, rainfall, a particular geographic location. evaporation rates and snow are critical components of water resource planning and manage- Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major ment. Averages and variability, seasonality of Springs precipitation and long term climate trends are A map of perennial and intermittent streams is all important factors in demand and supply provided for each basin. For some basins, more planning. than one source of information was used. Stream designations may not accurately reflect current Surface Water Conditions conditions in some cases. Spring data was Depending on physical and legal availability, compiled from a number of sources in an effort surface water may be a potential supply in a basin. to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. Stream gage, flood gage, reservoir, stockpond Spring data is important to many researchers 71 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 and to the environmental community due to The flow directions that are shown generally their importance in maintaining habitat, even reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the from small discharges. basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. However, flow directions Groundwater Conditions in some basins indicate how localized pumping Several indicators of groundwater conditions has altered regional flow patterns. are presented for each basin. Aquifer type can be a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, Water Quality accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, Water quality conditions impact the availability water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield of water supplies. Water quality data was information for large diameter wells is provided compiled from a variety of sources as described and is generally measured when the well is in Volume 1 Section 1.3. The data indicate drilled and reported on completion reports. It areas where water quality exceedences have was assumed that large diameter wells were previously occurred, however additional areas of drilled to produce a maximum amount of water concern may currently exist where water quality and, therefore, their reported pump capacities samples have not been collected or sample are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield results were not reviewed by the Department water to a well. However, many factors can (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the affect well yields including well design, pump ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It size and condition and the age of the well. is important to note also that the exceedences Reported well yields are only a general indicator presented may or may not reflect current aquifer of aquifer productivity and specific information or surface water conditions. is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand is an important compoNatural recharge is typically the least well nent of a water budget. However, without manknown component of a water budget. Many datory metering and reporting of water uses, of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from accurate demand data is difficult to acquire. studies of larger geographic areas and all Municipal demand includes water company and deserve further study. Similarly, estimates domestic (self-supplied) demand estimates. Baof storage are based on rough estimates and sin demand information is from several sources considerably more studies are needed in most in order to prepare as accurate an estimate as basins. Components of storage include aquifer possible. Annual demand estimates have been depth and specific yield. averaged over a specific time period. This provides general trend information without focusWater level data is from measured wells, usu- ing on potentially inaccurate annual demand ally collected during the period when the wells estimates due to incomplete data. were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. Depth to water measurements Locations of major cultural water uses are are shown on mapped wells if there was a mea- primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study surement taken during 2003-2004. The basin using older satellite imagery that may not hydrographs show water-level trends for select- represent recent changes. The cultural demand ed wells over the 30-year period from January maps provide only general information about 1975 to January 2005. Not all basins have a suf- the location of water users. ficient number of representative hydrographs. Section 5.0 Overview 72 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Effluent generation data was compiled from several sources to provide an estimate of how much of this renewable resource might be available for use. However, effluent reuse is often difficult both logistically and economically since a potential user may be far from the wastewater treatment plant. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the 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 be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. In addition to these subdivision determinations for which a water adequacy report is issued, water providers may apply for adequacy designations for their entire service area. If a subdivision is to be served water from one of these water providers, then a separate adequacy determination is not required. (See Section 5.0-5) 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 masterplanned 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. 73 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 REFERENCES Anderson, T.W., G.W. Freethey and P. Tucci, 1992, Geohydrology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States-Regional AquiferSystem Analysis: USGS Professional Paper 1406.B. Arizona Department of Commerce (AZCommerce), 2008a, Pine/Strawberry Community Profile ______, 2008b, Wickenburg Community Profile Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Accessed August 2005 at www.workforce.az.gov Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2009a, Payson PCE Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Site Fact Sheet - July 2009; Publication Number FS 09-13 _____, 2009b, Tonto and Cherry Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Site Fact Sheet – July 2009; Publication Number FS 09-14 _____, 2008, Pinal Creek Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF); Accessed June, 2009 at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/state.html _____, 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.html. _____, 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 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 Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Database of active mines in Arizona: Available at www.admmr.state.az.us Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Instream flow applications, 08/2008 _____, 2008b, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Water Management Division _____, 2008c, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2008d, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. Section 5.0 Overview 74 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2007, Cultural Water Demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005c, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005, Agricultural surface water use estimates: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 2000, Verde River Watershed Study _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1992. Preliminary HSR for the Upper Salt River Watershed Volume 1: Assessment In Re: The General Adjudication of the Gila 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 _____, 2004, Explore Arizona: Accessed January 2007 at http://explore.azgfd.gov _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2006, Land Ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2006 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. Arizona Water Company, 2007a, System Water Plan Miami Water System, submitted to ADWR Arizona Water Company, 2007b, System Water Plan Sedona Water System, submitted to ADWR Big Park Water Company (BPWC) and Little Park Water Company (LPWC), 2007, Water Supply Plan, submitted to ADWR Black Canyon City, 2006, Black Canyon City Water Improvement District System Water Plan. Blasch, K.W. J.P. Hoffmann, L.F. Graser, J.R. Bryson, A.L. Flint, 2006, Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River Watersheds, Central Arizona, USGS SIR 2005-5198. Brown, D.E. 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. 75 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Brown, D. and C. Lowe, 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS Cover City of Globe, 2005, ADWR Designation of Adequate Water Supply Annual Report City of Payson, 2007; Payson Water System: Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.ci.payson.az.us/ Departments/water/system.htm Corkhill, E.F., 2000, Report on the Drilling of an exploratory Borehole near Strawberry, Arizona May 18-June 2, 2000. A Hydrogeologic Investigation for the Northern Gila County Water Plan Alliance. Cottonwood Water Works, 2007, Community Water System Report, submitted to ADWR. Dava & Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan, Section VI. Water Resources Element. Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Ester, C. and D. Reigle, 2001; The Role of the SRP Verde Reservoirs in Water Resources Management at the Salt River Project, In Proceedings of the Verde Watershed Symposium-State of the Watershed in 2001, May 17-19, 2001. Fenneman, N.M. and D.W. Johnson, 1946, Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U. S.: GIS cover. Freeport-McMoRan, 2009, Miami Mine and Processing Facilities: Accessed August, 2009 at http://www.fcx.com/operations/USA_Arizona_Miami.htm Fry, M.C., 2006, Digital Hydrogeologic Framework Models and Implications for Fault Scaling, Upper Verde River Headwaters, Arizona, 142 p. M. S. Thesis, Northern Arizona University. Gæaorama Inc., 2006, Geology and Structural Controls of Groundwater, Mogollon Rim Water Resources Management Study. Draft. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. 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 Home, A., 2009, BHP Billiton bows to the inevitable, In: Midas Letter, January 23, 2009: Accessed July, 2009 at http://www.midasletter.com Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Tribe: Accessed April 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Section 5.0 Overview 76 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Jerome, Town of, 2008, ADWR 2007 Community Water System Annual Report Kyl, J., Senator, 2008, A Win-Win Water Settlement for Arizona. Jon Kyl News, January 26, 2008. Maguire, R.P., 2005, An Analysis of the Water Budgets of Buckeye, Payson and Prescott Valley, ThinkAZ. McGavock, Ed, 2003, Big Chino Aquifers: Knowns, Unknowns, and Conflicting Interpretations. Tri-City Water Forum 2003 Mindat, 2009, Carlota Mine (Carlotta Mine; Carlota property; Carlota deposit; Cactus deposit; Brewery Mine; Brewery claims; Alexander Mine), Top of the World, Miami-Inspiration District, Globe-Miami District, Gila Co., Arizona, USA: Accessed August, 2009 at http:// www.mindat.org/loc-61469.html. Mining Technology, 2009, Pinto Valley: Accessed August, 2009 at http://www.miningtechnology.com/projects/pinto-valley/ National Atlas of the United States, 2005, Federal Lands: GIS cover accessed October 2008 at http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html National Wild & Scenic Rivers System (NWSR), 2007, Verde River Arizona: Accessed April 2007 at www.rivers.gov 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, 8p. Nelson, K., 2002, Application of the Prescott Active Management Area groundwater flow model, planning scenario 1999-2025, Modeling Report No. 12: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division, September 2002. NEMO (Non-point Education for Municipal Officials), 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan for the Upper Agua Fria Watershed. 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 51:933-938 Payson Regional Economic Development Corporation, 2006, Utilities; Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.paysonecon.org/relocation.htm 77 Section 5.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Payson Roundup, 2009, Done Deal! Pine/Strawberry board OKs handshake deal to buy water company fo $3.5 million, July 31, 2009. Payson Roundup, 2005, Supervisors approve Diamond Star incorporation, Nov. 4, 2005 Quadra Mining, LTD., 2009, Operations/Carlota Mine; Accessed June, 2009 at http://www. quadramining.com/s/Carlota.asp Owen-Joyce, S. J. and C.K. Bell,1983, Appraisal of Water Resources in the Upper Verde River Area, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona Phillips, K.A. N.J. Niemuth and D. Bain, 2000, Arizona Mining Update for 1999; Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources M3 Engineering & Techology Corp., 2006, NI 43-101 Technical report Carlota Copper Project Miami Arizona; prepared for Quadra Mining LTD Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. Salt River Project (SRP), 2007a; SRP system information: Accessed April, 2007 at http:// www.srpnet.com/about/history/water.aspx ______, 2007b, C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir; Accessed May, 2007 at http://www.srpnet. com/water/dams/cragin.aspx Seaber, P.R., E.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp, 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 2008, Conservancy, AZGFD Partner to Protect Verde River Springs. Accessed July, 2009 at http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ arizona/press/press3414.html Truini, M., J.P. Macy and T.J. Porter, 2005. Ground-water, surface-water, and water-chemistry data, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona, 2003-04.; prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Arizona. Dept. of Water Resources. USGS 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), 2003, Draft Water Use Projections Verde Valley Arizona Section 5.0 Overview 78 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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 _____, 2007, USDA Forest Service - Southwestern Region, Forest Health: Accessed April, 2007 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/beetle/index.shtml U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007, Wilderness Areas: Accessed March, 2007 at http:// www.fs.fed.us/r3/ ______, 2003, Arizona Bark Beetle Epidemics-Fact Sheet and Bulletin, Southwestern Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2009, Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment: Renovation of Stilllman Lake to Remove Non-Native Fishes and Repatriate Native Species. ______, 2008, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed July 2008 at www.fws.gov/ arizonaes/documents/countylists and www.fws.gov/ifw2es/endangeredspecies/lists/ default.cfm. ______, 2007; News release: Comments Sought on Proposal to Renovate Stillman Lake, March 15, 2007. ______, 2003, News Release of February 27, 2003: Incidental Take Permit Issued to Salt River Project for Operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received December 2007. ______, 2005a, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona: Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294, 87 pg. ______, 2005b, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater ______, 2005c, Geologic Framework of Aquifer Units and Ground-water Flowpaths, Verde River Headwaters, North-Central Arizona: Open-File Report 2004-1141. 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. Wickenburg, Town of, 2003, Town of Wickenburg General Plan 79 Section 5.0 Overview Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 80 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.1 Geography of the Agua Fria Basin The Agua Fria Basin, located in the west central part of the planning area is 1,263 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.1-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and mesas. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, interior chaparral, montane conifer forests and Great Basin conifer woodland (see Figure 5.0-10). Riparian vegetation is found along the Agua Fria River including mixed broadleaf and cottonwood/willow. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.1-1 are: o Agua Fria River running north to south through the center of the basin o Numerous creeks that flow into the Agua Fria River including Castle Creek, Humbug Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Black Canyon Creek, Squaw Creek, Turkey Creek, Silver Creek, Sycamore Creek, Yellow Jacket Creek and Ash Creek o Horsethief Basin southeast of Crown King o Black Mesa along Interstate 17 west of Perry Mesa o Big Bug Mesa on the western basin boundary northwest of Mayer o Buckhorn Mountains in the southwestern and the New River Mountains in the southeastern portions of the basin o Bradshaw Mountains west of Interstate 17, which contain the highest point in the basin, Mt. Union at 7,528 feet o The lowest point in the basin is about 3,700 feet along the Agua Fria River 81 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 82 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.2 Land Ownership in the Agua Fria Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Agua Fria Basin is shown in Figure 5.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the diversity of land ownership types and the large contiguous parcels of forest service lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 5.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Forest • 46.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott and Tonto National Forests. • The basin contains two wilderness areas, the 25,536-acre Castle Creek Wilderness and the 20,100-acre Pine Mountain Wilderness. Both areas are in the Prescott National Forest. (see Figure 5.0-13) • There are numerous small private in-holdings in the Prescott National Forest. • National forest land is located in the northern, eastern and western portions of the basin, divided by Interstate 17 and other land uses in the central part of the basin. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 28.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Hassayampa Field Office BLM. • Most BLM lands are interspersed with private and state trust lands in the southern and central portions of the basin. • BLM lands include 71,000 acres of the Agua Fria National Monument. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. State Trust Land • 14.7% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and four other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • State land is interspersed with private and BLM lands and is found in the southern and north-central portions of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 7.1% of the land is private. • Private land is found throughout the basin with the majority of the private land interspersed with state trust, national forest and BLM lands. • The largest contiguous area of private lands is in the vicinity of Castle Hot Springs. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 2.6% of the land is owned and managed by two counties. 83 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • • The largest portion of “other” land is owned and managed by Maricopa County as the Lake Pleasant Regional Park, located at the southernmost tip of the basin. A small portion of land northwest of Cordes Junction is owned by Yavapai County, its use is unknown. Primary land use at the Lake Pleasant Regional Park is recreation. Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 84 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 85 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.3 Climate of the Agua Fria Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are compiled in Table 5.1-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.1-3. Figure 5.1-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Agua Fria Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 5.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.1-1A • There are three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 72.6°F at Crown King and 88.8°F at Castle Hot Springs. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January and ranges between 53.2°F at Castle Hot Springs and 37.4°F at Crown King. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March) at two of the three stations. For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 28.41 inches at Crown King and the lowest is 15.47 inches at Castle Hot Springs. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 32 inches near Crown King and as low as 10 inches at the southernmost tip of the basin. Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 86 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-1 Climate Data for the Agua Fria Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used for (in feet) Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 15.47 Castle Hot Springs 1,990 1971 - 2000 88.8/Jul 53.2/Jan 6.23 1.03 4.52 3.69 Cordes 3,770 1971 - 2000 80.1/Jul 45.3/Jan 5.29 1.31 5.87 3.74 16.21 Crown King 5,920 1971 - 2000 72.6/Jul 37.4/Jan 11.39 2.13 8.62 6.27 28.41 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for (in feet) (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 87 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 88 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Agua Fria Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.1-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.1-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.1-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 5.1-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 5.1-2. • Data from seven stations located at five watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 5.1-5. • The average seasonal flow at most stations is highest in the winter (January-March) and lowest is in the spring (April-June). • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 360,541 acre-feet in 1992 at the Agua Fria near Rock Spring station and the lowest is 12 acre-feet in 1989 at Cottonwood Creek near Waddell Dam. For a hydrograph showing average annual streamflow from 1940 to 2007 on the Agua Fria near Mayer see Figure 5.1-4. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.1-3. • As of October 2005 there were 14 stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.1-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir with a maximum capacity of 1,108,600 acre-feet. Lake Pleasant, created by the New Waddell Dam, is used for flood control, hydroelectric power generation, recreation and water supply purposes. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in four small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 527 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.1-5. • Average annual runoff is one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in most of the basin and increases to two inches per year, or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the northeast portion of the basin. 89 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.1-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Agua Fria River near Mayer, water years 1940-2008 (Station #9512500) 100,000 acre-feet 80,000 60,000 Average Annual Flow 40,000 20,000 0 1940 Section 5.1 1950 1960 1970 1980 Agua Fria Basin 1990 2000 90 585 89 1,111 38 60 9 Agua Fria River near Mayer Turkey Creek near Cleator Agua Fria River near Rock Springs Boulder Creek near Rock Springs Humbug Creek near Castle Hot Springs Cottonwood Creek near Waddell Dam 9512500 9512600 9512800 9512830 9512860 9512970 1,660 1,790 1,890 1,800 3,140 3,434 4,400 Gage Elevation (in feet) 4/1983-3/1993 (discontinued) 5/1983-9/1994 (discontinued) 5/1983-9/1993 (discontinued) 1/1970-current (real-time) 10/1979 - 9/1990 (discontinued) 1/1940-current (real-time) 1/2000-current (real-time) Period of Record 82 81 80 75 68 52 19 Winter 1 7 9 7 10 9 9 Spring 13 5 3 7 9 22 40 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 4 7 9 11 12 17 32 Fall 91 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Years of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals Novembr 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 NA Agua Fria River near Humboldt Drainage Area (in mi2) 9512450 Station USGS Station Name Number Table 5.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Agua Fria Basin 12 (1989) 333 (1989) 14 (1989) 1,528 (1975) 239 (1981) 976 (1962) 1,332 (2003) Minimum 94 1,948 701 19,692 4,164 9,197 1,354 Median 252 5,334 1,186 1,166 (1992) 34,896 (1993) 3,869 (1992) 360,541 (1992) 33,882 (1980) 103,555 (1993) 3,352 (2002) Maximum Section 5.1 57,664 8,154 16,327 2,013 Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Agua Fria Basin 9 10 9 31 12 63 3 Years of Annual Flow Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Agua Fria Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 3755 Brooklyn Peak Precipitation 8/3/2005 Yavapai County FCD 3780 Black Canyon City Repeater/Weather Station 8/1/2005 Yavapai County FCD 5335 Minnehaha Precipitation 6/16/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5660 Lake Pleasant North Weather Station NA Maricopa County FCD 5670 Garfias Mountain Precipitation 8/14/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5685 Columbia Hill Precipitation 7/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5700 Horsethief Basin Weather Station 11/24/1986 Maricopa County FCD 5715 Crown King Precipitation 10/18/1982 Maricopa County FCD 5730 Sunset Point Precipitation 7/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5745 Horseshoe Ranch Precipitation 5/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5760 Horner Mtn. Ranch Precipitation 4/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5775 Arizona Hunt Club Precipitation 4/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5790 I-17 @ 169 Precipitation 11/11/1987 Maricopa County FCD 5805 Dewey Precipitation 11/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Data not currently available to ADWR Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 92 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Agua Fria Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Lake Pleasant (New Waddell Dam) 2 Bureau of Reclamation 1,108,600 C,H,R,S Federal USE JURISDICTION B: Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total Number: 2 Total maximum storage : 63 D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) 3 Total Number: 2 Total surface area: 13 E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 527 (from water right filings) Notes: C=Flood Control; H=hydroelectric; R=recreation; S=water supply 2 Dam is on the boundary for the Phoenix AMA but lake storage is in the Agua Fria Basin 3 Capacity data is not available to ADWR 1 93 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 94 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Agua Fria 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 5.1-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.1-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Perennial streams in this basin include the Agua Fria River, Ash Creek, Sycamore Creek, Indian Creek, Silver Creek, a small reach of Humbug Creek, Yellow Jacket Creek and Grapevine Creek. Most perennial streams are in the northern portion of the basin. A number of intermittent streams are located throughout the basin. There are five major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 340 gpm at Castle spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.1-5B. There are 14 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1993. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 294 to 297, depending on the database reference. 95 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-5 Springs in the Agua Fria Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Castle 335908 1122134 340 During or prior to 1982 2 Nelson Place 341913 1114946 96 6/5/1981 3 Bee House 341846 1114945 50 12/13/1980 4 Brown 342302 1120049 40 8/31/1978 5 Willow 342119 1115343 14 10/23/1980 Map Key Name 1 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Coyote 341800 1120248 6 9/16/1993 Larry Canyon2 340821 1120331 6 Not available Unnamed 342905 1126121 5 10/20/1978 Sombero Canyon 341753 1115945 5 9/9/1993 Sheep 341800 1120220 3 9/1993 Alkali 335933 1122212 3 6/22/1979 Charlie's 342002 1120230 3 9/28/1993 Government2 342742 1120146 2 9/5/1978 Silver Creek 341515 1120146 2 8/1993 Badger 341356 1120633 2 4/9/1998 Unnamed 335558 1122126 1 8/9/1979 Unnamed 342857 1121704 1 10/20/1978 Unnamed 335559 1122124 1 8/9/1979 Little 342108 1120524 1 9/1985 Name Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 294 to 297 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 96 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 97 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Agua Fria 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 5.1-6. Figure 5.1-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.1-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.1-7. Figure 5.1-9 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 5.1-6 and Figure 5.1-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include basin fill and sedimentary rock (conglomerate). • Flow direction in the northern portion of the basin is generally from the north to the south from the basin boundaries toward the center of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.1-6 and Figure 5.1-9. • As shown on Figure 5.1-9 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 2,000 gpm at several locations. • One source of well yield information, based on 49 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 300 gpm. • Well yields vary throughout the basin, with a cluster of less than 100 gpm yields in the vicinity of Mayer. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.1-6. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 9,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.1-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 620,000 acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet to 3.5 million acre-feet to an unknown depth. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.1-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures seven index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for five of these wells are shown in Figure 5.1-8. • There is one ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring device in this basin as of May 2009. • The deepest recorded water level in 2003-04 is 462 feet near Interstate 17 north of Black Canyon City and the shallowest is 21 feet east of Mayer. Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 98 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Agua Fria Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,263 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (Conglomerate) Range 210-625 (2 wells measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 5-1,500 Median 300 (49 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-300 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 9,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 620,000 (to 1,200 ft) - 3,500,000 (depth N/A) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 3,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water in Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 7 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2008 (207 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate N/A not available 99 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 100 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.1-8 Agua Fria Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 0 WELL DEPTH: 140 ft USE: STOCK igneous and metamorphic rocks A-12-02 23BAA 50 1975 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 B 1985 WELL DEPTH : 210 ft USE: DOMESTIC 50 1975 C 0 1995 2005 igneous and metamorphic rocks A-12-01 26BAB 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 basin fill A-11-02 09CCB 50 1975 25 D 1985 WELL DEPTH: 200 ft USE: DOMESTIC 75 1975 25 E 1995 2005 volcanic rocks A-11-02 14CAA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 112 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 basin fill A-09-02 34DDD 75 1975 101 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 102 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.7 Water Quality of the Agua Fria Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.1-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.1-7B. Figure 5.1-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.1.7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 5.1-7A. • Forty-nine well and spring sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards • The drinking water standard most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. Other standards equaled or exceeded include cadmium, fluoride and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 5.1-7B. • Water quality standards for cadmium, copper, lead and zinc were equaled or exceeded in a 21 mile reach of Turkey Creek from an unnamed tributary to Poland Creek. • Turkey Creek is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The TMDL report has been completed and the United States Forest Service has completed remediation of the Golden Belt and Golden Turkey mines, which caused the contamination. 103 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Agua Fria Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Spring Spring Spring Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well 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 Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Spring Spring Township Range Section 14 North 14 North 13 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 11 North 9.5 North 9.5 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 2 East 2 East 1 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 3 East 3 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 3 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 23 32 28 12 14 24 33 9 14 9 26 29 36 17 35 31 26 21 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 33 34 35 35 35 35 2 4 14 15 15 15 25 4 14 25 33 33 33 27 13 4 22 22 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As F F As F F F As, F As As As As As As Rad As As Cd Cd Cd As As As As As, F F As, F As As, Rad F F F Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 104 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Agua Fria Basin (Cont)1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Turkey Creek unnamed tributary to Poland Creek Length of Area of Designated Use Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Standard3 Reach (in miles) (in acres) 21 NA A&W Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 2003. As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Zn = Zinc 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife NA = Not applicable 2 105 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 106 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Agua Fria 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 5.1-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.1-9. Figure 5.111 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 5.1-8 and Figure 5.1-11. • Population in this basin increased from 2,839 people in 1980 to 8,210 in 2000. • There are no reported surface water diversions in this basin. Groundwater use has increased since 1971, with an average of 2,000 AFA from 1971-1975 and an average of 3,300 AFA during 2001-2005. The highest average annual groundwater use, 5,000 AFA, occurred during 1981-1985. • Municipal groundwater demand increased from an average of 1,100 AFA in 1991-1995 to an average of 1,800 AFA in 2001-2005. • Agricultural demand has increased slightly from an average of 1,300 AFA in 1991-1995 to an average of 1,500 AFA in 2001-2005. • Most municipal demand is found in the vicinity of Black Canyon City, Cordes Junction and Mayer. • There are numerous small agricultural demand areas north and east of Cordes Junction. • The basin contains two small mines or quarries; one northwest of Mayer and the other northeast of Castle Hot Springs. Water demands are unknown for these quarries. • As of 2005 there were 1,776 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 310 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.1-9. • There are four identified wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served, effluent generation and disposal was available for two facilities. These facilities serve over 300 people and generate 27 acre-feet of effluent per year. 107 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-8. Cultural Water Demand in the Agua Fria Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Data Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 7182 2,839 3,086 3,334 3,581 3,829 4,076 4,323 4,571 4,818 5,066 5,313 5,603 5,892 6,182 6,472 6,762 7,051 7,341 7,631 7,920 8,210 8,646 9,082 9,517 9,953 10,389 12,568 16,104 19,135 TOTAL WELLS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) 2,000 NR 3,000 NR 1432 ADWR (1994a) 183 52 5,000 NR 140 38 4,000 NR 142 30 1,100 NR 1,300 NR 256 20 1,500 NR 1,300 NR 337 27 1,800 NR 1,500 NR 1,776 310 USGS (2007) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 108 Private Private Prescott NF Private Arcosanti WWTF Bensch Ranch Crown King Work Center Kings Ranch Unit II Black Canyon City Site Facilities Mayer Arcosanti City/Location Served 109 322 30 19 273 Population Served Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Totals Ownership Facility Name 27 3 2 22 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Agua Fria X Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape NA NA Wildlife Area Disposal Method Table 5.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Agua Fria Basin Discharge to Another Facility Infiltration Basins NA NA 610 2006 2007 2001 Year of Record Agua Fria Basin Population Not Served Section 5.1 Secondary Secondary Secondary Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 110 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria 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 5.1-10A and B for analysis of adequate water supply. Figure 5.1-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Yavapai County. Fifteen water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Of the 1,177 lots in fourteen subdivisions for which lot information is available, 973 lots in nine subdivisions, or 83% of lots, were determined to be adequate. All inadequacy determinations were because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information, and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. One inadequate determination also stated the existing supply was unreliable or physically unavailable or groundwater exceeds the depth-to-water criteria. One Analysis of Adequate Water Supply application for 50 lots has been approved for this basin. 111 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Spring Valley #3 Spring Valley #4 Sunrise Estates Westridge 13 14 15 16 Subdivision Name Hidden Valley Ranch Map Key 7 Yavapai County 12 North Township 8 North 12 North 11 North 11 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 8 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 8 North 8 North 11 North Township 1 East Range Location 2 East 1 East 2 East 2 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East Range Location 1, 2 Section 4 2 8 8 3, 4 22 35 27 4, 9 50 No. of Lots 24 15 5 18 58 50 18 163 NA 7 101 24 23 5, 8 142 142 411 23, 24, 25, 26 3, 4, 9 3, 4 6 Section No. of Lots 43-401625 ADWR File No.2 53-501672 53-400244 53-501446 53-501445 53-501276 53-501237 53-501068 53-500940 53-500841 53-500509 53-500508 53-500352 53-500336 53-500335 53-400479 ADWR File No.2 1/3/2006 Date of Determination Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination NA Water Provider at the Time of Application A1 A1 A1 A1,A2 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 9/17/1987 2/17/2000 9/16/1985 2/20/1981 2/22/1995 4/19/1990 7/14/1994 1/7/1976 1/26/1976 6/19/1986 5/16/1986 1/22/1990 8/20/1984 1/26/1976 2/26/2001 Date of Determination Dry Lot Subdivision Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Mayer Domestic Water Improvement District Black Canyon City Water Association Mayer Water Company Mayer Domestic Water Imp Distrct Mayer Water Company Trail's End Water Service Trail's End Water Service Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Cordes Lakes Water Company Cordes Lakes Water Company Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Trail's End Water Service Water Provider at the Time of Application 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records 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. 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. Agua Fria Basin NA=Information not available to ADWR 2 1 Notes: Source: ADWR 2008a Section 5.1 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai County B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Quail Hollow #1 Rancho Vista Estates LLC Oak Hills 10 11 Mayer Estates 9 12 Cordes Lakes #8 Kings Ranch Units Cordes Lakes 5 8 Bradshaw Overlook 4 6 Black Canyon Estates Black Canyon Estates #2 3 Bensch Ranch Estates 1 2 Subdivision Name Map Key A. Water Adequacy Reports Table 5.1-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria Basin 1 112 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 113 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Agua Fria Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Corporation Commission, 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. (Effluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005d, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005e, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005g, Wells55: Database. _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html ______, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 114 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Map and Table) E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochloride compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relationship to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4041. (Water Quality Map and Table) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) US Bureau of Reclamation, 2007, Dams, Project and Power Plants: New Waddell Dam, at http:// www.usbr.gov/dataweb/dams/az82929.htm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. 115 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of Natural and Human Factors on Stream Water Quality in Central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. _____, 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. _____, 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. _____, 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29. Barnett, Lloyd, R. Hawkins and D. Guertin, 2002, Reconnaissance Watershed and Hydrologic Analysis on the Upper Agua Fria Watershed, Univeristy of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Dava and Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gellenbeck, D.J. and D.W. Anning, 2002, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in central Arizona basins, 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 p. Fleming, J.B., 2004, Hydrologic characteristics of the Agua Fria National Monument, Central Arizona, determined from the reconnaissance study: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5163. Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 116 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Levick, L, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Upper Agua Fria Watershed, University of Arizona at www.arizonaNEMO.org Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p. Scott, P.S., 1994, Basic geologic and hydrologic information, Bradshaw Mountains, Yavapai County Arizona, AZGS Open-File Report 94-2, 69 p. Shafroth, P.B., J.C. Stromberg, D.T. Patten, A.E. Springer and J.M. Wright, 1996, Riparian habitat enhancement and groundwater recharge; a feasibility study on the Agua Fria River, Maricopa County, Arizona: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona. Arizona: Proceedings of the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Prescott, AZ, September 1996, p. 23. Springer, A.E., J.M. Wright, P.B. Shafroth, J.C. Stromberg and D.T. Patten, 1999, Coupling ground-water and riparian vegetation models to simulate riparian vegetation changes due to a reservoir release: Water Resources Research, v. 35, p. 3621-3630. 117 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 118 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.1 Geography of the Salt River Basin The Salt River Basin occupies the eastern part of the planning area and is the second largest basin at 5,232 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.2-1. The basin is characterized by mid- to high-elevation mountain ranges, plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include: Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub; semi-desert, plains and Great Basin and subalpine grasslands; interior chaparral; madrean evergreen woodland; Great Basin conifer woodland; and montane and Rocky Mountain subalpine conifer forests. (see Figure 5.010) Riparian vegetation includes mesquite, mixed broadleaf and tamarisk along the Salt River and mixed broadleaf along the Black River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.2-1 are: o Salt River running east to west through the southern part of the basin from the confluence of the White and Black Rivers o White River and its tributaries in the northeastern portion of the basin o Black River running from the eastern basin boundary to the Salt River, which also demarcates part of Graham, Apache, Navajo and Greenlee county boundaries o Other major tributaries to the Salt River including Cherry Creek, Canyon Creek, Cibecue Creek, Carrizo Creek and Cedar Creek o Theodore Roosevelt Lake in the western portion of the basin and Apache Lake, Canyon Lake and Saguaro Lake in the vicinity of Tortilla Flat o Hawley Lake, Sunrise Lake, Crescent Lake and Big Lake in the high-elevation northeastern portion of the basin o Salt River Canyon (not labeled on map) along the Salt River and numerous side canyons such as Sycamore Canyon and Sawmill Canyon o Superstition and Pinal Mountains and Natanes Plateau along the southern basin boundary o Mogollon Rim along the northern basin boundary o Bonito Prairie between the White and Black Rivers south of Fort Apache o Four Peaks along the Maricopa and Gila County line in the Mazatzal Mountains and the Sierra Ancha Mountains south of Young o White Mountains in Apache County which contain the highest peak in the basin Mt. Baldy at 11,403 feet o The lowest point at 1,200 feet where the Salt River exits the basin 119 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 120 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.2 Land Ownership in the Salt River Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Salt River Basin is shown in Figure 5.2-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large contiguous parcels of forest service and tribal lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 5.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservation • 59.4% of the land is under tribal ownership. • The basin includes two reservations, the Fort Apache Reservation in the north-central portion north of the Black River and the San Carlos Apache Reservation in the southcentral portion of the basin. • All tribal lands are contiguous. • This basin contains the largest percentage of tribal lands in the planning area. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, recreation, timber and ranching. National Forest • 38.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Tonto and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. • The basin contains approximately 236,000 acres in five wilderness areas, four in the Tonto National Forest and one in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Wilderness areas in the Tonto include the 18,515-acre Salome Wilderness, 21,007-acre Sierra Ancha Wilderness, a significant portion of the 160,135-acre Superstition Wilderness and the 32,088-acre Salt River Wilderness. A portion of the 11,336-acre Bear Wallow Wilderness in the Alpine Ranger District of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is also located in the basin. (see Figure 5.0-13) • There are numerous small private in-holdings in both forests. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 1.5% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land in the basin is in the vicinity of Miami/Globe and around Young. There are also numerous small private land in-holdings in the Tonto and ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, mining and ranching. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 0.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office Bureau of Land Management. • All BLM lands are in the vicinity of Miami and Globe. • Primary land uses are mining and grazing. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 State Trust Land • 0.1% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • All state land is in the vicinity of Miami and Globe. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Tonto National Monument, located in the southwestern portion of the basin near Roosevelt. • Primary land use is cultural preservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. • All “other” land is located north of the Greenlee and Apache County line. • Primary land use is unknown. 122 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 123 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.3 Climate of the Salt River Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are compiled in Table 5.2-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.2-3. Figure 5.2-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Salt River Basin does not contain AZMET stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 5.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.2-1A • There are 13 NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges between 90.3°F at Mormon Flat and 59.2°F at Hawley Lake. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 24.3°F at Hawley Lake and 52.6°F at Mormon Flat. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (June-September) at most stations. For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 39.62 inches at Hawley Lake and the lowest is 13.78 inches at Globe. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 5.2-1B • There are three evaporation pan sites in this basin. Elevation at the stations range from 2,200 feet to 8,180 feet and the corresponding annual average evaporation ranges from 96.71 inches to 33.17 inches. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 5.2-1D • There are 11 snow measurement sites in the basin. Five stations have been discontinued. • The site elevation ranges from 6,900 feet at Workman Creek and Workman Creek SNOTEL to 9,200 feet at Maverick Fork SNOTEL. • Seven sites record highest snowpack in March, three in February and one site, Workman Creek, has equally high snowpack in February and March. • Highest average snowpack is 11.3 inches at Hannagan Meadows SNOTEL. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.2-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 36 inches in several places in the basin and as low as 10 inches west of Tortilla Flat. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 124 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-1 Climate Data for the Salt River Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black River Pumps 6,040 1971-2000 71.8/Jul 35.1/Jan 4.97 2.00 8.27 4.57 19.81 Cibecue 5,050 1927-19791 73.7/Jul 37.1/Jan 5.57 2.00 5.34 6.08 18.98 Globe 3,550 1894-19751 82.7/Jul 43.6/Jan 2.86 1.17 4.78 4.97 13.78 Globe 2 3,650 1971-2000 81.4/Jul 43.4/Dec 5.28 1.17 6.03 4.52 17.00 Hawley Lake 8,180 1967-19881 59.2/Jul 24.3/Jan 12.49 4.96 12.95 9.22 39.62 Maverick 7,810 1948-1967 60.1/Jul 26.2/Jan 7.07 2.56 12.02 6.21 27.86 19.49 Miami 3,560 1971-2000 83.4/Jul 45.5/Jan 6.38 1.36 6.45 5.30 Mormon Flat 1,710 1971-2000 90.3/Jul 52.6/Dec 5.15 1.02 4.39 4.01 14.57 Pleasant Valley R.S. 5,050 1971-2000 72.5/Jul 38.2/Jan 7.08 1.96 7.85 5.66 22.55 16.89 Roosevelt 1WNW 2,210 1971-2000 88.1/Jul 48.4/Jan 6.51 1.20 4.37 4.81 Sierra Ancha 5,100 1913-19791 77.1/Jul 41.6/Jan 9.45 2.58 7.39 8.67 28.09 Whiteriver 1 SW 5,120 1971-2000 72.4/Jul 39.9/Jan 5.55 2.02 7.81 4.76 20.14 Young 5,050 1903-1964 75.3/Jul, Aug 36.9/Jan 6.00 2.17 8.26 4.59 21.02 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for (in inches) Averages Hawley Lake 8,180 1967 - 1988 33.17 Roosevelt 1 WNW 2,200 1905 - 2002 96.71 Whiteriver 5,280 1900 - 2002 77.65 Source: WRCC, 2005 C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in Period of Record feet) Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Beaverhead SNOTEL Elevation (in Period of Record feet) 7,990 1995 - current Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 1.6 (12) 2.4 (12) 3.0 (12) 0.6 (12) 0 (12) 0 (12) Buck Sping 7,400 1989 - current 0.8 (9) 0.9 (9) 1.3 (9) 0.2 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) Buck Spring SNOTEL 7,400 1985 - 1997 (discontinued) 2.6 (12) 4.5 (12) 4.0 (12) 0.8 (12) 0.1 (12) 0 (12) Hannagan Meadows SNOTEL 9,020 1964 - current 5.2 (31) 8.6 (43) 11.3 (43) 10.4 (43) 2.1 (26) 0 (24) Maverick Fork 9,150 1975 - 2003 (discontinued) 4.3 (26) 6.9 (48) 9.0 (49) 8.2 (47) 5.1 (1) 0 (0) Maverick Fork SNOTEL 9,200 1950 - current 4.2 (33) 7.3 (55) 9.7 (56) 8.3 (54) 0.5 (20) 0 (19) 1.9 (13) 2.8 (47) 2.5 (47) 0.8 (46) 0 (1) 0 (0) McNary 7,200 1939 - 1989 (discontinued) 1941 - 1989 (discontinued) Milk Ranch 7,000 0.9 (9) 1.9 (46) 1.0 (45) 0.4 (42) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wildcat SNOTEL 7,850 1985 - current 1.5 (22) 2.7 (22) 3.5 (22) 1.2 (22) 0 (22) 0 (22) Workman Creek 6,900 1952 - 1993 (discontinued) 2.7 (12) 4.7 (42) 4.7 (42) 2.8 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0) Workman Creek SNOTEL 6,900 1961 - current 2.1 (25) 5.1 (46) 5.3 (46) 2.9 (46) 0 (23) 0 (24) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006 125 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 126 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Salt River Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.2-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.2-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.2-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 5.2-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 5.2-2. • Data from 33 stations located at 22 watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 5.2-5. • The average seasonal flow at 17 stations is highest in the winter (January-March) and at 14 stations, located primarily along the major tributaries to the Salt River in the eastern part of the basin and higher in the watershed, the average seasonal flow is highest in the spring (April-June). Two additional stations have the highest average seasonal flow in the summer (July-September). • The average seasonal flow is lowest at most stations in the summer (July-September). • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 3.2 maf in 1905 at the Salt River at Roosevelt gage with a contributing drainage area of 5,824 square miles. For a hydrograph of average annual flow for this gage from 1914-2007 see Figure 5.2-4. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.2-3. • As of October 2005 there were five stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.2-4. • The basin contains 12 large reservoirs. The largest is Roosevelt with a maximum capacity of 1,653,043 acre-feet. • The most common use of the large reservoirs is recreation. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 62 small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 807 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.2-5. • Average annual runoff is 10 inches per year, or 533 acre-feet per square mile, in the White Mountains in the eastern portion of the basin and decreases to one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwestern portion of the basin. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.2-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Salt River near Roosevelt, water years 1914-2008 (Station #9498500) 2,500,000 acre-feet 2,000,000 1,500,000 Average Annual Flow 1,000,000 500,000 0 1914 1924 1934 128 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984 1994 Section 5.2 2004 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-2 Streamflow Data for the Salt River Basin Station Number 9489070 North Fork of East Fork Black River near Alpine Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 38 8,650 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 6/1965-9/1978 (discontinued) 18 68 6 7 1,767 (1967) 5,933 9,121 33,593 (1973) 12 25 58 8 8 23 (1989) 62 85 180 (1991) 6 9489082 North Fork of Thomas creek near Alpine 1 8,380 10/1985-9/2001 (reactivated, real time) 9489100 Black River near Maverick 315 6,850 10/1962-9/1982 (discontinued) 28 49 10 13 27,591 (1977) 86,899 102,892 225,938 (1973) 19 9489200 Pacheta Creek at Maverick 15 7,850 10/1957-9/1980 (discontinued) 22 63 7 8 789 (1961) 4,851 6,443 17,593 (1973) 22 9489500 Black River below Pumping Plant near Point of Pines 560 5,725 6/1953-current (real-time) 37 42 9 13 28,459 (2002) 127,452 151,168 434,496 (1993) 49 9489700 Big Bonito Creek near Fort Apache 119 5,910 10/1957-9/1981 (discontinued) 29 49 11 12 13,828 (1961) 41,267 49,530 102,805 (1979) 23 9490000 Turkey Creek near Fort Apache 13 NA 6/1955-9/1960 (discontinued) 68 18 6 8 442 (1957) 514 1,017 2,599 (1958) 4 9490500 Black River near Fort Apache 1,232 4,345 11/1912-current (real time) 42 35 9 15 45,188 (2002) 233,904 280,932 818,301 (1993) 45 9490800 North Fork White River near Greer 40 8,400 6/1965-9/1978 (discontinued) 14 52 20 15 9704 (1971) 15,569 17,842 40,915 (1973) 13 9491000 North Fork White River near McNary 78 7,723 6/1945-9/1985 (discontinued) 15 57 16 13 12,673 (1951) 32,442 34,855 73,140 (1983) 31 9492000 North Fork White River at White River 357 NA 10/1916 - 6/1922 (discontinued) 21 43 26 10 76,906 (1918) 109,638 118.159 167,933 (1919) 3 9492400 East Fork White River near Fort Apache 39 6,050 8/1957-current (real time) 18 53 16 13 6,930 (2002) 24,984 25,517 54,457 (1993) 45 9492500 Rock Creek near Fort Apache 20 NA 6/1955-9/1960 (discontinued) 50 34 9 8 217 (1958) 1,770 1,613 2,693 (1957) 4 9493500 White River at Fort Apache 499 NA 10/1912-6/1922 (discontinued) 28 44 22 7 110,217 (1918) 196,247 214,840 356,649 (1916) 4 9494000 White River near Fort Apache 632 4,366 10/1917-current (real time) 28 48 12 12 27,446 (2002) 149,177 144,517 345,424 (1993) 45 225 4,800 10/1953-6/1967 (discontinued) 47 12 8 32 1,926 (1961) 6,501 8,683 28,886 (1965) 13 57 6,334 9/1952-6/1961 (discontinued) 64 4 5 27 333 (1955) 2,404 2,867 6,306 (1960) 8 33 6,334 9/1952-6/1961 (discontinued) 28 34 27 11 87 (1956) 1,314 2,190 7,023 (1960) 8 9494300 9494500 9495500 Section 5.2 USGS Station Name Carrizo Creek above Corduroy Creek near Show Low Corduroy Creek above Forestdale Creek near Show Low Forestdale Creek near Show Low Salt River Basin 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-2 Streamflow Data for the Salt River Basin (Cont) Station Number USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum Years of Annual Flow Record 9496000 Corduroy Creek near mouth near Show Low 203 5,000 9/1951-9/2005 (discontinued) 54 17 7 21 1,600 (1970) 11,149 16,380 63,927 (1973) 23 9496500 Carrizo Creek near Show Low 439 4,749 6/1951-current (real time) 28 49 10 13 3,758 (1956) 22,232 35,030 124,556 (1993) 41 <0.1 5,400 6/1958-9/1971 (discontinued) 0 0 80 20 1 (1960) 6 8 22 (1964) 12 <0.1 5,240 6/1958-9/1971 (discontinued) 4 0 71 25 2 (19601961,1968) 4 6 17 (1963) 12 9496600 9496700 Cibecue 1 Tributary Carrizo Creek near Show Low Cibecue 2 Tributary Carrizo Creek near Show Low 9497500 Salt River near Chrysotile 2,849 3,355 9/1924-current (real-time) 38 36 12 14 128,176 (2002) 393,581 474,817 1,459,907 (1993) 78 9497800 Cibecue Creek near Chysotile 295 3,200 5/1959-current (real time) 45 17 18 21 10,066 (1961) 23,535 32,597 128,176 (1993) 43 9497850 Canyon Creek near Globe 316 3,080 10/1975-9/1981 (discontinued) 66 15 4 15 13,759 (1981) 99,282 81,149 147,149 (1979) 5 9497900 Cherry Creek near Young 62 4,950 8/1963-9/1977 (discontinued) 49 13 8 29 1,289 (1964) 5,495 7,817 20,706 (1965) 13 9497980 Cherry Creek near Globe 200 3,200 5/1965-current (real-time) 57 11 9 23 2,600 (2002) 15,026 24,302 84,003 (1993) 36 9498400 Pinal Creek at Inspiration Dam near Globe 195 2,740 7/1980-current (real-time) 49 16 16 19 2,868 (1999) 6,087 8,980 61,481 (1993) 22 9498500 Salt River near Roosevelt 4,306 2,177 1/1913-current (real-time) 41 31 13 15 152,798 (2002) 518,499 644,942 2,422,315 (1916) 89 9498501 Pinto Creek below Haunted Canyon near Miami 37 3,180 10/1995-current (real-time) 70 12 3 14 130 (2002) 1,709 1,600 3,722 (1998) 7 9498502 Pinto Creek near Miami 102 2,820 9/1994-current (real-time) 68 15 8 9 449 (1996) 4,168 5,757 19,480 (1995) 8 9498503 South Fork Parker Creek near Roosevelt 1 5,440 11/1985-current (real-time) 73 15 3 10 3 (2002) 192 266 1,036 (1995) 14 9500500 Salt River at Roosevelt 5,824 NA 1/1904-12/1907 (discontinued) 45 29 9 17 254,840 (1904) 1,321,983 1,531,574 3,227,492 (1905) 4 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 130 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Salt River Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 81 Roosevelt Fire Station Precipitation 10/2/04 Gila County FCD Precipitation/Stage NA Gila County FCD Precipitation/Stage NA Gila County FCD Beer Tree Crossing Pinal Creek Guzman Crossing Pinal Creek 910 920 1712 Pinetop County Club Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 6780 Saguaro Lake Weather Station 1/24/00 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Salt River Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Roosevelt Bureau of Reclamation 1,653,043 H,I,R,S Federal Bureau of Reclamation 245,048 H,I,R,S Federal Bureau of Reclamation 68,800 H,I,S Federal Bureau of Reclamation 57,900 H,I,R,S Federal White Mountain Apache Tribe 15,0002 R Tribal 2 3 4 Apache (Horse Mesa Dam) Saguaro (Stewart Mountain Dam) Canyon (Mormon Flat Dam) 5 Sunrise 6 Big AZ Game & Fish 10,100 R State 7 Reservation San Carlos Apache Tribe 6,0002 R Tribal 8 Crescent AZ Game & Fish 5,800 F,R State 9 Horseshoe Cienega 1,170 R Tribal 10 Cyclone 775 R Tribal 11 Hawley (Davis Dam) 650 F,R Tribal USE JURISDICTION R Tribal White Mountain Apache Tribe White Mountain Apache Tribe White Mountain Apache Tribe B: Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) 12 Nash Creek MAXIMUM OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (acres) White Apache Tribe 69 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 26 Total maximum storage: 3,239 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 36 Total surface area: 410 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 807 (from water right filings) Notes: F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; R=recreation; S=water supply 2 Normal capacity < 500acre-feet 3 Capacity data is not available to ADWR 1 132 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 133 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Salt River 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 5.2-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.2-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Section 5.2 There are numerous perennial streams located throughout the basin, particularly in the high elevation eastern portion, and include the Salt River, Black River, White River, East Fork White River, North Fork White River, Carrizo Creek, Cibecue Creek, Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek. Most of the intermittent streams are found in the western portion of the basin. There are 26 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 8,980 at Alchesay spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.2-5B. There is one minor spring identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1952. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 624 to 822, depending on the database reference. Salt River Basin 134 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-5 Springs in the Salt River Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge (in gpm)1 8,980 During or prior to 1952 1111242 2,224 During or prior to 2001 340340 1094810 1,980 10/24/1979 Gooseberry Creek 340654 1094117 1,000 5/22/1952 Warm 334403 1101256 874 During or prior to 1982 6 Unnamed 341740 1104858 480 11/5/2002 7 Unnamed 341738 1104853 410 11/5/2002 8 Unnamed 341738 1104853 310 11/5/2002 5/19/1952 Location Latitude Longitude 335641 1095523 Map Key Name 1 Alchesay 2 Canyon 334040 3 Mann 2 4 5 2 Date Discharge Measured 9 Blue Lake 340402 1094805 260 10 Gomez2, 3 340338 1095156 200 6/18/1946 11 Boy 340420 1094703 200 5/20/1952 12 Ess 334049 1093308 200 6/18/1952 13 Big 340539 1095932 150 6/20/1952 14 Upper Bull Cienega 340348 1095315 1004 6/20/1952 340410 1095210 75 6/18/1946 332422 1104425 50 4/11/1946 334942 1095100 40 2/19/1952 15 Government 16 Maurel2, 3 17 Unnamed 2 2, 3 2 4 18 Haystack # 1 340450 1095037 40 19 Warm 334358 1101253 305 During or prior to 1992 20 Earl Spring # 32 340424 1095123 204 6/18/1946 340441 1094840 204 6/20/1946 3 6/18/1946 21 Unnamed 22 Haystack # 22 340450 1095052 20 6/18/1946 23 Columbine 335631 1095510 Greater than 10 6/5/2005 24 White 341109 1103055 Greater than 10 6/6/2005 25 Williams (Fish Hatchery) 340341 1094832 Greater than 10 6/5/2005 26 Unnamed3 334414 1101339 105 During or prior to 1982 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 2 6/20/1952 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name1 Bull Cienega Location Latitude Longitude 340348 1095314 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 624 to 822 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Location approximated by ADWR 4 Estimated discharge 5 Average discharge 1 135 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 136 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Salt River 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 5.2-6. Figure 5.2-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.2-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.2-7. Figure 5.2-9 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 5.2-6 and Figure 5.2-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, volcanic rock (Pinetop-Lakeside Aquifer) and sedimentary rock (Gila Conglomerate, and C and R Aquifers). • Most of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • The basin contains four sub-basins: Black River, White River, Salt River Canyon and Salt River Lakes. • Flow directions are generally not available due to the consolidated nature of the basin geology. Groundwater flow in the C-aquifer in the northwestern portion of the basin is from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.2-6 and Figure 5.2-9. • As shown on Figure 5.2-9, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 140 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 170 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.2-6. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 178,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.2-6. • The storage estimate for this basin is more than 8.7 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.2-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin, located near Young. Hydrographs for this well and two additional wells are shown in Figure 5.2-8. • All water level information is from the western portion of the basin. These data show the deepest recorded water level at 82 feet and the shallowest at eight feet, both located north of Miami-Globe. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-6 Groundwater Data for the Salt River Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 5,232 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Volcanic Rock (Pinetop-Lakeside Aquifer) Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) 60 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 2-2,000 Median 170 (140 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 10-300 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 178,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) >8,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1992) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: NA NA - Not applicable 138 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 139 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.2-8 Salt River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 A WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC basin fill A-09-14 20ACA 50 1975 B 0 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 89 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 Gila Conglomerate (?) A-02-15 07BDD4 50 1975 0 C 1985 1995 2005 Gila Conglomerate (?) A-01-15 04CBD1 WELL DEPTH: 194 ft USE: MONITORING 50 100 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 140 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 141 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 142 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.7 Water Quality of the Salt River Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.2-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.2-7B. Figure 5.2-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.2-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 5.2-7A. • Seventy sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. All but one occurrence is in the southwest portion of the basin. • The most commonly equaled or exceeded parameter was cadmium. • Other standards equaled or exceeded in the basin include fluoride, beryllium, copper, lead, chromium, total dissolved solids, nitrates, arsenic and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 5.2-7B. • Water quality standards in this basin were exceeded for two lakes and four stream reaches on two streams. • The most commonly equaled or exceeded standard was copper. Other standards equaled or exceeded include dissolved oxygen, high pH and selenium. • The three impaired reaches of Pinto Creek are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Phase I of the TMDL reports have been approved and specific site standards are being developed. • Canyon Lake, Crescent Lake and the Gibson Mine tributary are not a part of the TMDL program at this time. Effluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 5.2-10 • There is one effluent dependent reach in this basin, Pinal Creek, located north of Globe. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 143 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Salt River Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 4 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 29 East 12 East 13 East 13 East 13 East 13 East 13 East 14 East 14 East 9 East 11 East 13 East 14 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 14 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 34 14 2 9 10 15 15 26 26 11 6 16 1 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 18 18 18 29 29 29 29 29 32 27 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 144 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 NO3 Rad As As As As As Pb, TDS Pb, TDS As, F Rad Rad F F F F F F Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, F Cd Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, TDS Pb Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, TDS Pb Cd, Pb, TDS Cd, Pb, TDS Cd Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, F, Pb TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Cd As As Be, Cd, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Pb Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Pb Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Cu Cu Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, TDS Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Salt River Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 South 1 South 1 South 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 13 East 14 East 15 East 9 9 23 23 23 23 23 34 34 35 12 2 12 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Be, Cd, Cu, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, TDS Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd, Pb Cd NO3 F NO3 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) a Lake Canyon Lake NA 450 A&W DO b Lake Crescent Lake NA 150 A&W, FBC, AgL, AgI pH c Stream Gibson Mine tributary (headwaters to Pinto Creek) 1 NA A&W Cu 3 NA A&W Cu 18 NA A&W Cu, Se 16 NA A&W Cu d Stream e Stream f Stream Pinto Creek (headwaters to tributary latitude 331927, longitude 1105456) Pinto Creek (Ripper Spring Canyon to Roosevelt Lake) Pinto Creek tributary (latitude 331927, longitude 1105456 to Ripper Spring) Area of Impaired Designated Lake (in acres) Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1984 and 2002. As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cr = Chromium Cu = Copper DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact AgL - Agricultural - livestock watering AgI = Agricultural - irrigation NA = Not Applicable 2 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 145 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 146 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 147 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Salt River 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 5.2-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.2-9. Figure 5.211 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 5.2-8 and Figure 5.2-11. • Population in this basin has increased from 27,318 in 1980 to 29,057 in 2000. • Total groundwater use has decreased in this basin since 1971, from an average of 20,000 AFA from 1971-1975 to an average of 12,600 AFA in 2001-2005. • From 1991-2005 municipal groundwater use averaged 4,000 AFA. • Groundwater use for industrial purposes has decreased from 10,500 AFA during 19911995 to 8,100 AFA in 2001-2005. • Groundwater use for irrigation occurs on non-reservation lands and has remained constant at less than 1,000 AFA during 1991-2005. • Information on surface water diversions is not available from 1971-1990. Surface water diversions for both municipal and irrigation uses are assumed to have remained constant from 1991-2005. Municipal use averaged less than 300 AFA and irrigation use averaged 6,400 AFA. • Surface water diversions for industrial use have decreased from an average of 6,300 AFA during 1991-1995 to 4,900 AFA in 2001-2005. • Municipal and industrial demand is found in the Globe – Miami area, around Young and near Fort Apache and Whiteriver on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. • There are three large copper mines, Pinto Valley, Carlotta and Miami Mine, and two small mines or quarries located in the vicinity of Miami. Not all mines are currently in production. • As of 2005 there were 1,593 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 412 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.2-9. • There are twelve wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for seven facilities and information on effluent generation was available for six facilities. These facilities serve over 18,000 people and generate over 2,600 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Of the seven facilities with information on the effluent disposal method: two discharge to evaporation ponds; two discharge for irrigation; one facility discharges to the Globe WWTF and two discharge into a watercourse. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 148 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Salt River Basin1 Year Estimated and Projected Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm 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 8212 27,318 27,453 27,589 27,724 27,859 27,995 28,130 28,265 28,401 28,536 28,671 28,710 28,748 28,787 28,825 28,864 28,903 28,941 28,980 29,018 29,057 29,305 29,554 29,802 30,051 30,299 31,541 33,978 36,094 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions 20,000 NR 20,000 NR Data Source Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 2312 ADWR (1994b) 187 34 20,000 NR 91 49 22,000 NR 131 24 3,900 10,500 <1,000 <300 6,300 6,400 223 63 4,100 7,500 <1,000 <300 6,600 6,400 140 11 4,000 8,100 <1,000 <300 4,900 6,400 1,593 412 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) ADWR (1992) Truini (2005) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 149 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-9 Effluent Generation in the Salt River Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Watercourse Evaporation Pond Irrigation Wildlife Area Discharge to Golf Another Course/Turf/ Facility Landscape Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary NA 2000 NA Arizona DOC/Globe Department of Corrections Prison Cobra Valley Plaza Cobra Valley SD Claypool 100 11 Globe Central Heights Collection Systems Globe Globe 190 NA Globe Holgate STP Globe Globe 190 22 784 NA Globe WWTF NA Unnamed wash to Pinal Creek 2001 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary NA 2001 Secondary 762 2000 Globe WWTF Globe Globe Hon-Dah WWTP White Mountain Apache Tribe Resort NA Houston Creek Landing Private Star Valley NA Miami WWTF Miami Miami 5,238 488 Pinal Creek Globe Globe NA NA Roosevelt WWTP Tonto National Forest Recreation Area White Mountain Apache White Mountain Apache Tribe Reservation 2,000 224 X Secondary 1,250 2000 White River White Mountain Apache Tribe White River 10,700 1,120 X Secondary 2000 2000 18,608 2,649 Total 190 Miami Wash X X NA Reuse 2004 NA Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant STP:Sewage Treatment Plant SD: Sanitation District Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 150 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 151 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 152 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River 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 5.2-10. Figure 5.2-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • Section 5.2 A total of seventeen water adequacy determinations for 968 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Fifteen subdivisions received inadequate determinations. The most common reason for an inadequacy determination is because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. There is one designated provider, City of Globe, with an undetermined projected or annual estimated demand. The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: County Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate Apache County 0 0 NA Coconino County 0 0 NA Gila County 909 47 5% Greenlee County 0 0 NA Graham County 0 0 NA Navajo County 59 59 100% Maricopa County 0 0 NA Salt River Basin 153 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin 1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key 1 2 Subdivision Name Cherry Creek Estates Amended Copper Canyon Ranches #1 Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 9 North 14 East 4 55 53-500451 Inadequate A1 04/18/88 Dry Lot Subdivision Location County Gila Gila 1 North 15 East 2, 3, 10 53 53-500504 Inadequate A1 10/16/90 Dry Lot Subdivision 3 Country Club Annex Gila 1 North 15 East 22 46 53-500521 Inadequate A1 07/30/85 Arizona Water Company 4 Country Club Annex Unit 1 Gila 1 North 15 East 22 34 53-300428 Inadequate A1 03/27/98 Arizona Water Company 5 Dream Catcher Ranch Gila 6 North 13 East 24, 25 63 53-300058 Inadequate A2 10/20/95 Dry Lot Subdivision 6 Kristy Terrace Gila 1 North 15 East 22 10 53-500849 Inadequate A1, A2 06/10/76 Arizona Water Company 7 Kristy Terrace # 2 Gila 1 North 15 East 22 7 53-500850 Inadequate A1 04/20/84 Arizona Water Company 8 Miami Gardens Gila 1 North 15 East 21, 27 40 53-500975 Inadequate A2 07/07/75 Arizona Water Company A2 02/23/77 9 Morning Shadow Estates Gila 1 North 15 East 22 50 53-501015 Inadequate 10 Mountain Gate Unit One Navajo 9 North 22 East 16 59 53-400802 Adequate 11 Pinto Creek Valley Gila 3 North 13 East 11 NA 53-501193 Inadequate A1 05/22/92 12 Pioneer Hills Gila 1 North 15 East 15, 22 170 53-501195 Inadequate A1, A2 09/03/74 13 Quail Run Mobile Home Subdivision Gila 3 North 13 East 15 74 53-300053 Inadequate A1 10/11/95 14 Quail Run Subdivision Gila 3 North 13 East 15 74 53-300174 Inadequate A1 07/17/96 15 Roosevelt Lake RV Resort Gila 3 North 13 East 15 167 53-501342 Inadequate A1 03/11/93 16 Sierra Grande Gila 1 North 15 East 14 19 53-501400 Inadequate A2 02/07/75 Arizona Water Company 13 East 24 14 East 19 47 NA Adequate 02/23/77 Dry Lot Subdivision Tierra Madre 17 Gila 9 North 10/09/02 Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Lakeside Roosevelt Lake Resort Water Company Arizona Water Company Quail Run Homeowners' Association Quail Run Homeowners' Association Utility Management Services and Operations, B. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Water Provider Name County Designation No. Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand a City of Globe Gila 40-900003 No amount designated NA 5/15/1973 No data, hydrologic study needed Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not Available 154 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 155 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Salt River Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the Central Arizona basin study area, Arizona and Northern Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4063. (Water Quality Map and Table) Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. (Effluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map and Table) ____, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ____, 2004a, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ____, 2004c, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005d, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 156 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005e, Wells55: Database. _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1992, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed: Volume 1 General Assessment. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2002, Total Maximum Daily Load for Copper in Pinto Creek, Arizona, USEPA Region 9. (Water Quality Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) Gellenbeck, D.J. and Hunter, Y., 1994, Hydrologic data from the study of acid contamination in the Miami Wash- the Pinal Creek area, Arizona, water years 1992-1993: USGS Open file 94 – 508. (Water Quality Map and Table) N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ. 157 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Angeroth, C.E., 2002, Characterization of hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium and basin fill, Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-420515 p. Angeroth, C.E., C.C. Fuller, P.D. Glynn and J.W. Harvey, 1999, Surface and groundwater investigations in Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. 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. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 158 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of natural and human factors on stream water quality in central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. _____, 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1996, Review of springs on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Arizona Water Company, 2007, System Water Plan: Miami Water System, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29. Baldys, S. and J.A. Bayles, 1990, Flow characteristics of streams that drain the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, east central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4053. Baldys, S., and H.W. Hjalmarson, 1994, Effects of controlled burning of chaparral on streamflow and sediment characteristics, East Fork Sycamore Creek, Central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4102,33p. Best, J.E., 2002, Geochemical characterization of trace metal substitution in manganese precipitates from Pinal Creek, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 126 p. Bibhuti, P., M. Rucker and R. Bansberg, 2003, Evaluation of sustainable groundwater resources in a fractured hard rock aquifer: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona,. Study conducted near Payson Brown, J.G., 1996, Hydrology and geochemistry of aquifer and stream contamination related to acidic water in Pinal Creek basin near Globe Arizona: USGS Water Supply Paper 2466, 103 p. Brown, J.G., C.C. Fuller and J.W. Harvey, 2001, Controls on metals attenuation in streamflow and shallow groundwater in Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona: in Proceedings of the 14th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2001, Tucson, Arizona, p.122. _____, 1997, Research on acidic metal contaminants in Pinal Creek Basin near Globe, Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet FS-005-97. 159 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Brown, J.G., P.D. Glynn and R.L. Bassett, 1999, Geochemistry and reactive transport of metal contaminants in ground water, Pinal Creek basin, Arizona: USGS Water-Resources Investigations 99-4018A, p. 141-153. 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 Globe, 2006, Drought Preparedness and Water Conservation Plans, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Condon, A.K., 2003, Investigation of zinc uptake processes by manganese-oxide-coated sediments from a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Cordy, G.E. and H. Bouwer, 1999, Where do the salts go? The potential effects and management of salt accumulation in south-central Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet 170-98, 4 p. Davey, J. V., 1985, The mixing of waters of the Salt and Verde rivers: University of Arizona M.S. thesis. Eychaner, J.H., 1991, Inorganic contaminants in acidic water near Globe, Arizona: in Desert Water Quality and Quantity - Issues into the 21st Century: in Proceedings from the 3nd annual Arizona Hydrological Symposium, September 1990, Casa Grande, Arizona, p.242-252. _____, 1991, Solute transport in perennial streamflow at Pinal Creek, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4034. Flinchbaugh, H., 1996, Biotic and abiotic processes contributing to the removal of Mn(II), Co(II) and Cd(II) from Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Fuller, C.C., and Harvey, J.W., 2000, Reactive uptake of trace metals in the hyporheic zone of a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 7, p. 1150-1155. _____, 1999, The effect of trace-metal reactive uptake in the Hyporheic zone on reach-scale metal transport in Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substance Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in March 1999, Charleston, SC: USGS Water-Resources Investigations, p.163-172. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 160 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041. _____, 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p. Geiger, K.M., 1990, Characterization and distribution of transition metals in manganese oxides from a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: Arizona State University, M. S. thesis, 128 p. Gellenbeck, D.J. and D.W. Anning, 2002, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in Central Arizona basins, 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 p. Ham, L.K., 1995, Historical overview and limnological reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4053, 36 p. 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. Harvey, J.W., M.H. Conklin and R.S. Koelsch, 2003, Predicting changes in hydrologic retention in an evolving semi-arid alluvial stream: in Modeling Hyporheic Zone Processes, Runkel, R.L., McKnight, D.M., Rajaram, H., eds., Advances in Water Resources, 26, 9, p. 939-950. Harvey, J.W. and C.C. Fuller, 1996, Association of selected metals with colloidal and suspended particulate material in shallow ground water and surface water at Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in September 1993, Colorado Springs, Colorado: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4015, p. 1073-1080. Harvey, J.W., C.C. Fuller and B.J. Wagner, 1996, Interactions between shallow groundwater and surface water that affect metal transport in Pinal Creek, Arizona, in Morganwolp, D.W., and Aronson, D.A., eds., U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, September 20-24, 1993L U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4015, p. 1065-1072. Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous 161 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and Upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Hulseapple, S.M., 1995, A field study of re-aeration and solute transport at Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona, August 1995, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Ingram, R.S., 2003, Groundwater pumping and injection well recharge system for Arizona Department of Highway road construction purposes on the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Jones, C., 2003, Public policy, cows, riparian areas, drought, sustainability and the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues and Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Kay, J.T., 2000, The reactive uptake and release of Mn(II), Co(II), Ni(II), and Zn(II) by sediments from a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Keadle, D.A., et al., 1999, Verde River watershed study: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains Arizona. Koelsch, R.S., 2000, Effect of floods and recovering aquatic vegetation on surface and subsurface storage processes at Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Konieczki, A.D. and C.E. Angeroth, 1997, Hydrologic data from the study of acid contamination in the Miami Wash-Pinal Creek area, Arizona: USGS Open – File Report 97-247, 94 p. Lacher, L.J., 2002, Drought conditions preceding the Rodeo-Chediski fire in the White Mountains of Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings of the15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Long, J.W., 1999, Riparian restoration projects on the White Mountain Apache Reservation: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Lovely, C., 2003, Hydrologic impacts of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Marble, J.C., 1998, Biotic Contribution of Mn(II) removal at Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 162 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Marble, J.C., .L. Corley and M.H. Conklin, 1999, Representative plant and algal uptake of metals near Globe, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in March 1999, Charleston, SC: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, p. 239-245. Marble, J.C., T.L. Corley, M.H. Conklin and C.C Fuller, 1999, Environmental factors affecting oxidation of manganese in Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in March 1999, Charleston, SC: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report, p. 173-183. Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p. Neaville, C.C. and J.G. Brown, 1994, Hydrogeology and hydrologic system of Pinal Creek basin, Gila County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report, 93-4212, 33 p. Oureshi, M.T.A., 1995, Sources of arsenic in the Verde River and the Salt River watersheds, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 116 p. Parker, J., W. Steinkampf and M. Flynn, 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294. Parker, E.A., 1998, A Photochemical study of manganese oxides from Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Pool, D.R., and J.H. Eychaner, 1991, Temporal microgravity measurements of aquifer storage change and specific yield along Pinal Creek, central Arizona: in Abstracts and Programs: Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, October 1991, San Diego California, p.A124. Pool, D.R., and J.M. Leenhouts, 2002, A multi-parameter approach for measuring flood induced aquifer and bank storage changes along the San Pedro River, Arizona: in Supplement to Eos Transactions: American Geophysical Union 2002 Fall Meeting, December 2002, San Francisco California, vol.83, no.47, Abstract H61B-0779. Reese, R.S. and R.L. Bassett, 1990, Characterization of organic contamination of ground water in a mining area, Globe, Arizona: in Ground Water Geochemistry, Kansas City, MO, United States, Feb. 20-21, 1990: Ground Water Management, 1, p. 221-236. Robbins, E., 2003, The role of water speedwell in the distribution and rates of metal removal from Pinal Creek, near Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Robbins, E.I., T.L. Corley and M.H. Conklin, 1999, Manganese removal by epilithic 163 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 microbial consortium at Pinal Creek near Globe, Arizona: in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., eds., U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program; proceedings of the technical meeting, Charleston, SC, United States, March 8-12, 1999: USGS WaterResources Investigations, p.247-258. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California:USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Wagner, B.J. and J.W. Harvey, 1993, Solute-transport parameter estimation for an injection experiment at Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in September 1993, Colorado Springs, CO, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, p. 1081-1087. Wallin, R.W., 1991, Ground water transport of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in association with humic substances in the Pinal Creek basin, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 164 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 165 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 166 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.1 Geography of the Tonto Creek Basin The Tonto Creek Basin, located in the east central part of the planning area is 955 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.3-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer and madrean evergreen woodlands and montane conifer forests. (see Figure 5.0-10) Riparian vegetation is found along streams including mixed broadleaf, tamarisk and mesquite along Tonto Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.3-1 are: o Tonto Creek running north to south through the center of the basin from Kohls Ranch and exiting the basin about eight miles south of Punkin Center o Rye Creek flowing through Rye in the western portion of the basin o Spring Creek and Hayler Creek flowing from the eastern basin boundary to Tonto Creek o Tonto Basin located in the south central part of the basin along Tonto Creek o Mogollon Rim along the northern basin boundary and the Sierra Ancha Mountains (not labeled on the map) along the eastern boundary o Mazatzal Mountains along the western boundary, which contain the highest point in the basin, Mazatzal Peak at 7,888 feet o The lowest point in the basin is about 5,000 feet along Tonto Creek where it exits the basin 167 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 168 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.2 Land Ownership in the Tonto Creek Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Tonto Creek Basin is shown in Figure 5.3-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large amount of forest service land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 5.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Forest • 97.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS); the largest percentage of any basin in the planning area. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Tonto National Forest. • The basin contains two wilderness areas, a portion of the 250,053-acre Mazatzal Wilderness and the entire 37,399-acre Hellsgate Wilderness. (see Figure 5.0-13) • There are numerous small private in-holdings. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 2.4% of the land is private. • Small in-holdings of private land are scattered throughout the basin with a number of larger parcels in the vicinity of Punkin Center and Star Valley. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. Indian Reservation • 0.1% of the land is under ownership of the Tonto Apache tribe, located southwest of Star Valley. • Land use includes domestic and ranching. 169 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 170 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.3 Climate of the Tonto Creek Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are compiled in Table 5.3-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.3-3. Figure 5.3-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Tonto Creek Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or AZMET stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 5.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.3-1A • There are three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 86.8°F at Reno R.S. and 81.9°F at Gisela. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 40.8°F at Gisela and 45.3°F at Punkin Center. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March) and fall (OctoberDecember). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 19.77 inches at Reno R.S. and the lowest is 18.23 inches at Punkin Center. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 5.3-1D • There are two stations in this basin, Promontory Butte and Promontory (SNOTEL). The Promontory Butte station was discontinued in 1989. • Both stations are at an elevation of 7,930 feet and record highest average snowpack in April. • The highest average snowpack at Promontory Butte is 15.1 inches and at Promontory (SNOTEL) is 13.8 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.3-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches on the northern basin boundary at the Mogollon Rim and as low as 14 inches on the southern basin boundary south of Punkin Center. 171 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-1 Climate Data for the Tonto Creek Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Station Name Period of Record Used for Averages Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month 1 Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Gisela 2,900 1895-2004 81.9/Jul 40.8/Dec 6.53 1.39 6.10 4.89 18.91 Reno R.S. 2,420 1915-1973 1 86.8/Jul 45.1/Jan 3.51 1.05 6.58 8.61 19.77 Punkin Center 2,360 1971-2000 85.9/Jul 45.3/Dec 6.92 1.23 4.83 5.24 18.23 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for Averages (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Promontory Butte 7,930 Promontory SNOTEL 7,930 Station Name Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 1973 - 1989 (discontinued) 4.2 (10) 8.4 (13) 13.7 (16) 15.1 (15) 11.3 (1) 0 (0) 1973 - current 3.7 (27) 8.0 (30) 13.4 (33) 13.8 (32) 2.1 (24) 0 (23) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 172 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 173 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tonto Creek Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.3-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.3-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.3-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 5.3-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 5.3-2. • Data from four stations located on two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 5.3-5. • The average seasonal flow at all stations is highest in the winter (January-March) and lowest in the summer (July-September). • The largest annual flow recorded is 469,256 acre-feet in 1978 at the Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt station and the smallest is 1,245 acre-feet in 1971 at the Rye Creek near Gisela station. For a hydrograph of Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt station from 1941-2008 see Figure 5.3-4. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.3-3. • As of October 2005 there were nine stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.3-4. • The basin does not contain any large reservoirs. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in one small reservoir in the basin. • There are 389 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.3-5. • Average annual runoff is two inches per year, or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the southern tip of the basin and increases to five inches per year, or 266.5 acre-feet per square mile, in the northern portion of the basin. Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 174 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.3-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt, water years 1941-2008 (Station #9499000) 500,000 450,000 400,000 acre-feet 350,000 300,000 Average Annual Flow 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1941 1951 175 1961 1971 1981 1991 Section 5.3 2001 Tonto Creek Basin 430 122 675 841 Tonto Creek near Gisela Rye Creek near Gisela Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt Tonto Creek near Roosevelt 9498800 9498870 9499000 9499500 NA 2,523 2,730 2,940 10/1913-12/1940 (discontinued) 12/1940-current (real-time) 12/1965-9/1985 (discontinued) 12/1964-9/1975 (discontinued) Gage Elevation Period of Record (in feet) 59 61 65 43 Winter 17 12 10 15 Spring 10 8 7 8 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 176 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA = Data not currently available to ADWR Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Drainage Area (in mi2) USGS Station Name Station Number 15 19 18 33 Fall Table 5.3-2 Streamflow Data for the Tonto Creek Basin 17,452 (1934) 2,853 (2002) 1,245 (1971) 32,796 (1974) Minimum 89,796 66,297 9,267 68,705 Median 27 62 19 10 Years of Annual Flow Record Tonto Creek Basin 225,214 (1916) 469,256 (1978) 64,289 (1978) 236,741 (1965) Maximum Section 5.3 104,292 113,232 19,030 93,147 Mean Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Precipitation Rock Creek (Rye Tributary) Hardt Creek @ SR 87 Little Pine Flat Deer Creek Shake Ridge (Bar T Bar North) Upper Rye Creek Houston Creek Mt. Ord Repeater 67 80 92 930 931 3900 5960 Section 5.3 Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Tonto Creek Basin Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Data not currently available to ADWR Source: ADWR 2005b Precipitation Christopher Creek 54 Precipitation Upper Deer Creek 51 Station Type Station Name Station ID 10/28/1982 10/26/2005 NA NA 8/29/2005 NA NA 5/1/2005 NA Install Date Maricopa County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Responsibility Table 5.3-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tonto Creek Basin 177 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tonto Creek Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 20 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 389 (from water right filings) Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 178 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 179 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 5.3-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.3-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Perennial streams in this basin include Tonto Creek, Haigler Creek, Spring Creek, Dell Shay Creek, Houston Creek, Christopher Creek and Greenback Creek. There are numerous intermittent streams located throughout the basin. There are 10 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 1,291 gpm at Tonto spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.3-5B. There are seven minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Only six springs have measured discharges in the past decade. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 169 to 175, depending on the database reference. Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 180 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-5 Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Tonto 342312 1110541 1,291 During or prior to 2001 2 R-C 341827 1110311 800 5/14/1952 3 Horton 342217 1110333 392 10/2/2002 4 See 342108 1110039 84 During or prior to 2002 5 Nappa 342118 1110111 70 8/17/1966 6 Henturkey2 342037 1110541 60 10/17/1952 7 Wildcat/Arsenic 341726 1111031 59 10/20/1952 8 Indian Gardens 341926 1110610 26 During or prior to 2002 9 Winters # 3 342235 1110633 20 5/16/1952 10 Unnamed2 342043 1110054 15 8/17/1966 Date Discharge Measured Map Key Name 1 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Bootleg 341852 1110358 8 During or prior to 2001 Allenbaugh 341620 1105353 83 4/19/2001 Turkey-south 341356 1111752 54 5/14/1952 Blue-south 341007 1111943 4 5/14/1952 Bear Flat/ Columbine 341716 1110357 4 7/16/1975 Winters # 1 342233 1110634 1 5/16/1952 Winters # 2 342233 1110634 1 During or prior to 1952 Name Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS 169 to 175 (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 4 Average gpm 1 181 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 182 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tonto Creek Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 5.3-6. Figure 5.3-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.3-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.3-7. Figure 5.3-9 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 5.3-6 and Figure 5.3-7. • The major aquifers in the basin are basin fill and sedimentary rock (C and R aquifers). • Most of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rocks. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.3-6 and Figure 5.3-9. • As shown on Figure 5.3-9, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 51 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 120 gpm. • The highest well yields in the basin are located along Highway 188 north of Punkin Center. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.3-6. • Natural recharge estimates for this basin range from 17,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 37,000 AFA. Recharge Sites • Refer to Figure 5.3-7. • There is one permitted recharge facility in this basin, ADOT-Payson (permit no. 71579155.0001), that recharges surface water to the aquifer. • Under the permit the facility’s maximum annual storage is 150 acre-feet. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.3-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 2.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 9.4 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.3-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 13 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for three of these wells are shown in Figure 5.3-8. • There is one ADWR automated water-level recording device in this basin located near Star 183 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • Valley. These data show the deepest recorded water level in the basin is 106 feet east of Kohls Ranch and the shallowest is 14 feet near Punkin Center. Table 5.3-6 Groundwater Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 955 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) Well Yields, in gal/min: N/A Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 5-2,200 Median 120 (51 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 10-50 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 17,000 ADWR (1994b) 37,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 3,000,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1994b) 9,400,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1992) 2,000,0001 (to 1,200 feet) Freethey and Anderson (1986) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 13 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2008 (216 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate N/A = not available Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 184 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.3-8 Tonto Creek Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 A recent stream alluvium A-09-10 32BDB DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 50 1975 25 B 1985 1995 2005 unknown aquifer A-06-11 05CAD DEPTH: 69 ft USE: UNUSED 75 1975 0 C 1995 1985 2005 sedimentary rocks A-05-11 18AAA DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 50 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 186 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.7 Water Quality of the Tonto Creek Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.3-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.3-7B. Figure 5.3-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.3-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 5.3-7A. • Nine sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards • Standards equaled or exceeded in this basin include arsenic, nitrate, beryllium, radionuclides and organic compounds. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 5.3-7B. • Water quality standards were equaled or exceeded in three stream reaches on two streams. • The standard exceeded in all reaches was E. coli. The two reaches on Tonto Creek also exceeded the standard for nitrogen. • All three impaired reaches are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final TMDL reports for the streams have been completed and draft implementation plans are available for the two reaches on Tonto Creek. Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 188 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Tonto Creek Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 11 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 5 North 12 East 10 East 11 East 12 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 11 East 34 25 18 23 13 26 26 27 8 Rad As Rad As, NO3 NO3 Be As As Organics Site Type Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Length of Parameter(s) Area of Designated Impaired Exceeding Use Impaired Lake Stream Reach Use Standard3 (in acres) Standard2 (in miles) Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Christopher Creek (headwaters to Tonto Creek) 8 NA FBC E. coli Stream Tonto Creek (headwaters to unnamed tributary latitude 341810, longitude -1110414) 8 NA A&W, FBC E. coli, N, DO Stream Tonto Creek (unnamed tributary latitude 341810, longitude -1110414 to Haigler Creek) 9 NA A&W, FBC E. coli, N b c Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: Water quality samples taken from 1979 to 2002 2 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium DO = Dissolved Oxygen N = Nitrogen NO3 = Nitrate Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact NA = Not Applicable 1 189 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 190 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Tonto Creek Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 5.3-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.3-9. Figure 5.311 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 5.3-8 and Figure 5.3-11. • Population in this basin has increased from 1,934 in 1980 to 7,975 in 2000. • Groundwater use has fluctuated from a low of 2,000 AFA in the 1970s to an average of 4,000 AFA from 1986-1990. During 2001-2005 the average annual groundwater demand was 3,050 AFA. • Municipal groundwater use has increased from an average of 1,600 AFA in 1991-1995 to 2,400 AFA in 2001-2005. • There was no reported industrial groundwater use in 1991-1995. In 2001-2005, industrial demand was less than 300 AFA. • Groundwater demand for irrigation was less than 1,000 AFA during 1991-2005. • Information on surface water diversions is not available from 1971-1990. From 1991-2005, 1,000 AFA was used for irrigation. • Municipal and industrial demand is principally found in the vicinity of Payson and Star Valley with smaller demand centers scattered along State Highways 188 and 260 as well as east of Rye. • A small amount of agriculture is located east of Rye and in T9N, R10E. • There is one small mine or quarry in this basin along Highway 87 south of Payson. • As of 2005 there were 1,948 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 280 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.3-9. • There are three wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. Data on population served, volume treated and disposal method was only available for one facility. This facility serves approximately 100 people, generates 13 acre-feet of effluent each year and discharges to Houston Creek. 191 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 1 Table 5.3-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Tonto Creek Basin Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Surface-Water Diversions 2,000 NR 2,000 NR Data Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 7242 1,934 2,202 2,470 2,738 3,006 3,275 3,543 3,811 4,079 4,347 4,615 4,951 5,287 5,623 5,959 6,295 6,631 6,967 7,303 7,639 7,975 8,186 8,398 8,609 8,820 9,032 10,088 12,641 14,538 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage 1022 ADWR (1994a) 237 33 3,000 NR 283 28 4,000 NR 191 25 1,600 NR <1,000 NR NR 1,000 300 62 1,900 <300 <1,000 NR NR 1,000 213 30 2,400 <300 <1,000 NR NR 1,000 1,948 280 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2005a) ADWR (1992) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 192 NA Private Private Houston Creek Landing WWTP Hunter Creek WWTP Pine Meadows WWTP Section 5.3 Star Valley Hunter Creek Star Valley 1081 City/Location Population Served Served 13 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Tonto Creek Basin Notes: NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant 1 Population increases in the summer Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Ownership Facility Name Houston Creek 6/16/2009 Water- Evaporation Irrigation course Pond NA NA Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Discharge Wildlife to another Area Facility Disposal Method Table 5.3-9 Effluent Generation in the Tonto Creek Basin Infiltration Basins Tertiery Current Treatment Level NA Population Not Served 193 2007 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 194 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 5.3-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Figure 5.3-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Gila County. Sixty-two water adequacy determinations for 4,184 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Four hundred and forty-one lots in eight subdivisions, or 13% of lots, were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for an inadequate determination was because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. One Analysis of Adequate Water Supply application for 34 lots has been approved for this basin. 195 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Alpine Heights Boulder Creek Chaparral Estates Chaparral Highlands Chaparral Pines #1 Chaparral Pines #2 Chaparral Ranch Collins Ranch Deer Creek Village East Gateway East Gateway Phase 2, Lots 20 thru 25 Elk Ridge Evergreen Meadows Foothills East Forest Edge Gisela Heights 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 Knolls, The #02 Knolls, The #03 Kohl's Ranch Kohl's Tonto Creek Ranch Oak Ridge Hills Pine Gate Pine Island at Chaparral Pines Pine Ridge Pinon Ridge #1 Pinon Ridge Unit Two 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 196 36 Juniper Ridge Knolls, The #01 27 28 Hunter Creek Ranch 26 29 Highlands at the Rim Houston Creek Landing 25 Green Valley Estates Haigler Creek Haciendas 23 24 Granite Dells Estates Greenback Vista Estates 22 Gordon Canyon Creek 20 21 Golden Frontier #1 Golden Frontier #2 18 19 13 12 Subdivision Name Map Key A. Water Adequacy Reports 10 North Gila Gila 10 North 10 North 11 North 11 North Gila Gila 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 6 North 10 North 10.5 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 10 North 11 North 10 North Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila 10 North Gila Gila 10 North 8 North 12 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 11 North Township Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila County 10 East 10 East 11 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 12 East 12 East 11 East 11 East 11 East 10 East 13 East 11 East 10 East 13 East 31 East 10 East 10 East 14 East 13 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 11 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 12 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East Range Location 10 10 32 36 36 26 21 21 31 31 31 26 29, 30, 31, 32 32 2 13 NA 14 10 20 36 2, 11 10 24, 25 11 35 5, 8 10 2 2 5 32 25, 26 25, 35, 36 25, 35, 36 26 35 11 26,27,34,35 Section 39 41 36 43 11 9 20 123 27 22 34 6 118 91 130 29 53 35 20 7 87 112 47 31 6 63 108 6 19 154 36 14 281 475 19 88 20 257 No. of Lots 53-300433 53-300286 53-300600 53-300081 53-300435 53-300168 53-500848 53-300010 53-300048 53-500846 53-500845 53-400015 53-500811 53-400372 53-400671 53-500770 NA 53-300392 53-500725 53-500722 53-500716 53-500715 53-500705 53-700366 53-300599 53-500626 53-300056 53-500025 53-401982 53-500545 53-500484 53-500442 53-300281 53-300080 53-500026 53-400536 53-401552 NA ADWR File No.2 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1 A1 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A2 A1, A2 A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1, B A1 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A1 B A2, C A1 A1 A1 ,A2 A1 A2, C A1 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1,A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Table 5.3-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin1 3/20/1998 5/14/1997 2/2/1999 4/26/1996 4/21/1998 7/1/1996 7/8/1977 5/16/1995 1/11/1996 3/28/1994 8/24/1993 2/9/1999 2/27/1990 8/25/2000 2/12/2002 4/11/1983 4/26/1994 9/22/1998 1/19/1977 8/10/1976 8/15/1984 1/17/1980 3/30/1977 7/5/2007 10/19/1998 8/11/1975 10/5/1995 1/18/2007 2/9/2006 4/9/1982 1/15/1980 2/23/1995 4/3/1997 4/26/1996 11/20/2006 6/29/2001 11/18/2004 7/11/1978 Date of Determination Section 5.3 Town of Payson Town of Payson Brooke Utilities Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Tonto Creek Basin Kohl's Ranch Water Company Kohl's Ranch Water Company United Utilities Company United Utilities Company United Utilities Company Town of Payson Hunter Creek Ranch HOA Brooke Utilities Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson United Utilities Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson United Utilities Company Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson NA Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson United Utilities Company Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Zane Grey Ranch 63 Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Boulder Ridge 3 11 North Township 10 East Range Location 12 East 10 East 12 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 12 East 12 East 10 East 10 East 11 East 10 East 12 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 13 East 11 East 11 East 10 East 13 East 14 East Range Location 35 Section 32 26 32 35 36 2 26 5, 8 4, 9 25 25 31, 32 36 32, 33 26 10, 11 36,1 1 29 32 34 13, 14 13 26, 27, 34, 35 Section 34 No. of Lots 5 8 320 50 6 20 85 89 12 13 8 12 25 210 15 101 317 9 19 9 160 91 29 28 No. of Lots 53-700562 ADWR File No.2 53-501717 53-300372 53-401556 53-401559 53-700531 53-400774 53-501664 53-501565 53-300557 53-400392 53-300532 53-501450 53-400859 53-400482 53-401759 53-501299 53-300426 53-401384 53-300505 53-501240 53-501239 53-501228 53-501212 53-501205 ADWR File No.2 9/8/2008 Date of Determination Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination Town of Payson Water Provider at the Time of Application A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 D A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Table 5.3-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin (Cont)1 8/5/1993 10/8/1997 3/16/2005 11/17/2004 6/17/2008 8/8/2002 1/6/1998 7/17/1978 11/13/1998 9/18/2000 9/9/1998 3/18/1987 12/23/2002 4/6/2001 5/31/2005 3/21/1988 4/21/1998 9/2/2004 8/10/1998 3/17/1987 4/30/1982 10/15/1984 1/13/1986 1/2/1980 Date of Determination Zane Grey Ranch Homeowners Town of Payson Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin NA Town of Payson NA Town of Payson United Utilities Company Tonto Village Water Co. Tonto Creek Utility Co. NA United Utilities Company United Utilities Company Town of Payson Pine Meadows Domestic Water System Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Hunter Creek Ranch HOA United Utilities Company United Utilities Company Sheer Speed Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at the Time of Application Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not Available Source: ADWR 2008a County Subdivision Name Map Key 12 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 6 North 11 North 11 North 9 North 9 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 11 North 10 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 6 North 10 North Gila Gila 11 North Township Gila County B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Wood Canyon Ranch Woods of Payson, The 61 Wildflower Ridge 60 62 Whisper Ridge Walnut Springs 57 Wilderness Rim Tonto Village #3 56 58 Tonto Rim Ranch 55 59 Tonto Creek Shores B 54 Settle in at Pine Meadows 50 Tonto Creek Shores San Gianni Hills 49 53 Rim View Heights Estates 48 Siena Creek Rim Golf Club 47 Star Valley Vista Rim Club Cabins, Unit One 46 52 Ridge at Hunter Creek 45 51 Quail Valley Quail Valley #2 43 Ponderosa Springs (Colcord Sps) Preserve, The, on Haigler Creek Punkin Center Village Subdivision Name 44 42 41 40 Map Key A. Water Adequacy Reports 197 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 198 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Tonto Creek Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Corporation Commission, 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. (Effluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005a, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005d, Wells55: Database. _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1992, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed: Volume 1 General Assessment. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser from Sundie, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed 199 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. D Diroll, M. and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Map and Table) E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Map) N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2006, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 200 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading 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. Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of Natural and Human Factors on Stream Water Quality in Central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. ______, 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2004, Total Maximum Daily Load for Tonto Creek and Christopher Creek. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29. 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. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Gæaorama, Inc., 2006, Draft Geology and Structural Controls of Groundwater, Mogollon Rim Water resources Management Study, prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. Hart, R.J., J.J. Ward, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2003, Generalized hydrology and groundwater budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and Salt 201 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 River systems, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026. Jones, C., 2003, Public policy, cows, riparian areas, drought, sustainability and the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues and Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of flood hydrology on twelve drainage basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An integrated approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p. Nemecek, E.A., 2003, Sustainability of Arizona’s few remaining perennial streams: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Parker, J.T.C., W.C. Steinkamph and M.E. Flynn, 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294, 87 p. Woodhouse, B.G., J.T.C. Parker, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2000, USGS investigation of rural Arizona watersheds: Coconino Plateau, Upper and Middle Verde River, and Fossil Creek- East Verde River -Tonto Creek: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p.97. Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 202 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 203 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 204 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.1 Geography of the Upper Hassayampa Basin The Upper Hassayampa Basin, located in the eastern part of the planning area is the smallest basin in the planning area at 787 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.4-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountains and valleys. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran and Mohave desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral and small areas of montane conifer forest. (see Figure 5.0-10) Riparian vegetation including mesquite and cottonwood/willow is found along the perennial portions of the Hassayampa River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.4-1 are: o Hassayampa River running north to south through the center of the basin and Wickenburg o Martinez Wash and Antelope Creek in the center of the basin o Weaver Mountains northeast of Congress, the Bradshaw Mountains along the eastern basin boundary and the Date Creek Mountains north of Congress. o The highest point in the basin is about 7,000 feet in the Bradshaw Mountains east of Wagoner o The lowest point in the basin at 1,900 feet at Allah where the Hassayampa River exits the basin Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 205 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 206 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.2 Land Ownership in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Upper Hassayampa River Basin is shown in Figure 5.4-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the relatively large portion of state trust land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 5.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust Land • 38.3% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and three other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout most of the basin. In the western portion of the basin state land is contiguous and in the remainder of the basin it is interspersed with private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest • 24.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott National Forest. • The basin contains one National Forest wilderness area, the 25,536-acre Castle Creek Wilderness. (see Figure 5.0-13) • All forest lands are in the northern portion of the basin and contain numerous private inholdings. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 20.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Hassayampa Field office of the BLM. • Large, contiguous parcels of BLM lands are located in the center of the basin. • The basin includes the 11,840-acre Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness Area. (see Figure 5.0-13) • Land uses include recreation and grazing. Private • 16.2% of the land is private. • Private land is located throughout the basin interspersed with state, BLM and National Forest lands. Larger portions of private land are located in the vicinity of Wickenburg and along Wagoner Road. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by the City of Wickenburg as local parks. • Primary land use is recreation. Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 207 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 208 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.3 Climate of the Upper Hassayampa Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op stations are compiled in Table 5.4-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.4-3. Figure 5.4-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Upper Hassayampa Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 5.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.4-1A • There are three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 68.9°F at Groom Creek and 87.2°F at Wickenburg. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 49.4°F at Wickenburg to 34.2°F at Groom Creek. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March) and summer (July-September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 22.08 inches at Groom Creek and the lowest is 12.25 inches at Wickenburg. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.4-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 32 inches on the east central basin boundary and as low as 10 inches in the southern portion of the basin around Wickenburg. Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 209 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-1 Climate Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 1 Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Groom Creek 6,110 1948-1976 68.9/Jul 34.2/Jan 5.15 3.12 8.79 5.02 22.08 Wickenburg 2,050 1971-2000 87.2/Jul 49.4/Dec 4.48 0.86 4.36 2.55 12.25 Stanton 3,480 1948-1969 83.5/Jul 48.0/Jan 4.27 1.35 6.09 3.65 15.35 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Period of Record (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 210 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 211 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.4-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.4-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.4-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 5.4-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 5.4-2. • Data from three stations located at the Hassayampa River are shown in the table and on Figure 5.4-4. All of the stations have been discontinued. • The average seasonal flow at most stations is highest in the winter (January-March) and the average seasonal flow is lowest at all stations in the fall (October-December). • The highest annual flow recorded in the basin is 123,076 acre-feet in 1980 at the Hassayampa River at Box Damsite near Wickenburg station. The minimum annual flow was 731 acrefeet in 1981 at the Hassayampa River at Walnut Grove near Wagoneer station. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.4-3. • As of October 2005 there were 34 stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.4-4. • The basin does not contain any large reservoirs. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in seven small reservoirs. • There are 266 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.4-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year, or 26.5 acre-feet per square mile, in most of the basin with one inch of runoff, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in a small area along the west central basin boundary. There is a small portion on the southwest tip of the basin where the average annual runoff is 0.2 inches per year, or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile. 212 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-2 Streamflow Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Station Number USGS Station Name 9514500 Hassayampa River near Wagoner 9515000 9515500 Hassayampa River at Walnut Grove near Wagoner Hassayampa River at Box Damsite near Wickenburg Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 79 3,742 107 417 Average Seasonal Flow annual flow) (% of Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 1/1940-9/1946 (discontinued) 41 41 9 8 1,499 (1940) 3,015 6,552 23,022 (1941) 6 NA 11/1912-10/1983 (discontinued) 55 23 14 9 731 (1981) 2,907 3,989 9,412 (1982) 4 2,236 1/1938-9/1982 (discontinued) 59 15 14 11 883 (1962) 7,457 17,585 123,076 (1980) 35 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA = Not available 213 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 320 Saw Mountain Precipitation 11/8/90 Yavapai County FCD 358 Mt. Union Repeater Repeater/Weather Station 4/28/92 Maricopa County FCD 5225 Hassayampa River @ US 60 Precipitation/Stage 3/14/94 Maricopa County FCD 5230 Sunset FRS Precipitation/Stage 5/11/89 Maricopa County FCD 5245 Sunnycove FRS Precipitation/Stage 7/1/86 Maricopa County FCD 5260 Vulture Mine Road Precipitation 10/14/81 Maricopa County FCD 5275 Sols Wash @ SR 71 Precipitation/Stage 9/24/81 Maricopa County FCD 5290 Yarnell Hill Repeater/Precipitation 7/13/81 Maricopa County FCD 5305 Hassayampa River @ Box Canyon Precipitation/Stage 11/17/83 Maricopa County FCD O'Brien Gulch Precipitation 9/1/81 Maricopa County FCD Repeater/Precipitation 5/1/92 Maricopa County FCD Precipitation/Stage 12/19/83 Maricopa County FCD 5320 5340 5350 Towers Mountain Repeater Hassayampa River @ Wagoner Rd. 7000 Stanton Precipitation 6/16/94 Maricopa County FCD 7005 Mid-Martinez Creek Precipitation 4/27/95 Maricopa County FCD 7010 Martinez Creek Precipitation/Stage 11/23/94 Maricopa County FCD 7020 Congress Precipitation 6/16/94 Maricopa County FCD 7025 Sols Tributary @ US 93 Precipitation/Stage 5/2/05 Maricopa County FCD 7030 Sols Tank Precipitation 7/25/95 Maricopa County FCD 7035 Black Hill Precipitation 6/15/95 Maricopa County FCD 7040 Sols Wash near Matthie Precipitation/Stage 8/4/95 Maricopa County FCD 7050 Black Mountain Precipitation 7/6/94 Maricopa County FCD 7060 Hartman Wash Precipitation/Stage 7/6/94 Maricopa County FCD 7070 Flying E Tank Precipitation 5/9/95 Maricopa County FCD 7080 Flying E Wash Precipitation/Stage 7/12/94 Maricopa County FCD 7090 Casandro Wash Precipitation/Stage 7/12/94 Maricopa County FCD 7100 Constellation Road Precipitation 8/3/94 Maricopa County FCD 7110 Powder House Wash Precipitation/Stage 5/18/95 Maricopa County FCD 7120 Wickenburg Airport Weather Station 8/3/94 Maricopa County FCD 7130 Casandro Dam Precipitation/Stage 3/26/91 Maricopa County FCD 7135 Centennial Divide Precipitation 8/21/01 Maricopa County FCD 7155 Burton Tank Precipitation 3/19/02 Maricopa County FCD 7160 Bucks Well Precipitation 12/11/02 Maricopa County FCD 7165 Antelope Creek Precipitation/Stage 7/9/03 Maricopa County FCD 7170 Upper Martinez Creek Precipitation 2/26/02 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District FRS = Flood Retarding Structure 214 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Upper Hassayampa Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) MAXIMUM OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 7 Total maximum storage: 1,684 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 266 (from water right filings) Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 215 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 216 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin There are no data on major or minor springs in this basin (Table 5.4-5). The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.4-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • Perennial reaches in this basin include portions of the Hassayampa River, Ash Creek, Weaver Creek, Minnehaha Creek and Antelope Creek. Intermittent streams are located predominantly in the northern portion of the basin. All perennial streams are intermittent for most of their length. The total number of springs with discharges of less than one gpm identified by the USGS ranges from 164 to 166, depending on the database reference. • • • Table 5.4-5 Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Map Key Name Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 164 to 166 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 217 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 218 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Upper Hassayampa 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 5.4-6. Figure 5.4-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.4-6. Figure 5.4-8 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 5.4-6 and Figure 5.4-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is basin fill. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.4-6 and Figure 5.4-8. • As shown on Figure 5.4-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 61 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 125 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.4-6. • The natural recharge estimates for this basin is 8,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.4-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 1.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 1.1 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.4-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures five index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for three index wells (B-D) and one other well are shown in Figure 5.4-7. • There is one ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring device located near Congress. • These data show the deepest recorded water level is 817 feet west of Congress and the shallowest is 20 feet in the vicinity of Wickenburg. Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 219 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-6 Groundwater Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 787 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 1-1,324 Median 125 (61 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 100-500 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 8,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,100,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1994b) 1,000,0001 (to 1,200 feet) Freethey and Anderson (1986) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 5 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (101 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 220 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 221 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.4-7 Upper Hassayampa Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 800 A basin fill B-09-06 05ADD WELL DEPTH: 992 ft USE: UNUSED 850 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 400 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-09-05 35DBB 450 1975 300 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 igneous and metamorphic rocks B-08-05 18CCC 350 1975 D 100 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-07-05 03DCB1 WELL DEPTH: 300 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 150 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 222 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 223 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.7 Water Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.4-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.4-7B. Figure 5.4-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.4-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 5.4-7A. • Forty-five sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. The majority of the sites are in the vicinity of Wickenburg. • The most commonly equaled or exceeded standard was arsenic. Other standards equaled or exceeded include cadmium, lead, radionuclides, barium, beryllium, nitrate, copper and mercury. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 5.4-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in four stream reaches on three streams in the basin. • All reaches exceeded standards for copper and zinc. Other standards exceeded were cadmium and pH. • The French Gulch and Hassayampa River impaired reaches are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final reports have been completed for these reaches. • Impaired reaches on Cash Mine Creek are not part of the TMDL program at this time. 224 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper Hassayampa Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 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 Site Type Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 13 North 13 North 12.5 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 2 West 2 West 3 West 4 West 1 West 3 West 5 West 6 West 7 West 5 West 3 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 26 26 35 12 21 14 28 25 23 1 30 27 27 16 17 18 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 12 12 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Cd Pb Rad Cd As NO3 NO3, Rad NO3 Rad As Rad NO3 As NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb, Hg As, Ba, Be, Cd, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu As, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Pb As, Pb Ba, Be As, Pb As, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Pb Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Cd, Pb, Hg As, Pb Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 225 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper Hassayampa Basin (Cont)1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key a Site Type Site Name Stream Cash Mine Creek (headwaters to Hassayampa River) b Stream c Stream d Stream Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard3 Reach (in miles) Cash Mine Creek (unnamed tributary to headwaters of Cash Mine Creek) French Gulch (headwaters to Hassayampa River) Hassayampa River (headwaters to Copper Creek) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 1 NA A&W, FBC Cu, Zn 1 NA A&W Cd, Cu, Zn 10 NA A&W Cd, Cu, Zn 11 NA A&W, FC, FBC, AgL, AgI Cd, Cu, pH, Zn Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1993 and 2003. As = Arsenic Ba = Barium Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Zn = Zinc 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact FC = Fish Consumption AgL = Agricultural - livestock watering AgI = Agricultural - irrigation NA = Not applicable 2 226 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 227 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Upper Hassayampa 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 5.4-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.4-9. Figure 5.410 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 5.4-8 and Figure 5.4-10. • Population in this basin has increased from 6,050 in 1980 to 10,479 in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water diversions in this basin. Total groundwater use has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 3,000 AFA during 1971-1975 to an average of about 3,900 AFA in 2001-2005. • Municipal groundwater use has increased slightly from an average of 2,200 AFA in 19911995 to 2,600 AFA in 2001-2005. • Industrial use of groundwater has remained a constant 800 AFA from 1991-2005, primarily due to dairy use. • Groundwater use for irrigation located north of Wagoner was less than 1,000 AFA during 1991-2005. • The only demand centers identified by USGS Gap in the basin are in the vicinity of Wickenburg, north of Congress and near Groom Creek, however low intensity M&I is also found in the vicinity of Congress. • The basin contains a large, currently inactive copper mine, the Zonia Property, and three small mines or quarries near Wagoner Road. Two small mines or quarries are located north of Congress. • As of 2005 there were 1,890 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 312 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.4-9. • There are two treatment facilities in this basin serving over 5,800 people that generate almost 600 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Information on disposal method is only available for the Wickenburg facility. Effluent at this facility is discharged to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. 228 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Upper Hassayampa Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Estimated and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 747 6,050 6,251 6,452 6,653 6,855 7,056 7,257 7,458 7,659 7,860 8,062 8,303 8,545 8,787 9,029 9,270 9,512 9,754 9,996 10,237 10,479 10,666 10,853 11,040 11,227 11,414 12,348 15,072 18,362 WELL TOTALS: 2 133 3,000 NR 3,000 NR Data Source 2 ADWR (1994a) 171 51 3,000 NR 232 66 3,000 NR 190 29 2,200 800 <1,000 NR 281 19 2,600 800 <1,000 NR 269 14 2,600 800 <1,000 NR 1,890 312 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. Section 5.4 5/12/2009 Upper Hassayampa Basin 229 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-9 Effluent Generation in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Escapees at North Ranch Private Congress 378 17 Wickenburg WWTP Wickenburg Wickenburg 5,500 560 5,878 577 Totals Disposal Method Watercourse Golf Course/ Discharged Evaporation Wildlife Irrigation Turf/ to Another Pond Area Landscape Facility Infiltration Basins NA X Current Treatment Level Population not served Year of Record Secondary NA 2007 Adv. Trt. I & Nutrient Removal 3,837 2004 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Section 5.4 230 Upper Hassayampa Basin 6/16/2009 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 231 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa 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 5.4-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 5.4-10C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 5.4-11 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Yavapai County. Twentyeight water adequacy determinations for 2,235 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six lots in 19 subdivisions, or 85% of lots, were determined to be adequate. All determinations of inadequacy were because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. Two subdivisions receiving inadequate determinations also had existing supplies that were unreliable or physically unavailable or the groundwater exceeded the depth-to-water criteria. One Analysis of Adequate Water Supply application for 2,324 lots has been approved in this basin. There are two designated water providers, CDC Wickenburg Water and Town of Wickenburg. The total projected or annual estimated demand for CDC Wickenburg Water is 1,224 acrefeet. The Town of Wickenburg does not have a projected or annual estimated demand. 232 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name 1 Antelope Creek Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Township ADWR Adequacy Determination Yavapai 9 North 6 West 13, 24 194 53-401863 Adequate County 2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 3/6/2006 Congress Domestic Water Company 2 Berry's-Groom Creek, The Yavapai 13 North 2 West 26 1 53-500328 Adequate 8/6/1975 Spring 3 Bird's Eye View Yavapai 8 North 5 West 27 11 53-300086 Adequate 5/1/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 4 Black Mountain Ranches Maricopa 7 North 5 West 7 40 53-400862 Inadequate A1 12/24/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 5 Brough Subdivision #1 Yavapai 10 North 6 West 35 24 53-500362 Inadequate A1 5/7/1979 6 Chaparral Estates #1 Yavapai 10 North 6 West 35 86 53-500439 Inadequate A1 7 Congress Ranches Yavapai 9 North 6 West 3 106 53-700283 Adequate 10/11/2007 8 Congress Village Yavapai 9 North 6 West 3 36 53-500500 Adequate 8/28/1990 9 Congress Village #2 Yavapai 9 North 6 West 3 36 53-300110 Adequate 3/7/1996 10 Escapees at North Ranch Yavapai 9 North 6 West 24 436 53-400004 Adequate 2/10/1999 5/7/1979 Rainbow Parks Congress Water Company Groom Creek Water Users Association Congress Water Company 11 Gold Dollar Estates Yavapai 10 North 6 West 26, 27 21 53-500708 Adequate 12 Groom Creek Pines Plat B Yavapai 13 North 2 West 26 5 53-500766 Inadequate A1 6/1/1987 13 Hacienda Heights Yavapai 10 North 6 West 35 24 53-500769 Inadequate A1 5/7/1979 14 High Desert One Unit One and Unit Two Yavapai 9 North 6 West 12, 13, 24 51 53-400656 Adequate 9/24/2002 15 High Desert One, Unit One and Two Yavapai 9 North 6 West 12, 13 50 53-400434 Adequate 12/14/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision 12/4/1973 Loma Estate Water Company 6/24/1986 Millsite Water Users, Inc. 16 10/18/1982 Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Loma Estates Yavapai 13 North 2 West 26 47 53-500911 Adequate 17 Millsite Village Yavapai 13 North 2 West 36 35 53-500976 Inadequate 18 Mira Monte Vistas Yavapai 9 North 6 West 2 57 53-500985 Adequate 10/29/1990 Quail Village Unit 1 Yavapai 9 North 6 West 3 25 53-300516 Adequate 9/10/1999 7 North 5 West 21 15 53-501255 Inadequate A1, A2 10/20/1994 7 North 5 West 15, 16, 21 100 53-501282 Inadequate A1, A2 2/1/1983 A1 1/20/1998 A1 Congress Domestic Water Improvement District 22 S J Claims Yavapai 12 North 2 West 36 10 53-300404 Inadequate 23 Smoke Tree Ranch #1 Yavapai 11 North 3 West 26 61 53-501420 Adequate 3/6/1989 Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Caballeros Water Company Caballeros Water Company Homeowners Association Wells Dry Lot Subdivision 24 Vista Royale Yavapai 8 North 6 West 13 138 53-300141 Adequate 6/3/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 25 Vista Royale Phase 1-B Yavapai 8 North 6 West 13 61 53-300499 Adequate 9/9/1998 Dry Lot Subdivision 26 Vista Royale Phase II Yavapai 8 North 6 West 13 61 53-400378 Adequate 8/15/2000 27 Weaver Mountain Estates Yavapai 10 North 6 West 35 171 53-400493 Adequate 2/26/2001 5 West 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 333 53-501682 Adequate 7/1/1986 Dry Lot Subdivision Congress Water Company Yavapai Hills Water Company 19 20 21 28 Rancho de los Caballeros Maricopa #2 Ranchos de Los Maricopa Caballeros, #3 Wickenburg Inn, The 233 Yavapai 8 North Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 1 (Cont) B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Subdivision Name Wickenburg Ranch Estates 29 Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 8 North 5 West 8, 17, 18, 19, 20 2,324 43-402011 5/18/2006 CDC Wickenburg Water LLC. Year of Projected or Annual Demand County Yavapai 2 C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Basin County Designation No. Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued a CDC Wickenberg Water, LLC Yavapai 40-700417 1,224 9/25/2007 2/11/2008 2013 5/17/1973 No data, hydrologic study needed b Town of Wickenberg Maricopa 40-900016 No amount designated NA Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not available Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 234 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 235 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Upper Hassayampa Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Corporation Commission, 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. (Effluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005d, Wells55: Database. _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Map and Table) E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) 236 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm (Surface Water Conditions Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading 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. Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of natural and human factors on stream water quality in central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 237 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ______, 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. ______, 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona ______, 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, French Gulch: TMDL for Cadmium, Copper and Zinc, Headwaters to Hassayampa River. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29 Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213 Dava and Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041 Gellenbeck, D.J., and D.W. Anning, 2002, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in Central Arizona basins, 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 p Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p Town of Wickenburg, 2006, Drought Preparedness Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. 238 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 239 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 240 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.1 Geography of the Verde River Basin The Verde River Basin, located in the northern and central part of the planning area is the largest basin in the planning area at 5,661 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.5-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and valleys with high elevation areas along its north central boundary. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub, semi-desert and plains and Great Basin grasslands, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland, montane conifer forests and a very small area of Rocky Mountain subalpine conifer forest in the vicinity of Humphreys Peak. (see Figure 5.0-10) Riparian vegetation is found along streams including mixed broadleaf and mesquite along the Verde River and mixed broadleaf along other streams such as West Clear Creek, Wet Beaver Creek and Oak Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.5-1 are: o Verde River beginning from south of Paulden and running southeast through the basin and the communities of Clarkdale, Cottonwood and Camp Verde o Notable tributaries to the Verde River include Sycamore Creek, Oak Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, Fossil Creek and East Verde River o Big Chino Wash entering the basin at the northernmost basin boundary and exiting south of Paulden o Horseshoe Reservoir on the Verde River northwest of Sunflower and Bartlett Reservoir on the Verde west of Sunflower. Bartlett Reservoir is also the lowest point in the basin at 1,700 feet. o Chino Valley in the northwestern portion of the basin, extending from Seligman to Paulden o Verde Valley in the center of the basin around Clarkdale and Cottonwood o Mogollon Rim along the east central basin boundary o Mazatzal Mountains in the southeastern portion of the basin o Humphreys Peak, the highest point in the basin at 12,633 feet, on the north central basin boundary northeast of Bellemont 241 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 242 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.2 Land Ownership in the Verde River Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Verde River Basin is shown in Figure 5.5-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large contiguous parcels of forest service lands and the relatively large portion of private land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 5.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Forest • 71.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott, Kaibab, Coconino and Tonto National Forests. • The basin contains approximately 434,000 acres in eleven wilderness areas. The 57,916acre Sycamore Canyon Wilderness is located in the Prescott, Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. There are five Coconino National Forest wilderness areas and four Prescott National Forest wilderness areas. Most of the 250,053-acre Mazatzal Wilderness in the Tonto National Forest is located in the southern part of the basin. (see Figure 5.0-13 and Table 5.0-3) • There are numerous small private in-holdings in all forests. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 20.2% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land in the basin is in a checkerboard pattern in the northwestern portion of the basin. There are also parcels of private land in the vicinity of Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Sedona and other communities. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, mining, farming and ranching. State Trust Land • 7.4% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and many other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • The majority of state land is located in a checkerboard pattern in the northwestern portion of the basin interspersed with private lands. State lands are also located in the vicinity of Cottonwood and south of the Navajo Army Depot. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Military • 0.7% of the land is federally owned and operated by the U.S. Military as the Navajo Army Depot located in the vicinity of Bellemont in the northeastern portion of the basin. • Land uses include National Guard training and army equipment storage. Indian Reservation • 0.2% of the land is under ownership of the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 243 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • Tribal lands are composed of five separate parcels located in the vicinity of Camp Verde. Land uses include domestic and commercial. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the NPS as the Montezuma Castle National Monument located near Interstate 17 in the center of the basin and the Tuzigoot National Monument east of Clarkdale. • Land uses include cultural preservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as the Upper Verde River Wildlife Area located in the vicinity of Paulden. • Land uses include wildlife preservation and recreation. 244 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 245 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.3 Climate of the Verde River Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are compiled in Table 5.5-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.5-3. Figure 5.5-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Verde River Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 5.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.5-1A • There are 18 NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 84.5°F at Childs and 63.7°F at Happy Jack R.S. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 27.5°F at Happy Jack R.S. and 45.6°F at Childs. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs at most stations in the summer (July-September) and the lowest in the spring (April-June). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 28.46 inches at Junipine and the lowest is 10.55 inches at Cottonwood. AZMET • Refer to Table 5.5-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin at Payson at 4,849 feet and reported an average annual evapotranspiration of 61.26 inches. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 5.3-1D • There are 14 SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations in the basin. Five stations have been discontinued. • The highest average monthly snowpack at most stations is in March. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.5-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches in the southern portion of the basin north of Pine and as low as 10 inches in the Big Chino Valley in the vicinity of Paulden. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 246 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-1 Climate Data for the Verde River Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Ashfork 6N Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 5,310 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1 1902-1987 74.0/Jul 36.1/Jan 1.91 1.42 5.37 3.98 12.69 Beaver Creek R.S. 3,820 1971-2000 80.8/Jul 43.1/Dec 5.25 1.63 5.75 4.08 16.71 Childs 2,650 1971-2000 84.5/Jul 45.6/Dec 6.67 1.56 6.40 4.90 19.53 Cottonwood 3,380 1949-1977 1 82.2/Jul 43.1/Jan 2.15 1.25 3.76 3.40 10.55 Happy Jack R.S. 7,480 1971-2000 63.7/Jul 27.5/Jan 10.05 2.96 7.92 6.60 27.53 Jerome 4,950 1971-2000 78.7/Jul 41.4/Jan 6.11 2.23 7.26 4.15 19.75 Junipine 5,130 1 1948-1982 74.4/Jul 39.0/Jan 10.69 3.25 6.92 7.60 28.46 Montezuma Castle N.M. 3,180 1971-2000 81.9/Jul 42.5/Dec 4.13 1.45 5.49 3.42 14.49 24.17 Natural Bridge 4,610 1893-1972 76.8/Jul 40.9/Jan 7.34 2.35 8.30 6.16 Oak Creek Canyon 5,080 1971-2000 73.4/Jul 39.2/Jan 11.14 2.99 7.48 6.84 28.45 Payson 4,910 1971-2000 75.4/Jul 39.9/Jan 7.35 2.18 7.20 5.34 22.01 Payson 12 NNE 5,510 1952-1976 1 70.6/Jul 36.0/Jan 7.15 3.03 9.12 8.93 28.24 Payson R.S. 4,850 1893-1974 1 73.1/Jul 36.3/Jan 4.01 1.88 5.70 7.57 19.14 Sedona R.S. 4,220 1971-2000 80.3/Jul 43.5/Jan 6.73 2.23 5.49 4.56 19.01 Seligman 5,250 1971-2000 73.5/Jul 37.1/Jan 3.67 1.41 5.13 2.61 12.82 Seligman 13 SSW 5,240 1 1962-1982 73.8/Jul 35.1/Jan 3.89 1.21 4.94 3.02 13.06 Tuzigoot 3,470 1971-2000 83.1/Jul 44.8/Dec 3.51 1.19 5.29 2.75 12.74 Walnut Creek 5,090 1971-2000 72.1/Jul 36.0/Dec 5.16 1.45 5.73 3.45 15.79 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Payson 4,849 2003 - current 61.26 (4) Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2007 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Jan. Feb. March April May June Baker Butte 7,300 1966 - 1999 (discontinued) 2.4 (32) 5.2 (34) 6.3 (34) 4.5 (34) 12.1 (1) 0 (0) Baker Butte No. 2 7,700 1972 - current 3.9 (32) 7.6 (35) 11.4 (35) 12.7 (35) 12.1 (1) 0 (0) Baker Butte SNOTEL 7,300 1966 - current 2.2 (39) 4.6 (41) 5.8 (41) 3.9 (41) 0.7 (25) 0 (24) Chalender 7,100 1947 - current 1.3 (32) 2.5 (60) 2.8 (60) 1.3 (60) 0.2 (1) 0 (0) Station Name 247 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-1 Climate Data for the Verde River Basin (Cont) D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 7,200 1983 - current 2.6 (24) 4.6 (24) 5.9 (24) 2.2 (24) 0 (24) 0 (24) Gaddes Canyon 7,600 1954 - 1989 (discontinued) 2.6 (10) 4.0 (36) 5.4 (36) 5.1 (35) 0 (0) 0 (0) Happy Jack 7,630 1951 - current 1.9 (31) 3.4 (51) 4.1 (52) 2.5 (49) 6.6 (1) 0 (0) Happy Jack SNOTEL 7,630 2000 - current 1.5 (7) 3.0 (7) 4.0 (7) 1.6 (7) 0 (7) 0 (7) Mingus Mountain 7,100 1947 - 1989 (discontinued) 0.5 (10) 1.2 (42) 0.7 (40) 0.3 (40) 0 (1) 0 (0) Newman Park 6,750 1963 - current 1.1 (33) 2.2 (44) 2.2 (44) 0.8 (44) 0.3 (1) 0 (0) 0.1 (16) 0.3 (16) 0.5 (15) 0 (16) 0 (17) 0 (17) 1.4 (25) 3.1 (31) 3.8 (33) 2.1 (33) 0.9 (33) 0 (0) Fry SNOTEL 1983-1999 (discontinued) 1967 - 1999 (discontinued) Sugar Loaf SNOTEL 6,120 White Horse Lake Jct 7,180 White Horse Lake SNOTEL 7,180 1967 - current 1.7 (33) 3.5 (38) 4.8 (40) 2.5 (40) 0.2 (27) 0 (24) Williams Ski Run 7,720 1967 - current 2.8 (23) 5.8 (50) 8.2 (40) 8.6 (39) 0 (0) 0 (0) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 248 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 249 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 250 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Verde River Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.5-2. Flood ALERT equipment and SRP low-flow gages in the basin are shown in Table 5.5-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.5-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, SRP gages, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 5.3-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 5.5-2. • Data from 36 stations located at 22 watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 5.5-4. • The average seasonal flow at all stations but one is highest in the winter (January-March) and lowest at most stations in the summer (July-September). • The largest annual flow recorded is 1,583,014 acre-feet in 1993 at the Verde River below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam station and the smallest was seven acre-feet in 1964 at the East Fork Sycamore Creek near Sunflower station • Seventeen streams in this basin have a mean annual flow of over 10,000 acre-feet. One river, Verde River, has a mean annual flow of over 100,000 acre-feet. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.5-3. • As of October 2005 there were 41 stations in the basin. Salt River Project (SRP) Low-Flow Gages • Refer to Table 5.5-3B • There are four SRP low-flow gages in this basin. These gages are a project of SRP, Prescott National Forest and Arizona Game and Fish, designed to provide real-time information to the public about the Verde River streamflow. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.5-4. • The basin contains 13 large reservoirs. The largest, Bartlett, has a maximum storage of 178,186 acre-feet. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 59 small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 2,328 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.5-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.1 inches per year, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the northwestern portion of the basin and 1 inch, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwestern portion of the basin. Average annual runoff increases to five inches per year, or 266.5 acre-feet per square mile, in the west central portion of the basin. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 251 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-2 Streamflow Data for the Verde River Basin Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Years of Annual Flow Record Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9403990 Dogtown Wash above Dogtown Reservoir near Williams 4.7 NA 2/1964-5/1965 (discontinued) 9502800 Williamson Valley Wash near Paulden 255 4,455 3/1965-current (real time) 64 7 10 19 770 (2002) 2,064 5,199 22,959 (1980) 20 9503700 Verde River near Paulden 2,507 4,117 7/1963-current (real time) 46 16 16 19 16,511 (2002) 20,783 30,743 156,015 (1993) 39 9503720 Hell Canyon near Williams 15 6,750 8/1965-9/1972 (discontinued) 49 6 8 37 123 (1967) 1,444 2,316 5,017 (1966) 6 9503800 Volunteer Wash near Bellemont 131 6,820 8/1965-9/1972 (discontinued) 59 7 1 33 61 (1967) 1,792 2,709 6,719 (1966) 6 9504000 Verde River near Clarkdale 3,503 3,500 6/1915-current (real time) 50 16 14 20 54,529 (2002) 104,279 128,062 458,393 (1993) 40 9504420 Oak Creek near Sedona 233 4,169 10/1981-current (real time) 54 18 10 17 22,587 (2002) 46,298 58,873 164,776 (1993) 21 9504430 Oak Creek at Sedona 233 4,169 10/1981-9/1995 (discontinued) 58 16 9 18 24,108 (1989) 53,792 67,074 165,067 (1993) 13 9504500 Oak Creek near Cornville 355 3,470 7/1940-current (real time) 50 20 9 21 21,357 (1956) 51,402 61,972 182,440 (1978) 56 9505000 Verde River at Camp Verde 4,214 NA 1/1913-3/1920 (discontinued) 55 20 12 14 149,139 (1913) 309,138 305,312 545,879 (1916) 7 9505200 Wet Beaver Creek near Rimrock 111 4,020 10/1961-current (real time) 55 22 8 15 5,489 (1977) 18,176 23,659 64,667 (1993) 33 9505220 Rocky Gulch near Rimrock 1 6,750 10/1985-9/1994 (discontinued) 66 25 4 6 62 (1989) 210 215 376 (1991) 4 9505250 Red Tank Draw near Rimrock 48 3,920 4/1957-9/1978 (discontinued) 58 16 4 22 33 (1963) 3,183 4,666 22,304 (1965) 20 9505300 Rattlesnake Canyon near Rimrock 25 4,870 6/1957-9/1980 (discontinued) 59 22 2 17 101 (1963) 4,345 5,763 21,652 (1965) 22 9505350 Dry Beaver Creek near Rimrock 142 3,694 10/1960-current (real time) 61 21 3 15 253 (1996) 21,978 31,271 105,727 (1978) 42 9505500 Beaver Creek at Camp Verde 433 NA 12/1912-3/1920 (discontinued) 64 21 6 9 26,715 (1913) 64,072 70,274 132,488 (1915) 6 9505550 Verde River below Camp Verde 4,653 3,045 11/1971-11/1981 (discontinued) 42 24 7 27 67,620 (1977) 192,578 267,706 603,073 (1978) 7 Station Number USGS Station Name 252 Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 1 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-2 Streamflow Data for Verde River Basin (Cont) Station Number Gage Drainage Area Elevation (in Period of Record (in mi2) feet) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum Years of Annual Flow Record 9505800 West Clear Creek near Camp Verde 241 3,630 12/1964-current (real time) 54 20 8 18 11,152 (2002) 34,542 45,858 133,245 (1993) 38 9506000 Verde River near Camp Verde 5,009 2,874 4/1934-current (real time) 59 17 11 14 99,934 (2002) 222,679 299,621 990,650 (1993) 24 9507600 East Verde River near Pine 6 5,400 9/1961-9/1971 (discontinued) 26 32 24 19 521 (1963) 10,208 8,860 16,507 (1968) 9 9507700 Webber Creek above West Fork Webber Creek near Pine 5 5,530 7/1959-9/1974 (discontinued) 37 36 7 20 478 (1967) 1,814 1,876 4,547 (1965) 14 9507800 West Fork Webber Creek near Pine 4 NA 7/1959-9/1965 (discontinued) 51 36 4 9 181 (1963) 348 586 1,115 (1962) 5 9507900 Webber Creek below WF Webber Creek near Pine 10 NA 7/1959-9/1965 (discontinued) 46 40 6 9 557 (1963) 1,050 1,775 3,424 (1960) 5 9507950 East Verde River near Payson 272 NA 7/1961-9/1965 (discontinued) 50 33 16 2 4,684 (1964) 10,425 9,211 12,544 (1962) 3 9507980 East Verde River near Childs 331 2,500 9/1961-current (real time) 59 16 10 15 1,499 (2002) 34,036 46,674 208,558 (1993) 38 9508000 Verde River below East Verde River near Childs 5,606 2,400 6/1934-5/1941 (discontinued) 67 13 9 11 258,525 (1939) 395,733 444,220 733,574 (1937) 6 9508300 Wet Bottom Creek near Childs 36 2,320 10/1967-current (real time) 71 6 5 18 87 (2002) 8,471 10,182 37,864 (1978) 35 5,858 2,029 8/1945-current (real time) 51 17 11 20 131,073 (2002) 294,733 409,875 1,583,014 (1993) 57 6,065 NA 10/1938-12/1945 (discontinued) 48 25 11 16 245,428 (1942) 381,536 434,387 1,036,012 (1941) 7 5 4,380 10/1966-5/1986 (discontinued) 60 12 4 24 27 (1971) 623 816 2,121 (1983) 10 9508500 9509000 9510070 Section 5.5 USGS Station Name Verde River below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam Verde River at Bartlett Reservoir near Cave Creek West Fork Sycamore Creek above McFar Canyon near Sunflower 9510080 West Fork Sycamre Creek near Sunflower 10 4,000 10/1961-9/1974 (discontinued) 54 13 6 26 50 (1971) 923 1,573 4,503 (1973) 12 9510100 East Fork Sycamore Creek near Sunflower 4 4,140 10/1961-5/1986 (discontinued) 69 13 4 14 7 (1964) 308 678 2,302 (1980) 22 9510150 Sycamore Creek near Sunflower 52 3,308 10/1961-9/1976 (discontinued) 47 14 6 34 297 (1964) 2,881 5,476 18,244 (1965) 14 9510170 Camp Creek near Sunflower 3 1,309 8/1963-9/1966 (discontinued) Verde River Basin No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 2 253 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-2 Streamflow Data for Verde River Basin (Cont) Station Number USGS Station Name Gage Drainage Area Elevation (in Period of Record (in mi2) feet) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum Years of Annual Flow Record 9510180 Rock Creek near Sunflower 15 2,052 3/1963-9/1972 (discontinued) 44 7 12 38 109 (1971) 999 1,227 4,474 (1965) 8 9510200 Sycamore Creek near Fort McDowell 164 1,759 12/1960-current (real time) 70 11 3 17 41 (2002) 8,290 19,584 111,493 (1993) 42 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA = Not available 254 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Verde River Basin A. ALERT gages Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 105 Metz Mountain Precipitation 7/14/1994 Yavapai County FCD 110 Woody Mountain Precipitation 7/12/1993 Yavapai County FCD 115 Kelly Pocket Precipitation 7/13/1993 Yavapai County FCD 120 Red Hill Precipitation 7/3/1993 Yavapai County FCD 125 Small Tank Precipitation 7/2/1993 Yavapai County FCD 130 Coyote Park Precipitation 7/11/1993 Yavapai County FCD 135 Bear Seep Precipitation 7/14/1993 Yavapai County FCD 140 Munds Park Precipitation/Stage 7/9/1993 Yavapai County FCD 145 Pumphouse Wash Precipitation/Stage 11/12/1997 Yavapai County FCD 150 Sedona Airport Weather Station 7/2/1993 Yavapai County FCD 155 West Fork Oak Creek Precipitation/Stage 11/12/1997 Yavapai County FCD 160 Oak Creek @ Tlaquepaque Precipitation/Stage 11/12/1997 Yavapai County FCD 165 ADOT Rim Camp Precipitation 7/9/1993 Yavapai County FCD 175 Dry Creek Levee Precipitation/Stage 8/28/2001 Yavapai County FCD Merry-Go-Round Precipitation 3/23/2005 Yavapai County FCD Precipitation/Stage 12/15/2000 Yavapai County FCD Repeater/Weather Station 8/22/1997 Yavapai County FCD 180 185 193 240 Jacks Point Precipitation 7/27/2004 Yavapai County FCD 250 Jacks Canyon Precipitation 7/19/2004 Yavapai County FCD 260 House Mountain Precipitation 7/14/2004 Yavapai County FCD 370 Summit Mountain Precipitation 5/6/1997 Yavapai County FCD 375 Happy Jack Precipitation 5/6/1997 Yavapai County FCD 410 Walnut Creek @ Williamson Valley Rd Precipitation/Stage 8/27/2001 Yavapai County FCD 415 Sycamore Point Precipitation 8/28/2001 Yavapai County FCD White Hills Precipitation 7/15/2004 Yavapai County FCD Precipitation 11/19/1997 Yavapai County FCD Weather Station 8/21/2001 Yavapai County FCD 420 425 430 Section 5.5 Chick Road Detention Pond Mingus Mountain Repeater Yavapai County Verde Roads Yard Cottonwood Pubilc Works Yard 460 Apache Maid Precipitation 4/17/2000 Yavapai County FCD 465 Buck Mountain Precipitation 7/13/2000 Yavapai County FCD 470 Lee Butte Precipitation 12/4/2000 Yavapai County FCD 485 Cedar Flat Precipitation 8/1/2001 Yavapai County FCD 490 Calloway Butte Precipitation 4/28/2000 Yavapai County FCD Verde River Basin 255 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Verde River Basin (Cont) A. ALERT gages Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 495 Baker Butte Precipitation 8/29/2001 Yavapai County FCD 3800 Hyde Mountain Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 4/13/2005 Yavapai County FCD Precipitation 6/16/2005 Yavapai County FCD Precipitation/Stage 4/1/2005 Yavapai County FCD 3805 3825 Williamson Valley Fire Department Big Chino Wash @ SR 89 3850 Bill Williams Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 9/20/2005 ADWR 4940 Humboldt Mountain Repeater Repeater/Weather Station 7/14/1981 Maricopa County FCD 4950 Seven Springs Precipitation 11/12/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5890 Horseshoe Lake Weather Station 9/11/2000 Maricopa County FCD 5910 Bartlett Lake Weather Station 8/31/2000 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005c Notes: FCD = Flood Control District ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources B. SRP Low Flow Gages Map Key Station Name GaugeType Install Date Upper Flow Limit (cfs) a Verde Headwaters/Campbell Ranch Critical Depth Flume 4/2004 100 b Verde at Black Bridge Radar based level sensor 9/2001 150 150 NA c Verde Falls Low Flow Gage 6/2001 (destroyed spring 2004 and reinstalled summer 2006) d Bubbling Ponds Low Flow Gage NA Source: SRP, 2008 Notes: NA = Not available at this time 256 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Verde Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Barlett Bureau of Reclamation 178,186 R,S Federal 2 Horseshoe Bureau of Reclamation 131,500 I,S Federal 3 Hells Canyon Tank (Hell Canyon) AZ Dept. of Transportation 1,545 P State 4 Wineglass Ranch AZ Land Dept 1,226 P State 5 Railroad Embarkment 1,000 C State 6 Padre Reservoir (Pan Dam) 760 O State 7 Canyon Mouth 600 O State Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)2 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 8 Rogers3 Coconino NF 1,134 P Federal 9 Stoneman Coconino NF 220 P Federal 10 Unnamed4 AZ Land Dept. 94 P State 11 Little Red Lake4 Private 85 P Landowner 12 Horse4 Kaibab NF 83 P Federal 13 Duck Kaibab NF 50 P Federal Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 27 Total maximum storage: 3,592 acre-feet 2 D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 32 Total surface area: 496 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2,328 (from water right flings) Notes: NA = Not applicable 1 C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; I=irrigation; O=other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond R=recreation; S=water supply 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR 3 Intermittent Lake 4 Dry Lake Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 257 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 258 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 259 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Verde River 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 5.5-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.5-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Perennial streams are located throughout most of the basin and include the Verde River, Oak Creek, Fossil Creek, East Verde Creek, West Clear Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, Deadman Creek and Sycamore Creek. These streams are perennial for all or most of their length. Intermittent streams are found throughout the basin except for the northwestern portion of the basin. There are 102 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time, the largest number reported in any groundwater basin in Arizona. The largest discharge rate of 21,647 gpm was measured at Fossil Creek spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.2-5B. There are 83 minor springs in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1981. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 493 to 571, depending on the database reference. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 260 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured 1113423 21,647 During or prior to 2001 345107 1122546 8,941 During or prior to 1997 344625 1115403 3,879 5/20/1968 5/28/1959 7/4/1991 Location Latitude Longitude Map Key Name 1 Fossil Creek (multiple) 342523 2 Big Chino 3 Bubbling Pond 4 Buckhorn 343340 1113108 1,0002 3,750 5 Unnamed 345327 1120815 2,917 6 Page 344542 1115318 2,693 1/20/1975 7 Summers 345250 1120358 2,100 10/12/2003 8 Wet Beaver 344116 1113433 850-1,350 2 10/28/1999 9 Parson 345410 1120349 1,600 11/27/1999 10 Webber Canyon 341923 1112003 996 During or prior to 2002 11 Montezuma Well 343856 1114503 916 During or prior to 1990 12 Cold 342058 1111547 830 11/11/1952 13 Unnamed 345838 1114507 749 During or prior to 1949 14 Haskell 344407 1120357 600 10/24/1958 1115332 520 2/4/1959 3 15 Lower Newell 344438 16 Duff 345234 1121727 449 During or prior to 1997 17 Sullivan Lake 345148 1122636 448 During or prior to 1997 18 Grotto 341859 1112026 340 5/15/1952 19 3 Bonito 342410 1111238 330 11/19/1999 20 Lolo-Mai 344631 1115403 300 7/10/1974 21 Sterling # 1 350130 1114420 300 10/12/2003 22 Tree Root 344627 1115405 264 7/9/1952 23 Dude 342925 1111351 250 11/18/1999 24 Blue 343125 1114959 230 6/11/1981 3 342616 1112543 230 11/9/1999 3 341935 1114515 220 4/21/1976 3 Unnamed 343135 1115015 220 11/6/1980 28 Spring Creek 344633 1115511 207 10/12/2003 29 Pieper Hatchery 342602 1111527 200 10/12/2003 342557 1111740 200 11/11/1999 25 26 27 30 Upper Parsnip Unnamed 3 Chase 3 31 Unnamed 343138 1115035 190 32 Spider John 345300 1120422 15-180 10/27/1999 6/9/1981 33 Thompson Pasture 345436 1114335 177 2/14/1952 34 Big 341854 1112037 175 5/15/1952 35 Turtle Pond 344627 1115404 160 12/10/1952 5 2 36 Clover 343021 1112145 123 4/26/2003 37 Indian Gardens 345439 1114336 115 2/14/1952 261 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (Cont) A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Map Key 38 Sheepshead Canyon 344448 1115557 111 3/1/1974 39 Bear 343259 1112548 100 5/27/1959 40 Tonto Bridge 341918 1112716 100 10/12/2003 41 Burned house 3,4 342257 1111700 100 10/18/1952 42 Unnamed 343122 1114959 90 11/6/1980 43 Beaverhead 344251 1114701 85 6/4/1974 44 Unnamed 342221 1111709 75 10/18/1952 45 Unnamed 345316 1120734 75 6/8/1977 343847 1114111 75 7/10/1959 5 46 Walker Creek 3 47 Banjo Bill 345739 1114509 75 3/6/1974 48 Unnamed 351313 1114958 64 8/2/1978 49 Unnamed 351320 1115033 60 8/9/1949 50 Page area # 1 344634 1115405 60 7/10/1974 51 Ellison Headwater 342333 1110913 60 12/1/1999 52 Gravel Plant 344605 1120235 60 10/29/1958 53 Landon 350726 1114238 60 8/29/1979 54 Walnut 344423 1120801 52 5/10/1978 55 Unnamed 345106 1129358 50 During or prior to 1965 56 Unnamed 345832 1114546 50 8/18/1949 57 Unnamed 351324 1115045 50 8/9/1949 58 Brown 342439 1114721 50 2/3/1959 59 Pine Flat 350040 1114411 50 10/4/2002 60 Sherwood 345908 1114450 50 1/20/2000 61 Unnamed 340735 1115116 45 5/12/1976 62 Big 350929 1120448 40 6/11/1997 3 63 Ellison 342330 110959 40 12/1/1999 64 Twin (multiple) 344132 1120619 40 5/10/1978 65 Clear Creek # 1 343138 1113925 30 11/17/1999 66 Lelani 345905 1114443 30 67 Geronimo 350440 1115649 10-30 North Sycamore Sheep Bridge Hot (multiple) 342521 1111908 30 1/12/1999 340441 1114223 26 6/13/2002 Cave 345955 1114423 25 1/20/2000 68 69 70 Section 5.5 Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Latitude Name 3 During or prior to 1949 2,5 During or prior to 2001 71 Lolami 345937 1114437 25 8/17/1949 72 Woods 345211 1113723 25 12/13/1960 73 Hummingbird 345903 1114450 25 8/18/1949 74 Lo 350913 1115857 24 7/24/2002 Verde River Basin 262 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (Cont) A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Map Key 75 Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Latitude 343112 1115003 22 6/11/1981 5 Name Catfish 76 Sterling # 2 350130 1114423 21 8/13/1949 77 Sterling # 3 350130 1114421 20 8/13/1949 78 Hutch # 1 341232 1115311 20 6/12/2002 79 Hutch # 2 341229 1115306 20 6/12/2002 80 LX 341005 1115005 20 6/13/2002 81 Stone Camp 340704 1115105 20 7/6/2002 82 Zig Zag # 1 341040 1114734 20 6/13/2002 83 Mine 342903 1115107 20 1/27/1982 5 8/31/1949 5 12/2/1999 5 84 Poison 350802 1115828 20 85 Pivot Rock 342927 1112351 20 86 Parsnip 342600 1112553 20 11/9/1999 87 Clear Creek # 3 343222 1113730 20 11/17/1999 88 Clear Creek # 2 343141 1113919 15 11/17/1989 89 Unnamed 345745 1114604 15 During or prior to 1951 90 Pyle Ranch 342215 1111009 15 12/1/1999 91 Soda 343845 1114429 15 2/6/1959 3 92 Unnamed 343120 1115001 13 11/6/1980 93 Little 351812 1115724 12 6/6/1979 94 Verde Hot 342119 1114233 12 6/20/2002 95 Unnamed 341126 1114730 10 7/7/1976 96 Bunker Hill 345900 1115524 10 9/20/1962 97 Frey Ranch 344635 1115413 10 7/10/1974 98 Lindberg/Fulton 350629 1114313 10 7/8/1952 99 Washington Park 342526 1111600 10 10/18/1952 5 10/1/1999 5 10 9/20/1962 100 Washington 342603 1111619 101 Gray 350736 1115743 10 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Latitude 343131 1115002 9 11/6/1980 Name Unnamed Babe's Hole 350421 1115623 8 8/10/2002 Bull Pen 343214 1114145 7 10/10/1959 Lower Lo 350906 1115854 6 10/24/2001 Cottontail 344337 1115538 5 6/9/1977 263 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Latitude Maxwell 351657 1114746 5 6/5/1978 Name Unnamed 345202 1122523 5 5/2/1977 Storm Seep 350107 1123053 5 4/19/2001 Hackberry # 2 342558 1114122 5 5/31/2002 Wet Prong 342431 1114350 5 6/21/2002 Big 343228 1113724 5 11/19/1999 Unnamed 352017 1114328 5 8/17/1978 Lockwood 350248 1115147 6 5 9/20/1960 Irving High 342426 1113611 5 6 11/15/1999 Irving Low 342417 1113640 5 5/24/1978 Hance 343336 1114420 4 5/27/1981 Frizell Ranch 344443 1115511 4 2/6/1959 Picnic 340941 1114957 4 6/13/2002 Turkey 322436 1112307 4 7/27/2002 North Pasture 340750 1115127 3 6/14/2002 Red rock 342214 1112402 3 7/22/1946 Dripping (multiple) 342327 1112603 3 7/20/1946 Unnamed 351354 1115136 3 8/2/1978 Spitz 351537 1115823 3 6/1/1978 Oak 342102 1112822 3 08/1946 Sycamore #1B 342825 1114232 3 6/7/2002 Cottonwood 343102 1115215 3 12/13/1977 Lee 345605 1125506 2 4/20/2001 Russell 343709 1114536 2 10/12/2003 Quail 344015 1120258 2 7/11/2002 Phroney 342631 1114134 2 6/10/2000 Sycamore #1A 342830 1114230 2 6/7/2002 Sycamore # 2 342754 1114249 2 6/7/2002 Zig Zag # 2 341041 1114733 2 6/13/2002 Pine 345759 1125413 2 4/20/2001 340459 1115214 2 5/12/1976 Beaver Creek 344044 1114108 2 4/20/1978 Buzzard 350026 1114943 2 9/20/1962 Ash 3 West Twin 351006 1121326 2 9/30/1976 Little Hutch # 1 341232 1115316 2 6/12/2002 Little Hutch # 2 341231 1115317 2 6/12/2002 Sheep 3 Unnamed Section 5.5 6 345458 1113214 2 6/24/2002 343030 1115410 2 7/10/1959 Verde River Basin 264 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Latitude 343454 1120445 2 4/20/1978 Goat Camp 343748 1120141 2 4/18/1978 Hogpen 344552 1120603 2 5/4/1978 Unnamed 345606 1124002 2 7/15/1969 Surprise 343614 1123242 2 4/19/2001 Log 343606 1120420 2 6/29/2002 Name Powell Rosalida 351030 1120341 2 6/11/1997 Cherry 361b 343625 1120038 2 7/11/2002 Tappen 351057 1114655 2 9/6/1949 McGee 342522 1111601 2 10/18/1952 Unnamed 344208 1120530 2 5/10/1978 Mud 350654 1121111 1 4/30/2003 Black 350802 1114117 1 8/1/1949 Baker 350115 1141729 1 12/2/1999 Railroad 350807 1115734 1 11/2/2001 Pine 342242 1112323 1 8/11/2002 Pfau 343622 1120012 1 7/11/2002 Trail Jct. 335838 1114021 1 7/18/2002 Kelsey 350432 1115605 1 8/6/2002 Hackberry # 1 342603 1114117 1 10/12/2003 Fuller/Strawberry 342436 1112833 1 7/24/1946 Dripping (multiple) 342328 1112306 1 10/11/2002 Unnamed 343154 1115035 1 10/28/1981 North Mine 342916 1115113 1 1/27/1982 Fourty Four 342905 1112217 1 1/19/2000 Unnamed 343425 1114352 1 5/27/1981 Holly 344501 1115502 1 3/1/1974 Bell Rock 344752 1114552 1 4/25/1974 Dorsey 350316 1115640 1 8/11/1949 Grassy Meadow 350014 1114402 1 8/17/1949 Aspen 350738 1114707 1 6/22/1978 Buck 351120 1120240 1 During or prior to 11/2004 Garland 351116 1115949 1 During or prior to 11/2004 Huffer 342756 1112315 1 12/2/1999 Strawberry Hollow 342346 1112814 1 7/24/1946 Chasm 342643 1114942 1 7/1/2002 Rock Top 3,4 Cottonwood Unnamed3,4 265 345109 1113253 1 6/27/2002 342248 1112840 1 7/24/1946 350633 1114929 1 During or prior to 1946 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Latitude 351022 1114531 1 8/18/1949 Name Fisher (tank) Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 493 to 571 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge is expressed as a range 3 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 4 Location approximated by ADWR 5 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 10 gpm 6 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 266 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 267 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 268 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Verde River 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 5.5-6. Figure 5.5-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. In the Verde Valley and Big Chino sub-basins few wells were measured in 1990-1991. Figures 5.5-6A and 5.56B show water level changes in these sub-basins measured in other years. Figure 5.5-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.5-6. Figure 5.5-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 5.5-6 and Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-6 A and B. • Major aquifers in the basin include the Verde formation, the C and R aquifers, recent stream alluvium, basin fill and igneous and metamorphic rock. • The basin contains three sub-basins, Big Chino, Verde Valley and Verde Canyon. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south following the Verde River. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.5-6 and Figure 5.5-8. • As shown on Figure 5.5-8, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 262 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 260 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.5-6. • Natural recharge estimates range from 107,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to more than 138,000 AFA. • Natural recharge in the Big Chino Sub-basin is from runoff along the mountain fronts and the major washes. Recharge estimates for the sub-basin range from 30,300 to 31,770 AFA. Recharge in the Verde Valley Sub-basin is principally from infiltration of precipitation in the higher elevations and is estimated at 167,470 acre-feet per year (Blausch et al., 2006). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.5-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 13 million acre-feet (maf) to 28 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Estimates for portions of the basin are shown in Table 5.5-6. Water Level • Refer to Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-6A and B. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 130 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for 20 index wells, one automated well (P) and three other wells are shown in Figure 5.5-7. Index well hydrographs are: B-J, L-N and Q-X. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 269 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • There are eight ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring devices in this basin. These data show the deepest recorded water level in the basin is 1,375 feet in the vicinity of Strawberry. There are two wells in the basin where the depth to water is only one foot, located southwest of Paulden and south and east of Bellemont. 270 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-6 Groundwater Data for the Verde River Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 5,661 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill with Interbedded Volcanic Rock Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Verde Formation) Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) Igneous and Metamorphic Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Range 10-2,908 Median 102 (55 wells measured) Range 1-5,500 Median 260 (262 wells reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) 10-1000 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 167,470 (average for Verde Valley Sub-basin during 1990 - 2003)1 Blasch and others (2006) 30,300 (average for Big Chino Subbasin during 1990 - 2003)2 Blasch and others (2006) 31,770 (Big Chino Sub-basin during 1996 and 1997)3 ADWR (2000) 1,826 (Town of Payson only) Southwest Groundwater Consultants (1998) >138,000 ADWR (1994b) 107,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 6,800,000 (portion of Upper Big Chino Southwest Groundwater Consultants (2005) Sub-basin) 10,000,000 (Big Chino Sub-basin to 1,200 feet) McGavock (2003) 4 Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: 9,230 (Pine/Strawberry area) ADWR (1996) 28,000,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1990) 13,000,000 (to 1,200 feet) Freethey and Anderson (1986) >22,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 130 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2009 (269 wells measured) 1 Includes 19,300 AF of incidental and artificial recharge. Includes 4,300 AF of incidental and artificial recharge. 3 Includes 8,010 AF of incidental recharge. 4 This figure has been refuted as an overestimation by Morrison Maierle (2003). 2 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 271 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 272 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 273 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 274 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 275 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 675 A R-aquifer B-23-07 32ACD WELL DEPTH: 1040 ft USE: STOCK 725 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 175 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 255 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-22-07 25ADD 225 1975 975 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1700 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 R-aquifer B-21-02 14BCC 1025 1975 0 D 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 110 ft USE: COMMERCIAL 2005 volcanic rocks A-21-05 02ABC3 50 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 276 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Cont) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 25 E WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 basin fill B-20-04 30AAD Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 75 650 F WELL DEPTH: 1210 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 700 1975 250 G 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-20-07 20CCA 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-19-05 23CBA WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 300 350 1975 25 H 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-19-03 19CBD WELL DEPTH: 500 ft USE: STOCK 75 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 277 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Cont) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 525 I WELL DEPTH: 720 ft USE: STOCK 1975 1985 basin fill B-19-01 16ACB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 575 225 J 275 1975 700 K 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-18-04 25AAA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1480 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-18-07 08DDC 750 1975 125 L 1985 1995 basin fill B-17-02 06BBB WELL DEPTH: 342 ft USE: UNUSED 175 1975 2005 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 278 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Cont) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 700 M Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 750 1975 425 N 1985 0 0 2005 C-aquifer A-17-06E30BBB 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-16-04 14BBB1 WELL DEPTH: 352 ft USE: UNUSED 50 1975 P 1995 WELL DEPTH: 465 ft USE: UNUSED 475 1975 O C-aquifer A-17-04 01ACA WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 Verde Formation A-16-03 36CDC WELL DEPTH: 1200 ft USE: UNUSED 50 100 1975 279 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Cont) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 Q Verde Formation A-15-03 12ADB1 WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: DOMESTIC 50 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 25 1975 1985 R WELL DEPTH: 250 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 S WELL DEPTH: 240 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 1985 T WELL DEPTH: 160 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 1995 2005 Verde Formation A-15-04 04DDC1 75 100 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-15-05 25DDD 150 25 1995 2005 Verde Formation A-14-05E17AAC 75 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 280 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Cont) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 U Verde Formation A-13-05 05BDC WELL DEPTH: 120 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 100 1975 150 V 1985 1995 2005 sedimentary rocks A-12-08 27BAD WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC 200 250 300 350 400 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 281 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Cont) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 W R-aquifer A-11-10 32ACD WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: DOMESTIC 250 300 350 1975 1985 X WELL DEPTH: 525 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 125 1995 2005 igneous and metamorphic rocks A-10-10 03BAD 175 225 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 282 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 283 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 284 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.7 Water Quality of the Verde River Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.5-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.5-7B. Figure 5.5-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.5-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 5.5-7A. • Four hundred and tweny-nine sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. • Many of the wells in the Payson area equaled or exceeded the standards for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, semi-volatile organic compounds and selenium. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded in this basin include fluoride, nitrates and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 5.5-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in three lakes in the basin and five stream reaches on three streams. • Three stream reaches, totaling 37.5 miles, on the Verde River exceeded the water quality standard for turbidity. • Whitehorse Lake and Pecks Lake exceeded the standard for dissolved oxygen and Stoneman Lake exceeded the and pH standard. • East Verde River, Oak Creek, Verde River, Pecks Lake and Stoneman Lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Final TMDL reports have been completed for the lakes and all impaired reaches except for East Verde River which is under investigation. • Whitehorse Lake is not part of the TMDL program at this time. Effluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 5.5-9 • There are three effluent dependent reaches. American Gulch near Payson, Bitter Creek near Jerome and Jacks Canyon Wash south of Sedona. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 285 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Township Range Section Number of Sampling Sites 21 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 4 East 1 East 1 East 3 East 1 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 2 East 2 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 2.5 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 33 36 8 7 5 33 15 11 11 12 13 15 19 25 26 29 35 8 19 24 34 21 22 22 27 28 29 30 33 33 34 34 35 11 23 27 34 35 11 13 14 8 9 13 17 18 13 4 5 11 12 13 2 3 3 4 6 9 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 6 7 2 6 1 2 1 1 1 Site Type Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well 286 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) NO3 As As Cd As As As NO3 As, Pb Cd As As As, Cd As As, Cd, Pb Pb As As Cu As As As As As As As As As As As As, Be As As, Cd As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As Pb As As As As Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 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 Section 5.5 Township Range Section Number of Sampling Sites 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 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 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 15 15 18 19 21 22 31 33 20 24 34 35 36 29 31 31 5 14 21 2 3 3 11 11 12 13 14 14 24 24 1 2 4 17 18 19 19 31 32 32 12 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 13 15 15 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 10 1 3 1 1 5 9 2 1 2 7 1 3 6 1 1 1 8 20 1 1 28 2 1 1 17 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 Site Type Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well 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 Well Verde River Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) As Pb As As As, Pb As As As As Pb As As As As As, Pb As As As NO3 As As As, Se As, Pb As As As As, TDS As As As, Cd As As As As, Pb As As As, Se As As As, Pb As As, NO3 As As As, Pb As, TDS As As, Pb As, TDS F As As, Pb As As, Pb As As As TDS 287 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 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 Township Range Section Number of Sampling Sites 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 12 North 12 North 11.5 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 6 North 22 North 22 North 19 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 8 East 10 East 6 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 7 East 7 West 7 West 4 West 4 West 1 West 2 West 3 West 3 West 6 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 4 West 16 16 17 20 21 21 27 28 28 28 34 29 11 26 35 10 3 4 4 4 4 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 28 8 25 4 10 6 27 11 25 27 2 3 4 9 15 22 8 4 1 7 1 1 3 4 8 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 43 1 16 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Site Type Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well 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 Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As As, Pb As As TDS As As As As, Pb TDS As As As As As As, TDS As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics NO3 As As Pb As, Organics Pb As, NO3 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, NO3, Se Organics As NO3 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As As, NO3 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Se F As NO3 As As NO3 As As As As As As As As As As As Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others 288 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 a Stream East Verde River Ellison Creek to American Gulch 20 NA A&W Se b Stream Oak Creek - Slide Rock State Park 1 NA FBC E. coli c Lake Pecks Lake NA 95 A&W DO d Lake Stoneman Lake 4 NA 14 A&W pH e Stream 0.5 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration f Stream 13 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration g Stream 24 NA A&W Turbidity/Suspended sediment concentration h Lake NA 41 A&W DO Verde River Beaver Creek to HUC boundary Verde River - Oak Creek to Beaver Creek Verde River West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek Whitehorse Lake Source: ADEQ 2005e Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2004. As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact 4 Lake has been dry or nearly dry since 2002 2 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 290 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Verde River 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 5.5-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.5-9. Figure 5.510 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 5.5-8 and Figure 5.5-10. • Population in this basin has more than doubled from 36,049 in 1980 to 89,309 in 2000. • In general, groundwater use has increased since 1971, from an average of 16,000 AFA in 1971-1975 to an average of 29,500 AFA in 2001-2005. • Total surface water diversions in this basin have decreased slightly from 18,000 AFA in 1971-1990 to 17,400 AFA in 2001-2005. • Municipal groundwater demand has increased from an average of 7,200 AFA in 1991-1995 to 15,200 AFA in 2001-2005. Municipal surface water demand is about 600 AFA. • Industrial groundwater use has increased slightly from 3,100 AFA in 1991-1995 to 3,200 AFA in 2001-2005. Industrial surface water use has remained a constant 800 AFA during this time. • Groundwater use for irrigation has increased from 8,100 AFA in 1991-1995 to 11,100 AFA in 2001-2005. Most of the surface water use in the basin is for irrigation with 11,500 AFA in 1991-1995 and 16,000 AFA in 2001-2005. The majority of the agricultural use is found along the Verde River. • Municipal and industrial demand centers are found primarily in the central portion of the basin. • There are two large mines, Clarkdale Cement and the closed United Verde copper mine, and two small mines or quarries located in the vicinity of Clarkdale and Jerome. An additional small mine or quarry is located north of Sunflower. • As of 2005 there were 11,093 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 1,659 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.5-9. • There are 27 wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for 16 facilities and information on effluent generation was available for 17 facilities. These facilities serve over 44,000 full-time residents and generate almost 6,200 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Of the 13 facilities with information on the effluent disposal method: five discharge to evaporation ponds; five discharge for golf or turf irrigation; six discharge to a watercourse; five discharge for irrigation; and two use other forms of effluent disposal. In Payson, treated effluent is delivered to a 10.5 acre recreational lake where it is stored to irrigate turf and recharges the aquifer. The Kachina Village WWTP discharges effluent to a wetland that is a wildlife area open to the public. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 292 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Verde 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 Number of Registered Estimated and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 3,746 36,049 38,093 40,137 42,181 44,225 46,269 48,313 50,357 52,401 54,445 56,489 59,771 63,053 66,335 69,617 72,899 76,181 79,463 82,745 86,027 89,309 91,827 94,345 96,862 99,380 101,898 114,487 138,296 155,456 WELL TOTALS: 2 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Municipal Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions 16,000 18,000 16,000 18,000 Data Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 7042 ADWR (1994a) 1,437 265 19,000 18,000 1,009 168 33,000 18,000 1,188 170 10,000 3,100 8,100 600 800 11,500 1,830 170 12,000 3,200 8,400 600 800 12,500 1,883 182 15,200 3,200 11,100 600 800 16,000 11,093 1,659 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) ADWR (2005a) Notes: Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 1 293 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-9 Effluent Generation in the Verde River Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served 8,000 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Watercourse Evaporation Pond American Gulch Northern Gila County SD Payson American Ranch WWTF NA Prescott Big Park ID Yavapai County Sedona 2,500 224 Camp Verde WWTF Camp Verde SD Camp Verde 2,500 195 X X 2,240 X Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Adv. Trt II & Nutrient Removal 200 2004 Secondary NA 1999 Secondary 7,400 2000 X Secondary 1,600 2004 X Adv. Trt. I 1,000 2002 Secondary NA 2007 Irrigation X Golf Course/Turf/ Wildlife Landscape Area Payson, Chaparral & Rim Infiltration Basins Other X NA X NA Camp Navajo National Guard Bellemont Clarkdale WWTF Clarkdale Clarkdale 1,920 291 Cottonwood WWTF Cottonwood Cottonwood 8,500 1,008 Crimson View WWTP NA Sedona NA Cross Creek Ranch WWTF NA Sedona NA Flagstaff Meadows Private Bellemont 365 64 Forest Highlands Wastewater Reclamation Co. Private Forest Highlands NA 48 Inscription Canyon Ranch Private Prescott Jerome WWTF Jerome Jerome 400 56 Kachina Village WWTP Kachina Village ID Kachina Village 5,000 426 Lolo Mai Springs Private NA 420 34 Lost Canyon WWTF Private Resort Munds Park/Kay Blackman WWTP Pinewood SD Munds Park 1,500-5,000 147 Oak Creek Property Owners Private Oak Creek 29 1 Pine Creek Domestic WWTF Private Pine NA Portal Pine Creek WWTP NA Strawberry/Pine NA Section 5.5 Discharged to Another Facility X Forest Highlands NA 2002 NA 2002 Bitter Creek X X X X Secondary 40 2004 Secondary NA 2001 Secondary NA 2001 Adv. Trt.I & Nutrient Removal 2,000 2007 NA Munds Creek Verde River Basin Pinewood X NA 2007 294 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-9 Effluent Generation in the Verde River Basin (Cont) Facility Name Sedona Venture WWTF Ownership Private City/Location Served Population Served Sedona 272 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) 50 Disposal Method Watercourse Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course/Turf Irrigation Wildlife Area Unnamed tributary to Oak Cr. Sedona WWTF Sedona Sedona 12,420 1,344 X Seligman WWTF Yavapai County SD Seligman 84 9 X Seven Canyons of Sedona Private Sedona 37 10 Thunder Mountain Ranch WWTP Private Sedona NA NA Valley Vista Estates WWTP Private Oak Creek NA NA Verde Santa Fe Private Cornville 928 70 44,875 to 48,375 6,217 Total X X Seven Canyons X Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Other Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record NA NA 2007 Adv. Trt. II & Nutrient Removal 2,500 2001 Secondary 324 2004 Secondary NA 2007 Secondary NA 2006 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WRP: Water Reclaimation Plant SD: Sanitation District ID: Improvement District 295 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 296 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River 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 5.5-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 5.5-10C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 5.5-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions and designated providers for the entire basin. Figures 5.5-11A-C show the location of subdivisions and designated providers in each sub-basin keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Four hundred and thirty-one water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. One hundred and thirty-three determinations of inadequacy have been made. The most common reason for an inadequacy was because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There are 11 Analysis of Adequate Water Supply applications for a total of 10,000 lots. There are five designated water providers with a total projected or annual estimated demand of 2,281 acre-feet. The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Coconino County 5,600 4,828 86% Gila County >5,743 >1,294 ~24% 20 20 100% >20,996 >18,419 ~88% County Maricopa County Yavapai County Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Percent Adequate 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County 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 1 Verde Valley 540 Jordan Road Coconino 17 North 6 East 8 8 53-500828 Adequate 11/15/1982 2 Verde Valley Aerie I and Aerie II Yavapai 17 North 5 East 5, 8 74 53-401588 Adequate 7/6/2005 Arizona Water Company Sedona Aerie Conservancy 3 Verde Canyon Alpine Ridge Gila 11 North 10 East 34 7 53-500260 Inadequate A1, A2 1/12/1982 Town of Payson 4 Verde Canyon Alpine Village #1 Gila 11 North 10 East 33 312 53-500261 Inadequate A1, A2 7/16/1985 Town of Payson 5 Verde Valley Amigos Rancheros Yavapai 17 North 5 East 29 105 53-500267 Inadequate B 8/20/1987 6 Verde Valley Anasazi Coconino 17 North 6 East 7 11 53-500269 Adequate 5/1/1981 7 Big Chino Antelope Lakes #1 Yavapai 18 North 2 West 27 22 53-300068 Adequate 11/6/1995 8 Big Chino Antelope Lakes #2 Yavapai 18 North 2 West 27 655 53-500271 Adequate 2/19/1997 9 Big Chino Antelope Lakes #3 Yavapai 18 North 2 West 28 44 53-500273 Adequate 3/14/1988 NA Arizona Water Company Sedona co-op water system Antelope Lakes Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision 10 Verde Valley Arena del Loma Estates Yavapai 14 North 5 East 19 11 53-300031 Adequate 7/28/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision 11 Big Chino Arizona Homes # 3 Coconino 22 North 1 East 22 NA NA Adequate 6/7/1973 Northwest Water Company 12 Big Chino Arizona Homes # 4 Coconino 22 North 1 East 22 NA NA Adequate 4/8/1977 Northwest Water Company 13 Verde Valley Arnold Terrace Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 18 53-500297 Adequate 7/9/1974 Camp Verde Water System 14 Verde Valley Arroyo Roble Resort Coconino 17 North 6 East 8 92 53-500299 Adequate 5/18/1983 15 Verde Valley Arroyo Seco (1991) Yavapai 17 North 5 East 10 46 53-500300 Adequate 7/12/1991 16 Verde Valley Arroyo Sienna Yavapai 17 North 6 East 18 12 53-400647 Adequate 2/12/2002 17 Verde Valley Aspen Shadows Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 36 53-300478 Adequate 7/22/1998 18 Verde Valley Back'O Beyond Ranch Coconino 17 North 6 East 30 80 53-300211 Adequate 10/23/1996 19 Verde Valley Beaver Creek Acres Yavapai 14 North 5 East 11 36 53-401502 Adequate 1/20/2005 20 Verde Valley Beaver Creek Golf Club Yavapai 14 North 5 East 1, 2 137 53-401848 Adequate 10/18/2005 22 Verde Valley Beaver Creek Preserve Yavapai 15 North 5 East 26 101 53-402203 Adequate 8/4/2006 23 Verde Valley Beaver Creek Villas Yavapai 14 North 5 East 1 25 53-402205 Adequate 7/27/2006 24 Verde Canyon Beaver Valley Estates Gila 12 North 10 East 35 8 53-500312 Inadequate 25 Verde Valley Bell Rock Vista Yavapai 16 North 6 East 18 6 53-500315 Adequate 26 Verde Valley Bella Terra on Oak Creek Yavapai 17 North 5 East 26, 27 106 53-401631 Adequate 3/1/2005 27 Verde Valley Bella Vista Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 7 53-401746 Adequate 6/21/2005 Oak Creek Water Company 28 Verde Valley Bent River Village Yavapai 16 North 3 East 28 12 53-700476 Adequate 5/7/2008 Bent River Village HOA 29 Verde Canyon Bison Cove Condominiums Gila 10 North 10 East 3 46 53-700296 Inadequate A1 5/21/2007 Town of Payson 30 Verde Canyon Gila 10 North 10 East 3 162 53-700355 Inadequate A1 6/26/2007 Town of Payson 31 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 3 East 33 24 53-500337 Adequate 5/13/1987 City of Cottonwood Bison Cove Condominiums - Phase 2 Black Hill Industrial Park A1, A2 3/5/1986 6/15/1989 Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Rimrock Arizona Water Company Rimrock Arizona Water Company Rimrock Beaver Valley Water Company Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona 32 Verde Valley Black Hills Estates Yavapai 16 North 3 East 32 66 53-500338 Adequate 6/20/1974 City of Cottonwood 33 Verde Valley Black Hills Estates #2 Yavapai 16 North 3 East 32 80 53-500339 Adequate 10/31/1981 City of Cottonwood 34 Verde Valley Black Hills Terrace Yavapai 16 North 3 East 32, 33 18 53-500341 Adequate 5/8/1980 City of Cottonwood 35 Verde Canyon Gila 12 North 11 East 32 38 53-500348 Inadequate A1 6/6/1975 Dry Lot Subdivision 36 Verde Canyon Bonita Creek Bonita Pines Condominiums Gila 10 North 10 East 3 26 53-500039 Inadequate A1 11/20/2006 37 Verde Valley Boynton Canyon Ranch Yavapai 18 North 5 East 20, 29 12 53-500350 Adequate 38 Verde Valley Butler Subdivision Yavapai 14 North 5 East 30 9 53-500372 Inadequate 39 Verde Valley Butterfield Plaza Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 46 53-500374 Adequate 298 C Town of Payson 3/25/1980 Homeowners Association Wells Dry Lot Subdivision 6/6/1983 Big Park Water Company 6/27/1980 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 40 Verde Valley 41 Verde Valley 42 Verde Valley 43 Verde Valley 44 Verde Valley 45 Verde Canyon Subdivision Name Camp Verde Acres Camp Verde Townsite, Block 7 Canyon Mesa Country Club Canyon Mesa Country Club #2 Canyon Mesa Country Club #3 Canyon River Ranch Subdivision Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 34 53 53-500386 Adequate 6/24/1981 Dry Lot Subdivision 31 5 53-500387 Adequate 10/4/1993 Camp Verde Water System 18 109 53-500390 Adequate 8/27/1984 Big Park Water Company County Township Range Section Yavapai 13 North 5 East Yavapai 14 North 5 East Yavapai 16 North 6 East Date of Determination Yavapai 16 North 6 East 18 44 53-500391 Adequate 12/12/1985 Big Park Water Company 16 North 6 East 18 20 53-400072 Adequate 5/21/1999 Big Park Water Company Gila 10 North 9 East 17 116 53-700322 Inadequate A1 5/23/2007 Verde Valley Canyon Shadows Yavapai 17 North 5 East 1 21 53-500393 Adequate 7/7/1980 47 Verde Valley Casa Bonita Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 22 53-500402 Adequate 4/17/1981 48 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 28 53-400548 Adequate 8/14/2001 49 Verde Valley 50 Verde Valley 51 Verde Valley Castle Rock Plaza #2 Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 6 52 Verde Valley Cathedral Rock Ranchos Yavapai 17 North 5 East 35, 36 99 53 Verde Valley Cathedral View #2 Yavapai 16 North 6 East 18 15 53-500426 54 Verde Valley Cave View Estates Yavapai 13 North 5 East 11 13 53-400595 55 Verde Valley Cedar Ridge Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 49 53-500428 Casa Del Sol Condominiums Casa Del Sol Condominiums - South Castle Rock Plaza Water Provider at the Time of Application Yavapai 46 Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 52 53-401223 Adequate 4/7/2004 City of Cottonwood Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 4 53-500423 Adequate 12/18/1985 Big Park Water Company 53-500424 Adequate 9/20/1982 Big Park Water Company 53-500425 Adequate 9/1/1981 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate 7/19/1991 Big Park Water Company Adequate 11/1/2001 Adequate 12/26/1978 Verde Lake Water Corp. Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 56 Verde Canyon Cedar Ridge Phase 1 Gila 11 North 10 East 32 8 53-401441 Inadequate A1 10/21/2004 57 Verde Canyon Cedar Ridge Phase 2 Gila 11 North 10 East 32 14 53-401615 Inadequate A1 1/18/2005 Town of Payson 58 Verde Canyon Cedar Ridge Phase 3 Gila 11 North 10 East 32 6 53-401918 Inadequate A1 1/3/2006 7/6/1982 Town of Payson Arizona Water Company Sedona E & R Water Company 6/5/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 59 Verde Valley Chapel View Yavapai 17 North 6 East 30 17 53-500447 Adequate 61 Verde Canyon Cimmaron Pines Gila 12 North 9 East 30 64 53-500456 Inadequate A1 62 Verde Valley Circle C Ranch Yavapai 14 North 4 East 24 6 53-700321 Inadequate A1 63 Verde Valley Clarkdale Palisades Yavapai 16 North 3 East 29 53 53-500463 Adequate 4/17/1975 City of Cottonwood 64 Verde Valley Clarkdale Palisades #3 Yavapai 16 North 3 East 29 84 53-500464 Adequate 9/26/1975 City of Cottonwood 65 Verde Valley Clarkdale Palisades #4 Yavapai 16 North 3 East 29 112 53-500465 Adequate 8/25/1975 City of Cottonwood 66 Verde Valley Cliffs Unit 2 South, The Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 30 53-400433 Adequate 12/5/2000 Camp Verde Water System 8/21/1973 67 Verde Valley Cliffs Unit Two North, The Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 29 53-300164 Adequate 7/23/1996 Camp Verde Water System 68 Verde Valley Cliffs, The Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 42 53-500474 Adequate 9/2/1994 Camp Verde Water System 69 Verde Valley Coffee Pot Lodge Yavapai 17 North 5 East 1 27 53-500480 Adequate 2/10/1984 Arizona Water Company Sedona 70 Verde Valley Copper Gate Business Park Yavapai 16 North 3 East 33 32 53-700477 Adequate 5/27/2008 City of Cottonwood 71 Verde Valley Copper Vista Estates Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 42 53-500506 Adequate 7/6/1979 Oak Creek Water Company 72 Verde Valley Cor D'Amor Yavapai 17 North 5 East 15 43 53-402003 Adequate 4/25/2006 Arizona Water Company Sedona 73 Verde Canyon Cottage Creek Subdivision Gila 10 North 10 East 3 11 53-402191 Inadequate 74 Verde Valley Yavapai 17 North 5 East 1 37 53-500515 Adequate 6/27/1986 75 76 77 Section 5.5 Sub-Basin A1 8/3/2006 Town of Payson Verde Valley Cottages at Coffee Pot, The Cottonwood Airpark Yavapai 16 North 3 East 33 18 53-500516 Adequate 7/19/1985 Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Verde Valley Cottonwood Business Park Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 10 53-500517 Adequate 10/9/1981 City of Cottonwood Verde Valley Cottonwood Commons/Cottonwood Square Yavapai 15 North 3 East 2 178 53-400318 Adequate 6/1/2000 City of Cottonwood Verde River Basin 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County 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 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 12 53-700335 Adequate 6/25/2007 City of Cottonwood Verde Valley Cottonwood Highlands Condominiums Cottonwood Ranch Yavapai 16 North 3 East 32, 33 627 53-300096 Adequate 5/13/1996 80 Verde Valley Cottonwood Springs Yavapai 15 North 3 East 17, 20 420 53-500519 Adequate 81 Verde Valley Country Estates #3 Yavapai 13 North 5 East 7 19 53-500525 Inadequate C 12/4/1973 City of Cottonwood Quail Springs Ranch Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision 82 Verde Valley Country Estates #4 Yavapai 13 North 5 East 7 14 53-500526 Inadequate C 3/14/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 83 Verde Valley Courthouse Butte Estates Yavapai 17 North 5 East 27 16 53-500530 Adequate 6/15/1979 Community well 84 Verde Valley Crestview Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 91 53-300022 Adequate 6/16/1995 City of Cottonwood 85 Verde Valley Crestview Phase 3 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 40 53-400345 Adequate 7/19/2000 86 Verde Valley Crimson View Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 91 53-300088 Adequate 2/29/1996 87 Verde Valley Cross Creek Ranch Yavapai 17 North 5 East 33 84 53-400694 Adequate 88 Verde Valley Yavapai 13 North 5 East 8 27 53-400199 Inadequate C 11/2/1999 89 Verde Valley Diamond Creek Ranch Diamond Creek Ranch North City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Dry Lot Subdivision Yavapai 13 North 5 East 8 22 53-401353 Inadequate C 6/10/2004 78 Verde Valley 79 8/4/1980 4/9/2003 90 Verde Valley Distant Drums Yavapai 17 North 5 East 9 6 53-500592 Adequate 2/6/1976 91 Verde Valley Doodlebug #2 Coconino 17 North 6 East 19 42 53-500593 Adequate 4/15/1974 92 Verde Canyon Eagle Glen Townhouses Gila 12 North 8 East 36 57 53-500594 Inadequate 93 Verde Valley Eagle Rock Subdivision Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 26 53-401545 Adequate 94 Verde Canyon East Tyler Condominiums Gila 11 North 10 East 27 18 53-500043 Inadequate 95 Verde Valley Edgewater Condominiums Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 13 53-700521 96 Verde Valley Yavapai 14 North 4 East 36 87 53-500056 97 Verde Valley 98 Verde Canyon Elk Creek at Simonton Ranch Elk Creek at Simonton Ranch Elusive Acres 99 Verde Valley 100 NA Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona A1 2/16/1984 A1 1/17/2007 Town of Payson Adequate 9/2/2008 City of Cottonwood Adequate 5/18/2007 Camp Verde Water System 5/18/2007 Camp Verde Water System Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 87 53-500056 Adequate Gila 12 North 10 East 20 30 53-500611 Inadequate Equestrian Estates Yavapai 14 North 4 East 14 44 53-401613 Verde Valley Estrella Noche Ranch (1999) Yavapai 17 North 4 East 1, 36 10 101 Verde Valley Fairfield Sedona Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11, 14 102 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 103 Verde Canyon Gila 10 North 10 East 104 Verde Canyon Gila 11 North 2/2/2005 A1, A2 3/22/1988 United Utilities Company Adequate 4/20/2005 Camp Verde Water System 53-300591 Adequate 1/14/1999 114 53-400109 Adequate 8/2/1999 8 53-500634 Adequate 5, 6 23 53-500635 Inadequate A1, A2 3/10/1983 Town of Payson 10 East 33 19 53-402271 Inadequate A1 10/27/2006 Town of Payson Town of Payson Homeowners Association Wells 105 Verde Canyon Fairway Oaks Fairway Oaks Estates replat Falcon Lookout Phase One Falcon View Gila 11 North 10 East 33 57 53-300027 Inadequate A2 10/3/1995 106 Verde Valley Flagstaff Meadows I Coconino 21 North 5 East 1 220 53-401478 Inadequate A1 8/17/2004 107 Verde Valley Coconino 21 North 5 East 1 105 53-401477 Inadequate A1 8/17/2004 Undetermined 108 Verde Valley Flagstaff Meadows Townhomes Flagstaff Meadows Unit II Coconino 21 North 5 East 1 87 53-401174 Inadequate A1 2/4/2004 Utility Source LLC 109 Verde Valley Flagstaff Meadows Unit III Coconino 21 North 5 East 1 274 53-700301 Adequate 6/21/2007 Utility Source LLC 110 Verde Valley Foothill Terrace Yavapai 16 North 3 East 29 140 53-500638 Adequate 5/5/1983 111 Verde Valley Foothills North Yavapai 17 North 5 East 3, 7 21 53-500661 Adequate 2/20/1979 112 Verde Valley Foothills South Yavapai 17 North 5 East 10 64 53-500667 Adequate 6/18/1974 113 Verde Valley Foothills South #2 Amended Yavapai 17 North 5 East 15 100 53-500668 Adequate 12/22/1982 City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona 300 1/7/1987 Homeowners Association Wells Arizona Water Company Sedona Big Park Water Company Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section 17 North 5 East 15 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 8 53-401826 Adequate 9/8/2005 9/18/2003 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 115 Verde Valley Foothills South, Phase 3 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 15 25 53-401029 Adequate 116 Verde Valley Forest Highlands Unit Five Coconino 20 North 7 East 18 170 53-300321 Adequate 117 Verde Canyon Forest Park Gila 10 North 10 East 4 10 53-500670 Inadequate A1, A2 8/11/1988 Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Forest Higlands Water Company Town of Payson 118 Verde Canyon Forest Park #1-3 Gila 10 North 10 East 4 28 53-500672 Inadequate A1, A2 5/20/1980 United Utilities Company 119 Verde Valley Forrest Ranch #1 Coconino 22 North 4 East 13, 24 10 53-500676 Inadequate A1, A2 1/13/1987 Dry Lot Subdivision 120 Verde Canyon Four Seasons North Gila 11 North 10 East 34 48 53-500687 Inadequate A2, A3 5/18/1983 Town of Payson 121 Verde Valley FoxBoro Ranch Estates Coconino 17 North 7 East 10 57 53-401577 Adequate 2/10/2005 Water Improvement District Town of Payson 114 Section 5.5 Sub-Basin Verde Valley Foothills South Unit 4 Yavapai 8/22/1997 122 Verde Canyon Frontier Condominiums Gila 10 North 10 East 4 42 53-300091 Inadequate A1, A2 11/16/1996 123 Verde Canyon Frontier Cove Gila 10 North 10 East 4 9 53-700367 Inadequate A1 7/11/2007 Town of Payson 125 Verde Canyon Gila 10 North 10 East 9 8 53-500690 Inadequate A2 6/17/1980 United Utilities Company 126 Verde Valley Frontier Townhouses Gateway Commercial Complex Unit 1 Yavapai 14 North 4 East 23, 24 8 53-401794 Adequate 8/4/2005 Camp Verde Water System 127 Verde Valley Golden Heights Yavapai 14 North 4 East 12, 13 44 53-500717 Adequate 7/17/1980 Camp Verde Water System 128 Verde Canyon Green Valley Estates Gila 10 North 10 East 8 14 53-400849 Inadequate A1, A2 11/25/2002 Town of Payson 129 Verde Canyon Greenfaire Gila 10 North 10 East 8 11 53-500761 Inadequate A1, A2, C 10/27/1994 Town of Payson 130 Verde Canyon Greenfaire Unit Two Gila 10 North 10 East 8 8 53-300216 Inadequate A1 10/30/1996 Town of Payson 131 Verde Valley Grey Fox Ridge Yavapai 16 North 3 East 28 99 53-401907 Adequate 2/2/2006 City of Cottonwood 133 Verde Canyon Guevremont Gila 12 North 8 East 21 10 53-500767 Inadequate 7/17/1984 134 Verde Valley Harmony Heights North Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 45 53-500775 Adequate 1/18/1978 135 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 3 East 32 150 53-300011 Adequate 5/24/1995 136 Big Chino Haskell Springs Headwaters Ranch Country Club E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Yavapai 17 North 2 West 2 1,385 53-500778 Adequate 137 Verde Canyon Hidden Pines Phase II Gila 12 North 8 East 25 18 53-500784 Inadequate A1 8/8/1996 138 Verde Canyon Hidden Pines Gila 12 North 8 East 25 49 53-500786 Inadequate A1, A2 10/19/1995 139 Verde Valley Hidden Springs Yavapai 16 North 3 East 31 10 53-402120 Adequate 7/7/2006 140 Verde Valley Highland Estates #2 Yavapai 16 North 5 East 11 47 53-500790 Adequate 11/1/1979 141 Verde Valley Hillcrest Villa Yavapai 15 North 3 East 2 10 53-500794 Adequate 3/22/1994 City of Cottonwood 142 Verde Valley Hinch Springs Estates Yavapai 13 North 5 East 11 33 53-401737 Adequate 6/28/2005 Verde Lake Water Corp. 143 Big Chino Holiday Lake Estates Yavapai 18 North 2 West 33, 34 1,543 53-300240 Inadequate 145 Verde Valley Yavapai 14 North 4 East 25, 30, 31, 36 165 53-400441 Adequate Homestead at Camp Verde, The (2000) Homestead at Simonton Ranch Homestead, The A1 6/18/1993 A1,B 2/7/1997 Abra Water Company, Inc. Camp Verde Water System Verde Valley 147 Verde Canyon 148 Verde Canyon 149 Verde Valley 150 Verde Valley Indian Cliffs Coconino 17 North 6 East 30 41 53-500813 Adequate 151 Verde Valley Indian Lakes #2 Yavapai 14 North 5 East 11 46 53-700282 Inadequate 152 Big Chino Inscription Canyon Ranch Yavapai 16 North 3 West 27, 28 323 53-300021 Adequate Inscription Canyon Ranch Unit Five J.D. Stump Subdivision Yavapai 16 North 3 West 27, 28 46 53-400551 Adequate 9/14/2001 Yavapai 14 North 5 East 2 8 53-500818 Adequate 9/27/1988 153 Big Chino 154 Verde Valley Little Park Water Company 12/18/2000 146 Hunt Ranch #01 Hyatt Pinon Point/The Y Project E & R Water Company Williamson Waterworks, Inc. Williamson Waterworks, Inc. Clarkdale Municipal Water Utility Yavapai 14 North 4 East 25, 30 52 53-402060 Adequate 5/29/2007 Camp Verde Water System Gila 12 North 8 East 30 25 53-500803 Inadequate A1 1/18/1984 E & R Water Company Gila 12 North 8 East 20 8 53-500810 Inadequate A1 7/21/1993 Coconino 17 North 6 East 7 109 53-400946 Adequate E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association Dry Lot Subdivision Verde River Basin 5/16/2003 9/15/1992 A1 9/25/2007 11/15/1995 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 53-400266 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Yavapai 18 North 5 East 20, 29 19 Verde Valley John Gardiner's Enchantment Resort (2000) Jordan Meadows #2 Yavapai 13 North 5 East 7 10 53-500823 Inadequate A1 2/24/1976 Verde Valley Jordan Meadows #3 Yavapai 13 North 5 East 7 6 53-500824 Inadequate A1 3/26/1979 Dry Lot Subdivision Verde Valley Jordan Park Glen Coconino 17 North 6 East 6 20 53-500825 Adequate 12/6/1991 Jordan Park Ridge Coconino 17 North 6 East 5 39 53-500826 Adequate 12/29/1993 Coconino 17 North 6 East 5 4 53-500827 Adequate 4/30/1981 Coconino 17 North 6 East 8 9 Adequate 6/14/2002 42 Adequate 5/7/1992 155 Verde Valley 156 157 158 2/28/2000 Boynton Canyon Enchantment Homeowners Association Dry Lot Subdivision 159 Verde Valley 160 Verde Valley 161 Verde Valley 162 Verde Valley Juniper Meadows Yavapai 17 North 5 East 29 163 Verde Valley Junipine Oak Creek (1986) Coconino 18 North 6 East 5, 8 18 53-500833 Adequate 3/21/1986 164 Verde Valley Coconino 20 North 7 East 20 3,000 53-500834 Adequate 8/25/1975 Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Juniper Meadows Water Users' Junipine Community Property Owners Association Flagstaff, City of Coconino 22 North 2 West 17 12 53-500073 Inadequate 1/30/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Yavapai 16 North 3 East 28 21 53-401150 Adequate 1/28/2004 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 9 53-401603 Adequate 3/30/2005 City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Jordan Road Condominiums Jordan Road Condominiums B 168 Verde Valley 169 Verde Valley 170 Verde Valley Kachina Village Kaibab Knolls Estates Unit 17 Kindra Heights Kinsey Estates Two at Western Hills Kinsey Estates at Western Hills Koch Ranch Estates (2005) La Barranca 171 Verde Valley 172 Verde Valley Verde Valley 165 Big Chino 166 Verde Valley 167 Verde Valley 173 53-500830 A1 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 9 53-401397 Adequate 9/15/2004 Yavapai 15 North 4 East 15 35 53-401913 Adequate 12/1/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision Yavapai 16 North 6 East 17, 18 76 53-300502 Adequate 9/8/1998 Lakeside Townhouses Yavapai 14 North 5 East 2 10 53-500891 Adequate 5/27/1983 Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Rimrock Las Estancias Yavapai 14 North 4 East 14 26 53-400398 Adequate 10/25/2000 Camp Verde Water System Las Oficinas Office Building Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 6 53-500896 Adequate 10/22/1984 Arizona Water Company Sedona 5 East 6 East 24 19 174 Verde Valley Las Piedras Yavapai 16 North 16 North 152 53-300413 Adequate 5/18/1998 Big Park Water Company 175 Verde Valley Les Springs Coconino 17 North 6 East 7, 18 106 53-500904 Adequate 8/28/1985 Arizona Water Company Sedona 176 Verde Valley Yavapai 15 North 3 East 2 195 53-300084 Adequate 1/10/1996 City of Cottonwood Dry Lot Subdivision 177 Big Chino 179 Verde Canyon Loma Sinagua Townhomes Long Meadow Ranch Unit 3 Longhorn Condominiums 180 Verde Valley 181 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 3 West 19 6 53-401596 Inadequate A1 12/29/2004 Gila 10 North 10 East 4 14 53-700234 Inadequate A1 6/15/2007 Town of Payson Los Abrigados Timeshare Coconino 17 North 6 East 18 175 NA Adequate 12/9/1988 Arizona Water Company Los Lomas Yavapai 17 North 5 East 15 32 53-500920 Adequate 11/9/1982 3/15/1996 Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 182 Verde Canyon Lovett Place Gila 11 North 10 East 28 18 53-300113 Inadequate A2 183 Verde Valley Lucky Canyon Estates Yavapai 13 North 4 East 1 6 53-401490 Inadequate A1 12/8/2004 Dry Lot Subdivision 184 Verde Valley Maine Townsite Coconino 22 North 4 East 26 9 53-500931 Inadequate A2, A3 7/29/1977 Dry Lot Subdivision 185 Big Chino Malapai Ridge Estates Yavapai 17 North 2 West 9 25 53-500932 Adequate 1/15/1988 Dry Lot Subdivision 186 Verde Canyon Manzanita Hills Phase 4 Gila 10 North 10 East 5 19 53-400739 Inadequate A1 6/18/2002 Town of Payson 187 Verde Canyon Manzanita Hills #1 Gila 10 North 10 East 5 11 53-500934 Inadequate A1, A2, C 1/17/1995 Town of Payson 188 Verde Canyon Manzanita Hills #2 Gila 11 North 10 East 5 22 53-500935 Inadequate A1, A2, C 1/18/1995 189 Verde Valley Manzanita Hills #2 Coconino 17 North 6 East 5 16 53-500936 Adequate 190 Verde Canyon Manzanita Hills #3 Gila 10 North 10 East 5 7 53-300461 Inadequate A1 5/15/1998 Town of Payson Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 191 Verde Canyon Manzanita Hills Phase Five Gila 11 North 10 East 32 8 53-400905 Inadequate A1 3/31/2003 Town of Payson 302 4/15/1974 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Section 5.5 Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County 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 Town of Payson 192 Verde Canyon Manzanita Hills Phase Six Gila 10 North 10 East 5 14 53-500007 Inadequate A1 10/24/2006 193 Verde Canyon Manzanita Woods Gila 11 North 10 East 32 6 53-300462 Inadequate A1 5/15/1998 Town of Payson 194 Verde Valley Maybelle Estates Yavapai 13 North 5 East 6 5 53-500939 Adequate 10/11/1974 Camp Verde Water System 195 Verde Canyon Gila 11 North 10 East 31, 32 41 53-700436 Inadequate 11/1/2007 Town of Payson Town of Payson 196 Verde Canyon 197 Verde Canyon 198 Verde Canyon Mazatzal Mountain Air Park, Unit 4 Mazatzal Mountain Air Park, Unit3 Phase 1 Mazatzal Mountain Airpark #01 Mazatzal Moutain Air Park, Unit 2, Phase 2 Mel Glo Estates #2 Mesa Del Caballo Tracts, plats 3, 5 & 6 Mesa Verde Estates A1 Gila 11 North 10 East 32 12 53-401032 Inadequate A1 9/3/2003 Gila 11 North 10 East 32 26 53-300173 Inadequate A1, A2 8/23/1996 Gila 11 North 10 East 32 14 53-400805 Inadequate A1 9/17/2002 Yavapai 15 North 4 East 3 8 53-500951 Inadequate C 2/25/1976 Gila 11 North 10 East 23, 24 12 53-400038 Inadequate A1, C 3/26/1999 Brooke Utilities Yavapai 14 North 5 East 19, 30 16 53-500968 Inadequate C 4/15/1980 Dry Lot Subdivision City of Cottonwood Town of Payson Town of Payson Water Department Dry Lot Subdivision 199 Verde Valley 200 Verde Canyon 201 Verde Valley 202 Verde Valley Mesquite Hills Yavapai 15 North 3 East 4, 5 425 53-402009 Adequate 1/11/2007 203 Verde Valley Mesquite Springs Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 64 53-401689 Adequate 7/14/2005 City of Cottonwood 204 Verde Valley Millwood Estates Yavapai 13 North 5 East 8 30 53-401948 Inadequate 2/1/2006 206 Verde Valley Mingus Panorama Estates Yavapai 16 North 4 East 35 69 53-700263 Adequate 3/9/2007 207 Verde Valley Mingus Shadows Yavapai 16 North 3 East 29 122 53-500978 Adequate 5/21/1982 Dry Lot Subdivision Mingus Panorama Estates HOA City of Cottonwood 208 Verde Valley Mingus View Estates Yavapai 16 North 3 East 32 70 53-500979 Adequate 1/13/1994 City of Cottonwood 209 Big Chino Mint Creek Ranch Yavapai 15 North 3 West 2, 11 74 53-500981 Adequate 11/29/1993 Dry Lot Subdivision 210 Verde Valley Mission Hills Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 81 53-500989 Adequate 211 Verde Canyon Mogollon Village Morning Sun Condominiums Gila 10 North 10 East 4 42 53-401668 Inadequate A1 3/29/2005 Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 9/26/1980 A1 212 Verde Valley Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 74 53-501016 Adequate 12/31/1987 Oak Creek Water Company 213 Verde Valley Mountain Estates Yavapai 13 North 4 East 1 15 53-401186 Adequate 2/2/2004 Camp Verde Water System 214 Verde Valley Mountain Gate Yavapai 16 North 3 East 19, 20 606 53-401660 Adequate 6/3/2005 City of Cottonwood 215 Verde Valley Mountain Rose Ranch Coconino 21 North 3 East 3 32 53-400914 Inadequate 216 Verde Valley Mountain View Ranchos Yavapai 15 North 4 East 11 47 53-501034 Adequate 217 Verde Canyon Gila 11 North 10 East 34 4 53-501041 Inadequate A1, A2 218 Verde Canyon A1, A2 219 A1, A2, A3 4/17/2003 Individual Wells 3/26/1979 Dry Lot Subdivision 6/14/1982 Ponderosa Utility Corporation Gila 11 North 10 East 34 8 53-501042 Inadequate Verde Valley Mountain-Aire Condominiums Mountain-Aire Condominiums #3 Mountainaire #5 Coconino 20 North 7 East 28 22 53-501040 Adequate 220 Verde Valley Mountainaire Meadows Coconino 20 North 7 East 28 20 53-501043 Adequate 5/5/1983 221 Verde Valley Mystic Hills Coconino 17 North 6 East 19 144 53-501045 Adequate 222 Verde Valley Nepenthe Yavapai 17 North 5 East 14 182 53-300083 223 Big Chino Nighthawk Ridge Yavapai 17 North 2 West 29 188 53-700463 224 Verde Valley Nizhoni Village Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 40 53-501049 225 Big Chino 15 North 3 West 2 25 Verde Valley Yavapai 17 North 5 East 3 23 227 Verde Valley North Arrow Ranch North Slopes #3, Lots 3355 Northeast Industries Commercial Complex Yavapai 226 Yavapai 14 North 5 East 5 228 Verde Valley Northern Shadows Yavapai 17 North 5 East 9/10/1985 Town of Payson 7/29/1983 9/15/1992 Town of Payson Ponderosa Utility Corporation Arizona Water Company Adequate 1/16/1996 Arizona Water Company Adequate 4/29/2008 Town of Chino Valley Adequate 11/7/1980 Big Park Water Company 53-401930 Adequate 1/25/2006 53-300258 Adequate 7/3/1997 Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona 28 53-402092 Inadequate 12 36 53-501054 Adequate 229 Verde Valley Northview Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 121 53-501058 Adequate 230 Verde Canyon Northwoods Gila 11 North 10 East 34 72 53-300199 Inadequate Verde River Basin A1 A1, A2 9/11/2006 Camp Verde Water System 7/18/1983 Arizona Water Company Sedona 11/29/1973 Oak Creek Water Company 11/8/1996 Town of Payson 303 Sub-Basin Subdivision Name A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key County Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Water Provider at the Time of Application Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 Location 2/4/1988 Date of Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 ADWR Adequacy Determination Section ADWR File No.2 Range 10, 15 No. of Lots Township 4 East 13 11/23/1981 15 North 23, 24 Adequate Yavapai 5 East 53-501059 Verde Valley 5 East 12 231 16 North 11/23/1981 16 North Oak Creek Water Company Adequate Yavapai Oak Creek Water Company Adequate Yavapai Inadequate 8/8/1979 6/21/1977 53-501060 Verde Valley 63 53-501063 Adequate 53-501061 Verde Valley 13 53-501064 Adequate 40 232 5 East 136 53-501065 58 233 16 North 13 15 53-501066 2/6/1980 Yavapai 35 50 135 Adequate Verde Valley 5 East 34 53-501062 234 16 North 4 East 34 Dry Lot Subdivision Yavapai 16 North 4 East 4 East Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Big Park Water Company Oak Bend #2 Oak Creek Country Club Est #2 Oak Creek Country Club Est #3 Oak Creek Country Club Estates Oak Creek Estados Yavapai 16 North 16 North 6/3/1981 Verde Valley Oak Creek Palisades Yavapai Yavapai Adequate 235 Verde Valley Oak Creek Valley #2 Oak Creek Valley #1, 3 8/26/1973 236 Verde Valley Verde Valley 248 247 246 245 244 243 242 241 240 239 Verde Canyon Big Chino Verde Valley Verde Valley Verde Canyon Verde Canyon Verde Valley Verde Valley Verde Valley Verde Valley Big Chino Payson Meadows Payson Industrial Park Paulden Farms Parks Pine Park Place Condominium Paradise Heights Paradise Heights Phase Two Papago Highlands (1974) Panorama Palisades Orchards #2 Old Highway 89 Estates Gila Gila Gila Gila Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Gila Gila Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Coconino Yavapai 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 17 North 22 North 17 North 10 North 10 North 17 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 2 West 4 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 5 East 3 East 6 East 6 East 2 West 28 28 27, 28 4 4 26 15 9 8, 9 10, 15 19, 30 18 6 22 22 127 32 13 15 26 88 20 16 192 22 86 34 8 53-400740 53-300364 53-501130 53-501129 53-501128 53-501125 53-401834 53-401547 53-401022 53-501103 53-501098 53-501092 53-501086 53-700422 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate A1 A1 A1, A2 D A1 A1 6/25/2002 9/30/1997 8/7/1986 11/8/1988 3/12/1992 9/20/1973 11/18/2004 9/3/2003 9/23/1974 10/30/1975 10/17/1978 8/30/1974 10/18/2007 Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson A1 238 237 249 Verde Canyon Payson Pines 253 Verde Valley Verde Canyon Pecan Acres Yavapai Yavapai Gila 16 North 13 North 10 North 3 East 5 East 10 East 35 5 4 28 10 9 53-501134 53-401538 53-700353 Adequate Adequate Inadequate A1 7/27/1978 5/9/1979 3/7/2005 6/25/2007 City of Cottonwood NA Town of Payson 11/14/2005 250 Verde Canyon Verde Canyon 254 Verde Valley A2, A3 252 251 Payson Pines Unit Two Payson Townsite ( Map 64 GCR); ROS 3121 - Parcels A - E and ROS 3235 Parcels A1 -D1 Pebble Rock 255 9 East 10 East 15 15 30 3 18 44 32 12 53-501170 53-501169 53-501168 53-501151 53-501149 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2, B A1, A2 12/9/1981 11/25/1981 6/8/1981 5/14/1981 4/25/1979 1/29/1979 11/26/1974 3/18/1980 Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision 11/14/2005 10 North 7 East 53-501171 Inadequate 8/9/1993 Big Park Water Company Adequate 12 North 7 East 20 53-501172 Adequate 4/5/1993 8/15/1983 Adequate Gila 18 North 15 8 53-501173 Adequate 53-401854 Gila 18 North 15 18 53-501190 Adequate 53-501141 Verde Canyon Coconino 7 East 15 20 53-501191 8 Verde Canyon Coconino 18 North 7 East 15 8 53-501192 18 258 Verde Valley Coconino 18 North 7 East 18 28 129 15 259 Verde Valley Coconino 18 North 7 East 18 1, 2 260 Coconino 18 North 6 East 18 5 East 261 Verde Valley Coconino 16 North 6 East 6 East 3 East 262 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 16 North 17 North 263 Verde Valley Pine Mountain Acres Pinewood Fairway Condos #1 Pinewood Fairway Condos #2 Pinewood Fairway Condos #2 Pinewood Fairway Condos #3 Pinewood Fairway Condos #4 Pinewood Fairway Condos #5 Pinon Valley Estates Yavapai Yavapai 15 North 264 Verde Valley Pinon Woods Yavapai Verde Valley Verde Valley Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona United Utilities Company 265 Verde Valley Pinon Woods #2 Yavapai 257 256 Penny Acres #2 Piedras Del Rojo Condominiums Pine Aire 266 Verde Valley Verde Valley Verde River Basin 268 Section 5.5 267 304 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County Township Section 5.5 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 269 Verde Valley Pinon Woods Unit III Yavapai 16 North 6 East 18 70 53-300005 Adequate 3/30/1995 Big Park Water Company 270 Verde Valley Playa del Rio Yavapai 14 North 4 East 13, 14 183 53-501200 Adequate 5/13/1987 Camp Verde Water System 271 Verde Valley Plaza West, The Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 33 53-501201 Adequate 11/8/1984 10/11/1974 272 Verde Valley Poco Diablo Villas Coconino 17 North 6 East 19 18 53-501202 Adequate 273 Verde Valley Poco Diablo Villas #2 Coconino 17 North 6 East 19 33 53-501203 Adequate 274 Verde Canyon Ponderosa Heights Phase 1 Gila 11 North 10 East 27 20 53-700454 Inadequate 9/28/1978 A1 1/3/2008 Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 275 Verde Valley Ponderosa Paradise #2 Coconino 16 North 8 East 16 6 53-501204 Inadequate D 8/21/1989 276 Verde Valley Ponderosa Shadows Coconino 22 North 4 East 28 13 53-700386 Inadequate A1 8/9/2007 Stoneman Lake Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision 277 Verde Canyon Portal #3, Pine Canyon Gila 12 North 8 East 24 192 53-501206 Adequate 10/23/81 Myers Water Company 278 Verde Canyon Gila 12 North 8 East 25 NA 53-501207 Adequate 7/17/1973 developer-supplied 279 Verde Canyon Portal (Canyon Shadows) Portal Pine Creek Canyon #2 Portal Pine Creek Canyon #3 Portal Pine Creek Canyon #4, Phase 1 Gila 12 North 8 East 25 208 53-501208 Adequate 8/12/1976 Myers Water Company Gila 12 North 8 East 24 198 53-501209 Adequate 10/23/1981 Myers Water Company Gila 12 North 8 East 25 73 53-501210 Inadequate A1,A2 7/19/1994 Williamson Water Works Gila 12 North 8 East 25 7 53-400396 Inadequate A1 9/22/2000 A2 3/25/1975 280 Verde Canyon 281 Verde Canyon 282 Verde Canyon Portal at Pine Creek Canyon #4, Phase 2 283 Verde Valley Quail Canyon Yavapai 15 North 3 East 15, 22 59 53-401819 Adequate 284 Verde Valley Quail Springs Ranches Yavapai 15 North 2 East 15 16 53-501238 Inadequate 285 Verde Valley Rainbow Subdivision Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 5 53-501245 Adequate 286 Verde Valley Ranch Acres Yavapai 287 Big Chino 288 289 14 North 5 East 30, 31 75 53-501246 Adequate Yavapai 17 North 2 West 29 56 53-400349 Inadequate Verde Valley Ranch at Hidden Valley, The Rancho Shangri La Coconino 18 North 5 East 21 20 53-501271 Verde Valley Rancho del Oro Yavapai 18 North 6 East 27 437 9/8/2005 1/6/1988 Pine Creek Canyon Domestic Water Improvement Dist. Quail Canyon Domestic Water Improvement District Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. 10/26/1973 Camp Verde Water System 8/21/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate 8/19/1981 53-501256 Adequate 4/1/1981 9/11/2001 Rancho del Oro Shangri La Property Owners Association Dry Lot Subdivision A2 290 Big Chino Ravencrest Yavapai 18 North 2 West 19, 30 29 53-400573 Adequate 291 Verde Valley Red Rock Cove Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 6 NA Adequate 1/22/1982 Big Park Water Company 292 Verde Valley Red Rock Vista Yavapai 16 North 5 East 23 6 53-501291 Adequate 3/21/1994 Arizona Water Company Sedona 294 Verde Valley Retreat on Oak Creek Yavapai 17 North 5 East 27, 34 38 53-700261 Adequate 4/23/2007 Oak Creek Domestic Water Imrovement District 295 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 5 East 24 19 53-501294 Adequate 2/28/1985 296 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 5 East 24 8 53-300360 Adequate 10/10/1997 Ridge at Sedona, The (1985) Ridge at Sedona, The (1997) Ridge on Sedona Golf Resort, The Rim Golf Club, The Yavapai 16 North 5 East 24 106 53-300330 Adequate 7/5/1997 Gila 11 North 10 East 1, 36 317 53-300426 Adequate 4/21/1998 Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 11 North 10 East 32 20 53-300547 Inadequate A1 10/19/1998 Town of Payson 10 North 10 East 3 14 53-700560 Inadequate A1 8/27/2008 Town of Payson 5 East 36 36 53-400653 Adequate 2/26/2002 5/26/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision 12/8/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision 297 Verde Valley 298 Verde Canyon 299 Verde Canyon Rim Ranch Gila 300 Verde Canyon Rim Ridge Estates Phase I Gila 301 Verde Valley Rim Rock Heights Yavapai 15 North 302 Verde Valley Rim Shadows Yavapai 17 North 5 East 1 32 53-501298 Adequate 7/7/1980 303 Big Chino Rimrock #1 Yavapai 17 North 2 West 14, 15, 23 35 53-300008 Adequate 304 Big Chino Rimrock #2 Yavapai 17 North 2 West 23 52 53-300079 Adequate Verde River Basin 305 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County 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 305 Big Chino Rimrock North Yavapai 17 North 2 West 15 35 53-300329 Adequate 7/30/1997 Dry Lot Subdivision 306 Verde Valley Rio Bonito Ranch Yavapai 16 North 4 East 34 33 53-401892 Adequate 7/13/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 307 Verde Valley Rio Verde Condominiums Yavapai 16 North 3 East 34 12 53-501319 Adequate 308 Verde Valley Rio Verde Ranchos Yavapai 13 North 5 East 6 34 53-501321 Inadequate 309 Verde Valley River Ranch Estates Yavapai 14 North 4 East 3 18 53-300144 Adequate 6/28/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 310 Verde Valley Rivers View Estates Yavapai 14 North 5 East 30, 31 15 53-402077 Adequate 3/22/2007 Camp Verde Water System C 11/17/1981 City of Cottonwood 3/17/1989 Dry Lot Subdivision 311 Verde Valley Rylie Heights Yavapai 16 North 3 East 28 16 53-401990 Adequate 6/21/2006 City of Cottonwood 312 Verde Valley Saddlerock Homes Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 116 53-501351 Adequate 9/11/1978 Oak Creek Water Company 313 Verde Valley San Carlos Condominiums Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 40 53-501357 Adequate 7/24/1980 Oak Creek Water Company 314 Verde Valley San Patricio Estates Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 40 53-501364 Adequate 9/26/1975 315 Big Chino Santa Fe Industrial Sites Yavapai 18 North 2 West 34 200 53-501371 Adequate 4/11/1994 Arizona Water Company Sedona Abra Water Co. 316 Verde Valley Yavapai 15 North 3 East 2 36 53-501375 Adequate 1/18/1994 City of Cottonwood 317 Verde Valley Yavapai 15 North 3 East 2 59 53-501376 Adequate 11/13/1985 City of Cottonwood 318 Verde Valley Sawmill Cove Sawmill Gardens Patio Homes Schuerman Estates Yavapai 17 North 5 East 26 2 53-501377 Adequate 1/27/1976 Dry Lot Subdivision 319 Verde Canyon Gila 12 North 9 East 31 19 53-501380 Inadequate 3/28/1980 320 Verde Valley Yavapai 18 North 5 East 27 20 53-401110 Adequate 10/17/2003 Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Secluded Homesites Sedona At Seven Canyons, Unit II A1 321 Verde Valley Sedona Gardens Yavapai 17 North 5 East 15 18 53-501381 Adequate 11/23/1981 322 Verde Valley Sedona Golf Resort 1 Yavapai 16 North 5 East 24 19 53-300071 Adequate 12/4/1995 323 Verde Valley Sedona Golf Resort 2 Yavapai 16 North 5 East 24 94 53-300148 Adequate 6/11/1995 324 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 5 East 23, 24 192 53-300401 Adequate 3/31/1998 325 Verde Valley Yavapai 16 North 5 East 24 225 53-300340 Adequate 8/25/1997 326 Verde Valley Sedona Heights Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 16 53-300273 Adequate 3/25/1997 327 Verde Valley Sedona National Golf Club Yavapai 18 North 5 East 29, 30, 31 20 53-400606 Adequate 11/1/2001 328 Verde Valley Sedona San Carlos Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 40 53-501382 Adequate 9/24/1990 329 Verde Valley Yavapai 18 North 5 East 27 118 53-400907 Adequate 8/28/2003 Sedona Golf Resort, Phase 2 Sedona Golf Resort, Rst Hotel Sedona Seven Canyons Units I, II, and III Sedona Summit II, Phase 3 330 Verde Valley 331 Verde Valley Sedona Vista Estates 332 Verde Valley 333 Verde Valley 334 Verde Valley 335 Verde Valley 336 Verde Valley 337 Verde Valley 338 Verde Valley 339 Verde Valley 340 Verde Valley 306 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 15 39 53-400124 Adequate 8/24/1999 Coconino 17 North 6 East 7 12 53-501383 Adequate 8/21/1980 Seven Canyons of Sedona Yavapai 18 North 5 East 27 300 53-300262 Adequate 10/29/1997 Seven Vistas Coconino 17 North 6 East 30 9 53-700221 Adequate 9/24/2007 Shadow Rock Yavapai 17 North 5 East 1 34 53-501386 Adequate 3/21/1980 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 54 53-501387 Adequate Yavapai 13 North 5 East 15, 16 30 53-501404 Inadequate Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 8 53-501412 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 48 53-501413 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 26 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 22 Shadowbrook Condominium Sierra Verde Estates Silver Springs #1 Silver Springs Development Silver Springs Garden Homes Silver Springs Terrace #1 Oak Creek Water Company Seven Canyons Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona NA 4/12/1982 Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate 11/12/1980 City of Cottonwood Adequate 10/29/1986 City of Cottonwood 53-501414 Adequate 7/11/1994 City of Cottonwood 53-501415 Adequate 4/7/1981 City of Cottonwood 2/22/1988 C Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County Township Section ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Camp Verde Water System 341 Verde Valley Silverado at Simonton Ranch Yavapai 14 North 4 East 25, 36 252 53-401916 Adequate 11/14/2005 342 Verde Valley Sky Line Estates Coconino 17 North 6 East 17 11 53-501418 Adequate 6/21/1991 343 Verde Canyon Sky Park Industrial Gila 11 North 10 East 32 64 53-501419 Inadequate 344 Verde Valley Skyline Estates Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 34 53-401481 Adequate 345 Verde Valley Sleepy Hollow Townhomes Yavapai 14 North 5 East 32 20 53-700284 Inadequate A1,A2 A1 12/29/1983 Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 12/13/2004 City of Cottonwood 4/25/2007 Camp Verde Water System 346 Verde Valley Solair Estates Yavapai 15 North 4 East 11 42 53-501429 Adequate 10/23/1979 Dry Lot Subdivision 347 Verde Valley Solair Estates #1 Yavapai 15 North 4 East 11 12 53-501430 Adequate 4/28/1983 E & R Water Company 348 Verde Canyon Solitude Pines #1,2,5 Gila 12 North 9 East 31 255 53-501431 Inadequate A1 9/11/1985 E & R Water Company 349 Verde Canyon Solitude Trails Gila 12 North 9 East 31 73 53-501432 Inadequate A1 9/28/1994 E & R Water Company 8/16/1999 Solitude Trails Domestic Water Improvement District 350 Verde Canyon Solitude Trails Unit Four Gila 12 North 9 East 31 10 53-300580 Adequate Verde Canyon Spirit Ridge Equestrian Estates Gila 11 North 10 East 27 5 53-401614 Inadequate 353 Verde Valley Spring Creek Ranch Phase 1 Yavapai 16 South 4 East 22 15 53-500024 Adequate 11/6/2006 354 Verde Valley Spring Creek Ranch Phase 1 Yavapai 16 North 4 East 21 15 53-500024 Adequate 11/6/2006 355 Verde Valley Spring Creek Ranch Phases 2, 3, 4 Yavapai 16 North 4 East 15, 21, 22 83 53-700248 Adequate 2/21/2007 356 Verde Valley Starlight Village #2 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 32 53-501456 Adequate 1/16/1981 351 NA Town of Payson Spring Creek Ranch Domestic Water Improvement District Spring Creek Ranch Domestic Water Improvement District Spring Creek Ranch Domestic Water Improvement District City of Cottonwood 357 Verde Canyon Stone Creek at Payson Gila 10 North 10 East 4, 5 130 53-400061 Inadequate 4/21/1999 Town of Payson Verde Valley Stoneridge Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 54 53-400904 Adequate 7/21/2003 Camp Verde Water System 359 Verde Canyon Strawberry Creek Foothills Gila 12 North 8 East 20 96 53-501461 Adequate 3/13/1980 Myers Water Company 360 Verde Canyon Strawberry Hollow Gila 12 North 8 East 26 72 53-401908 Adequate 3/17/2006 Strawberry Hollow DWID 361 Verde Canyon Gila 12 North 8 East 35 134 53-501462 Adequate 3/31/1977 E & R Water Company 362 Verde Canyon 363 Verde Canyon 364 Verde Canyon 365 Verde Valley Strawberry Mountain Shadows #2,3 Strawberry Mountain Shadows #4 Strawknolls #4 amended Streams at Payson, The #1 Sun Dance Townhouses A1 1/12/2005 358 Gila 12 North 9 East 35 264 53-501463 Inadequate A1 2/11/1981 E & R Water Company Gila 12 North 8 East 22 8 53-501464 Inadequate C 11/12/1982 Arizona Water Company Gila 10 North 10 East 4 72 53-501465 Inadequate A1,A2 9/6/1985 Town of Payson Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 58 53-501478 Adequate 2/28/1980 Big Park Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Arizona Water Company ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association, Inc. 366 Big Chino Sundown Acres unit 2 Yavapai 15 North 3 West 24 8 53-501496 Adequate 12/16/1974 367 Verde Valley Sunrise Cliffs Yavapai 17 North 5 East 1 6 53-501506 Adequate 8/21/1986 368 Verde Valley Sunset Hills Yavapai 17 North 5 East 19 76 53-501516 Adequate 3/21/1974 369 Verde Valley Sunset Plaza Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 8 53-501519 Adequate 5/14/1976 370 Verde Valley Sunup Ranch Yavapai 16 North 5 East 14 16 53-401418 Adequate 9/15/2004 371 Verde Valley Swinging Bridge Estates Yavapai 16 North 4 East 34 8 53-501530 Adequate 6/12/1979 372 Verde Valley Sycamore Farms Yavapai 16 North 3 East 35 17 53-501531 Adequate 1/1/1979 373 Verde Valley Sycamores II, The Yavapai 14 North 5 East 1 6 53-501532 Adequate 8/26/1983 374 Big Chino Talking Rock Ranch Yavapai 16 North 3 West 15, 16, 22 198 53-400519 Adequate 8/17/2001 Big Chino Talking Rock Ranch Phase 26 Yavapai 16 North 3 West 33, 34 38 53-401355 Adequate 9/8/2004 375 Section 5.5 Range No. of Lots Verde River Basin 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name Talking Rock Ranch Phase 27 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 8 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 9 Talking Rock Ranch Phase IV a Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 22 38 53-401175 Adequate 2/18/2004 3 West 22 80 53-401206 Adequate 2/18/2004 16 North 3 West 15, 22 107 53-401417 Adequate 9/8/2004 16 North 3 West 19 10 53-400758 Adequate 7/30/2002 Yavapai 16 North 3 West 15, 22 73 53-400831 Adequate 10/8/2002 Yavapai 16 North 3 West 15, 16 235 53-401870 Adequate 12/1/2005 Yavapai 16 North 3 West 15, 22 127 53-400675 Adequate 3/7/2002 County Township Range Section Yavapai 16 North 3 West Yavapai 16 North Yavapai Yavapai Date of Determination 376 Big Chino 377 Big Chino 378 Big Chino 379 Big Chino 380 Big Chino 381 Big Chino 383 Big Chino 384 Verde Canyon Terra Pine Gila 12 North 8 East 36 30 53-501540 Adequate 1/2/1980 385 Verde Valley The Condos at Jordan Road Coconino 17 North 6 East 8 9 53-400722 Adequate 6/14/2002 387 Verde Valley 6/16/2006 388 Verde Valley 389 Verde Valley The Preserve at Oak Creek The Villas on Elm Thunder Mountain Ranch 390 Verde Valley 391 Verde Valley 392 393 Talking Rock Ranch Phase Va&Vb& Phase VI Talking Rock Ranch Phases 10, 12, & 13 Talking Rock Ranch Phases II and III The Highlands Yavapai 16 North 3 East 29, 32 240 53-402110 Adequate Coconino 17 North 6 East 8 158 53-500009 Adequate 4/18/2007 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 2 110 53-401483 Adequate 12/1/2004 Yavapai 11/21/1995 Water Provider at the Time of Application ICR Water Users Associations, Inc. ICR Water Users Association, Inc. ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona Clarkdale Municipal Water Utility Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona 17 North 5 East 10, 11 100 53-300070 Adequate Yavapai 17 North 5 East 10 43 53-300509 Adequate 9/1/1998 Verde Valley Thunder Mountain Ranch 2 Thunder Ridge Yavapai 15 North 5 East 25 230 53-300118 Adequate 7/12/1996 Verde Valley Thunderbird Hills South #2 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 14 16 53-501543 Adequate 10/15/1975 394 Verde Valley Tierra Sienna Condominiums Yavapai 17 North 5 East 13 32 53-501556 Adequate 11/25/1987 395 Verde Valley Tierra Verde Yavapai 17 North 5 East 14 9 53-401976 Adequate 4/24/2006 396 Verde Valley Tierra Verde Estates II Yavapai 15 North 3 East 4 10 53-402222 Adequate 9/1/2006 397 Verde Valley Tierra Verde Subdivision Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 39 53-300586 Adequate 12/22/1998 398 Verde Valley Tierra del Arte Yavapai 17 North 5 East 14 6 53-401985 Adequate 5/17/2006 399 Verde Canyon Timber Ridge Estates II Gila 10 North 10 East 4 22 53-300147 Inadequate A2 5/22/1996 400 Verde Canyon Gila 10 North 10 East 3 19 53-400231 Inadequate A1, C 1/26/2000 Town of Payson 401 Verde Valley Coconino 21 North 5 East 1 105 53-401224 Inadequate A1 3/15/2004 Utility Source, LLC 402 Verde Canyon Town & Country Estates Town Homes at Flagstaff Meadows Trailwood #1 Gila 10 North 10 East 4 104 53-501578 Inadequate A1, A2 4/14/1994 Town of Payson 403 Verde Canyon Trailwood #2 Gila 10 North 10 East 4 86 53-501579 Inadequate A1, A2, C 12/7/1994 Town of Payson 404 Verde Canyon Trailwood #3 Gila 10 North 10 East 4 123 53-300028 Inadequate A2 7/26/1995 Town of Payson 405 Verde Valley Two Ponds Estates Yavapai 14 North 4 East 12 4 53-501588 Adequate 7/24/1980 406 Verde Valley Valley Shadows Yavapai 17 North 5 East 14 158 53-501600 Adequate 3/21/1974 407 Verde Valley Valley View Estates Yavapai 16 North 3 East 17 28 53-300469 Inadequate Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision 408 Big Chino Valley View Ranch Yavapai 16 North 3 West 20, 29, 32 126 53-700220 Adequate 409 Verde Valley Ventana Vista Yavapai 15 North 3 East 15 69 53-501608 Inadequate 410 Verde Valley Verde Cliffs Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 208 53-401354 Inadequate 411 Verde Valley Verde Monterey Yavapai 15 North 3 East 11 14 53-501609 412 Verde Valley Verde Outpost Yavapai 14 North 5 East 31 28 53-501610 308 A1 6/17/1998 Oak Creek Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona Town of Payson 6/26/2007 Tipeji Domestic Water Improvement District B, C 1/18/1994 Cordes Lakes Water Company D 7/21/2004 Camp Verde Water System Adequate 10/1/1984 Cordes Lakes Water Company Adequate 3/12/1980 Camp Verde Water System Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Sub-Basin Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination C Water Provider at the Time of Application 413 Verde Valley Verde Park Yavapai 13 North 5 East 9, 16 59 53-501611 Inadequate 1/26/1982 Dry Lot Subdivision 414 Verde Valley Verde Ranchettes Yavapai 15 North 4 East 17 17 53-501612 Adequate 2/4/1985 415 Verde Valley Verde Santa Fe (1997) Yavapai 15 North 4 East 6 103 53-300257 Adequate 2/21/1997 Dry Lot Subdivision Verde Santa Fe Water Company 416 Verde Valley Verde Valley Business Park Yavapai 14 North 4 East 15 23 53-401142 Adequate 1/12/2004 417 Verde Valley Verde Village #6 Yavapai 15 North 3 East 10, 11 19 53-300170 Adequate 9/6/1996 418 Verde Valley Verde West Acres #2 Yavapai 14 North 4 East 14 16 53-501613 Inadequate 419 Verde Valley Village Park Yavapai 16 North 6 East 18 25 53-501634 Adequate 9/10/1980 420 Verde Valley Villages Estates Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13, 14 25 53-401469 Adequate 12/3/2004 421 Verde Valley Vista Grande Ranch Yavapai 15 North 3 East 3 48 53-300488 Adequate 7/22/1998 422 Verde Valley Vista Montana Yavapai 17 North 5 East 12 60 53-501650 Adequate 4/8/1981 423 Verde Canyon Gila 12 North 8 East 29 29 53-501663 Adequate 12/12/1974 424 Verde Valley Walnut Glen Water's Edge At Simonton Ranch Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona City of Cottonwood Arizona Water Company Sedona E & R Water Company Yavapai 14 North 5 East 30, 31 10 53-700347 Adequate 7/13/2007 Camp Verde Water System 425 Verde Valley Western Hills Yavapai 17 North 5 East 2, 11 79 53-501668 Adequate 8/15/1977 426 Verde Valley Western Hills #2 Yavapai 17 North 5 East 11 63 53-501669 Adequate 427 Verde Canyon Western Manor Gila 11 North 10 East 33, 34 26 53-501671 Inadequate C 6/9/1975 6/12/1979 A1, A2 12/27/1974 428 Verde Valley Westward Yavapai 17 North 5 East 2, 11 25 53-501673 Adequate 3/25/1980 429 Big Chino Whispering Canyon Yavapai 16 North 3 West 33, 34 400 53-400580 Adequate 3/7/2002 430 Verde Canyon Whitney Ranch Estates Maricopa 6 North 9 East 7 20 53-300033 Adequate 8/19/1997 431 Verde Valley 432 Verde Canyon Wild Turkey Townhouses #2 Wildwood 433 Verde Valley 434 435 Yavapai 16 North 5 East 13 82 53-501683 Adequate Gila 10 North 10 East 5 99 53-501687 Inadequate Wilma Overal Property Yavapai 17 North 5 East 27 5 53-501691 Adequate Big Chino Wineglass Estates Yavapai 18 North 2 West 19 67 53-700374 Adequate Big Chino Wineglass Lake Estates Yavapai 18 North 3 West 13 117 53-501696 Inadequate 12/26/1978 A1, A2 Camp Verde Water System Cordes Lakes Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Arizona Water Company Sedona United Utilities Company Arizona Water Company Sedona ICR Water Users Association Whitney Ranch Estates Property Owners' Association Big Park Water Company 7/20/1983 Town of Payson 8/10/1989 Dry Lot Subdivision 9/11/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 10/15/1993 Dry Lot Subdivision 436 Verde Canyon Wonder Valley Gila 11 North 10 East 11 8 53-501700 Adequate 8/22/1975 Co-op water system 437 Verde Canyon Gila 11 North 10 East 33 396 53-501701 Inadequate A2, C 5/31/1995 Town of Payson 438 Verde Canyon Gila 10 North 10 East 4, 5 102 53-501702 Inadequate A1, A2 1/6/1981 Town of Payson 439 Verde Canyon Woodhill #1-8 Woodland Meadows #1 (amended) Woodland Meadows #2 Gila 10 North 10 East 4, 5 91 53-501703 Inadequate A1, A2 11/9/1982 Town of Payson 440 Verde Canyon Woodland Meadows #3 Gila 10 North 10 East 4 84 53-501704 Inadequate A1, A2 6/20/1984 Town of Payson 441 Verde Canyon Woodland Meadows #4 Gila 10 North 10 East 4, 5 24 53-501705 Inadequate A1, A2 4/12/1988 Town of Payson Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 15 North 5 East 26 101 43-401859 11/7/2005 Arizona Water Company - Rimrock 19 North 3 West 19 North 4 West 18 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 6,016 43-402044 3/11/2008 NA 20 North 4 West B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Sub-basin Subdivision Name County 21 Verde Valley Beaver Creek Preserve Yavapai 60 Section 5.5 Big Chino Chino Grande Yavapai Verde River Basin 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35 309 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (Cont)1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Sub-basin Subdivision Name Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application NA County 124 Big Chino Frontier Ranch Yavapai 17 North 2 West 19 450 43-700433 3/19/2008 132 Verde Valley Groves Property Yavapai 16 North 4 East 23 40 43-700352 8/10/2007 NA 144 Verde Valley Homestead at Camp Verde, The (1999) Yavapai 14 North 4 East 25, 36 Camp Verde Water System Long Meadow Ranch Yavapai 30, 31 19 14, 23, 24, 26 12/22/1999 Big Chino 5 East 3 West 4 West 43-400183 178 14 North 16 North 16 North 393 994 43-700418 11/24/2008 Undetermined 205 Verde Valley Mingus Panorama Estates Yavapai 16 North 4 East 35 69 43-402259 9/11/2006 Undetermined 293 Verde Valley Retreat on Oak Creek Yavapai 17 North 5 East 27, 34 42 43-700209 4/19/2007 Undetermined 352 Verde Valley Spring Creek Ranch Talking Rock Ranch Phases 2-8 Yavapai 16 North 4 East 98 43-402086 8/11/2006 Yavapai 16 North 3 West 15, 21, 22 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 28, 33 1,557 43-400556 12/20/2001 Undetermined ICR Water Users Association The Highlands Yavapai 16 North 3 East 240 43-401910 1/20/2006 382 Big Chino 386 Verde Valley 29, 32 Undetermined C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Basin County Designation No. Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand a American Ranch DWID Yavapai 40-400437.0000 108 1/11/2000 3/14/2002 2010 b Big Park Water Company Yavapai 40-400325.0000 1,005 1/2/2000 6/30/2000 2010 c Camp Verde Water System Yavapai 40-700446.0000 622.2 11/6/2007 4/15/2008 2017 d Little Park Water Company Yavapai 40-400324.0000 42.8 4/21/2000 10/30/2000 2010 e Verde Santa Fe Water Company Yavapai 40-400876.0000 503 1/17/2003 5/23/2003 2010 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Data not available to ADWR 310 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 312 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 313 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 314 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Verde River Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. (Effluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005a, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005c Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005e, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 315 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005g, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005h, Wells55: Database. _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2000, Verde River watershed study, 473 pp. _____, 1996, Water supplies in the Payson, Pine Strawberry area: Information packet from ADWR, April 1996, 2 pp. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2007 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Blasch, K., J. Hoffman, J. Bryson, A. Flint and L. Graser, 2006, Hydrologic investigations of the upper and middle Verde watersheds: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5198. D Diroll, M. and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Map and Table) E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 316 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) M McGavock, E., 2003 Big Chino Aquifer: Knowns, unknowns and conflicting interpretations: Errol L Montgomery & Assoc., Tri-City Water Forum, 2003, 4 pp. N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2006 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. S Salt River Project (SRP), 2008, Low flow gages, accessed in 2008 at www.watershedmonitor. com Southwest Groundwater Consultants Inc., 2005, Big Chino ranch hydrology study. U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid. cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:/ Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 317 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Wirt, L., E. DeWitt, and V. Langenheim, eds., 2005, Geologic framework of aquifer units and groundwater flowpaths, Verde River headwaters, north central Arizona: USGS Open –file report 2004-1411. (Groundwater Conditions Map) Supplemental Reading Alam, J., 1997, Irrigation in the Verde Valley: A report on the irrigation diversion improvement project: Verde Natural Resource Conservation District, 96 pp. Amentt, M.A., 2002, Hydrogeology and evapotranspiration of the herbaceous understory at a high-elevation riparian community, Hart Prairie, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 170 pp. Amentt, M., A.E. Springer and L. DeWald, 2000, Restoration of perched aquifer system through manipulation of transpiration at the watershed scale: Geol. Soc. Abstracts with Programs: v. 32, p. A-141. 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. Anning, D.W., 2004, Effects of natural and human factors on stream water quality in central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. ______, 2003a, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. ______, 2003b, Evaluation of low flow data from three streamflow gaging stations on the Upper Verde River, Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. _______, 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2001, TMDL report: Peck’s Lake. _____, 2001, Verde River TMDL for Turbidity. _____, 2002, TMDL report: Stoneman Lake. 318 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 1999, TMDL report: Munds Creek - headwaters to Oak Creek. _____, 1987, TMDL report: Oak Creek - headwaters to Verde River. Arizona Department of Health Services, 1981, Arizona Water Quality Control Council Unique Waters Policy: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, April 1981. Arizona Rivers Coalition, 1991, Arizona rivers, life blood of the desert – a citizen’s proposal for the protection of rivers in Arizona: March Arizona State Parks, 1991, Verde River Corridor Project Final Report and Plan of Action. Arizona Water Company, 2007a, System Water Plan: Pinewood Water System, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. ______, 2007b, System Water Plan: Sedona Water System and Valley Vista Water System, submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff & W. Elmor, 1991, The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems: Fisheries, vol.16, no. 1. Averitt, E. M., 1991, Verde River corridor environmental planning recommendations: Department of Planning, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University, Spring 1992. _____, 1990, Verde River corridor - Clarkdale, an ecological inventory and analysis: Department of Planning, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University, April 1990. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Report GTR-29. Baldys, S., 1990, Trend analysis of selected water-quality constituents in the Verde River basin, central Arizona: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4128. Baldys, S. and H.W. Hjalmarson, 1994, Effects of controlled burning of chaparral on stream flow and sediment characteristics, east fork Sycamore Creek, central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 93-4102, 33 pp. Barnett, L.O. and R.H. Hawkins, 2002, Reconnaissance watershed analysis on the upper and middle Verde watershed: School of Renewable Resources, University of Arizona, 116 pp. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 319 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Big Park Water Company (Sedona, AZ), 2007, Water Supply Plan: Big Park Water Company and Little Park Water Company, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Black Canyon City Water Improvement District, 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Black and Vetch, 2006, Town of Payson Blue Ridge Reservoir Water Supply Pipeline and Treatment Plant. Black, C. H. Ajami, P. Guertin, L. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan: Verde Watershed, available at www.ArizonaNEMO.org Bouchard and Associates, 1994, Fossil Creek hydrology and travertine geomorphology: Arizona Public Service Report. Breninger, J.O., 2002, Perceptions of water supply in the Pine Strawberry area: Pine – Strawberry Water Improvement District, August 2002, 10 p. Brooks, P, 2004, Recent findings on snow/vegetation impacts on runoff: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. BRW Inc., 1990, Camp Verde land use and transportation study: Final report, March 15. Bryson, J., 2004, Determination of groundwater flow paths by the use of geochemical Tracers - upper and middle Verde River watersheds, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Byrkit, J. W., 1978, A log of the Verde: The taming of an Arizona river: Journal of Arizona History, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 31-54. Camp Verde Water System, Inc. 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Carpenter, T.L., 2001, The origin of isotopically anomalous waters of the Mogollon Rim region of Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 107 pp. Clifton, C., 1989, Effects of vegetation and land use on channel morphology: In Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management, An Educational Workshop, Bureau of Land Management publication. City of Cottonwood, 2006, Drought and Water Shortage Preparedness Plan, Chapter 13.16 Cottonwood Municipal Code. ______, 2003, Cottonwood General Plan: Water Resources Element, Adopted December 16, 2003. 320 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 City of Sedona, 2002, Sedona Community Plan: Water Resources Element, Adopted December 10, 2002 Coconino County, 2008, Kachina Village Area Plan Update, Approved by Coconino County Board of Supervisors May 20, 2008. ______, 1989, Oak Creek Canyon Area Plan, as amended, Approved by Coconino County Board of Supervisors June 1989. ______, 2001, Parks Area Plan, Approved by Coconino County Board of Supervisors September 17, 2001. Cook, E.A., et al., 1991, Verde River corridor - Environmental planning recommendations: Department of Planning, Arizona State University, Spring, 1991. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Corkhill, F., 2000, Report on the drilling of an exploratory borehole near Strawberry, Arizona: ADWR Hydrology section investigation for the Northern Gila County Water Plan Alliance, 33 p. 145. Darr, M., J., 1989, Hydrogeology of Oak Creek, Verde Valley Arizona: Northern University of Arizona, M. S. thesis. Dava and Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Dent, C.L., 1999, The effects of ecosystem configuration on nutrient dynamics in a Sonoran Desert stream ecosystem: Arizona State University, Ph. D. dissertation, 267 pp. Deslauriers, E.C., 1977, Geophysics and hydrology of the lower Verde River valley, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 61 p. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H.Webb, 1993, Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Flora, S., and A. Springer, 2003, Variability of discharge for selected springs in the Verde River watershed, central Arizona: Implications for regional hydrogeology: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. ______, 2003a Summary table of physical parameters of middle Verde watershed springs: Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, 1 pp. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 321 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ______, 2003b, Implications for regional hydrogeology of an Arizona rural watershed based on spring discharge variability and recharge response: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35. ______, 2002, Hydrogeological characterization of springs in the Verde River watershed, central Arizona: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, p. 25. Garrett, L.G. and R. Petersen, 1996, Green Valley Park Groundwater Recharge Project: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrologic Society Symposium, September 1996, p.107. Gavin, A.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and numerical simulation of a spring-dominated high-elevation riparian community, Hart Prairie, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 177 pp. Gavin, A.J. and A.E. Springer, 1997, Conservation of a rare riparian community through hydrological restoration: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, p. 178. Gavin, A.J., A.E. Springer, L. DeWald, S. Silbert and E. Smith, 1996, Restoration of the volcanic hydrogeology of a critical high-elevation riparian community in Arizona: Geological Society of America, 28th annual meeting. Denver, CO, United States, Oct. 2831, 1996, Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America. 28; 7, p. 347-348. Gebler, 2000, Organochloride compounds in streambed sediments and in biological tissue from streams and their relation to land use, central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 00-4041, 21 pp. Gellenbeck, D.J., and D.W. Anning, 2001, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in central Arizona basins, 19961998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 014144, 107 pp. Geraghty, and Miller Inc, 1992, Water resources plan, town of Camp Verde, phase I- current management, legal framework and short and long term strategies: consultant report for town of Camp Verde, 68 pp . Goodwin, P.G., M. Olade and W. Ruddiman, 1996, Characterization and interim remediation of tetrachloroethene plume in the Payson Granite aquifer:in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, p.115. Governor’s Riparian Habitat Task Force, 1990, Streams and riparian resources: Final report and recommendations. 322 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Graybill, D.A., 1989, The reconstruction of prehistoric Salt River stream flow: in The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Environment and Subsistence: Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No.162. Hanrahan, C., 1997, Modeling the Beaver Creek research watershed, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. 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 pp. Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Jacobs, K.L., and L.S. Stitzer, 2006, Water supply and management in rural Arizona, in Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations in an Urbanizing Arid Region, Resources for the Future Press. Jones, C., 2003, Public policy, cows, riparian areas, drought, sustainability and the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues and Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona . Kaczmarek, M., 2003, Investigation of groundwater availability for the Pine-Strawberry Water Improvement District: Morrison Maierle Inc. Keadle, D.A., C.A. Brown, S. Eichberg, W.D. Musielak, T. Whitmer and K.L. Rall, 1999, Verde River watershed study: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Kelly, S., A. Springer and M. Vanderbilt, 1999, Recharge mechanisms for the CoconinoSchnebly Hill aquifer in the Lake Mary area, Coconino County, Northern Arizona: 12th Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 9-10, 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Knauth, P. and M. Greebie, 1997, Stable isotope investigation of groundwater-surface water interactions in the Verde River headwaters area: Arizona Department of Water Resources Report Konieczki, A.D., J.G. Brown, and J.T. Parker, 2008, Hydrologic Data from the Study of Acidic Contamination in the Miami Wash-Pinal Creek Area, Arizona, Water Years 1997-2004: USGS Open File Report 2008-1273. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 323 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Konieczki, A.D. and S.A. Leake, 1997, Hydrogeology and water chemistry of Montezuma well in Montezuma Castle National Monument and surrounding area, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4156. Langenheim, V.E., E. DeWitt and L. Wirt, 2006, Geophysical framework based on analysis of aeromagnetic and gravity data, Upper and Middle Verde River watershed, Yavapai County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5278, 25 p. Leon, E., 2004, Numerical groundwater flow model of the Verde River headquarters area, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Lopez, S.M. and A.E. Springer, 2001a, Upper Verde Valley riparian area historical analysis: Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, 18 pp. ______, 2001b, Assessment of human influence on riparian change in the Verde Valley, Arizona: Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, 43 pp. Maguire, R., 2005, An Analysis of the Water Budgets of Buckeye, Payson and Prescott Valley, Think AZ. Mclaughlin, C., 2003, Evaporation as a nutrient retention mechanism in Sycamore Creek: Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 56 pp. McGavock, E., 2002, Water in the Verde River watershed: in Water Transfers, Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. ______, 1996, Overview of groundwater conditions in the Verde Valley, Arizona: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p. 65. Megdal, S., K. Mott Lacroix, and A. Schwarz, 2006, Projects to Enhance Arizona’s Environment: An Examination of their Functions, Water Requirements and Public Benefits: University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center. Manera, P.A., 1994, Geohydrologic evaluation of the Portal IV subdivision, Pine, Gila County, Arizona: Austin Myers Development Co., March 1994, 22 pp. Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 pp. Mondry, Z., 2002, Drought, storms, and stream flow and temperature observations from the Coconino and Prescott National Forests: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s 324 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Moore, D., 1989, Opportunities for riparian ecosystem preservation in the Verde River Basin, Arizona: in Headwaters’ Hydrology: American Water Resources Association’s Symposium, June 1989, Missoula, MT. Navarro, L.F., A.E. Springer and S.P. Maslansky, 2000, Modeling sustainable yield in a semi-arid, shallow groundwater basin supporting riparian vegetation and perennial springs: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 32 p. 141. Navarro, L.F., 2002, Characterization and ground-water flow modeling of the Mint Wash/ Williamson Valley area, Yavapai County: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 158 pp. Navarro, L.F., A.E. Springer and S.P. Maslansky, 1999, Characterizing the impacts of the conversion of a semi-arid ground water basin from rural to suburban development: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 31, p. 351. Nemecek, E.A., 2003, Sustainability of Arizona’s few remaining perennial streams: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Northern Arizona University, 2001, Proceedings, Verde watershed symposium-state of the watershed in 2001:Verde Watershed Research and Education Program, Center for Sustainable Environments. Ostenaa, D.A., U.S. Schimschal, C.E. King, J.W. Wright, R.B. Furgerson, H.C. Harrel and R.H. Throner, 1993, Big Chino Valley Groundwater Study: Bureau of Reclamation, Denver office, Geologic Framework Investigations, 31 pp. Oureshi, T. and L.A. Baker, 1994, Sources and implications of arsenic in the Salt and Verde river watersheds: in Approaching the Millennium- Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 67. Oureshi, M.T.A., 1995, Sources of arsenic in the Verde River and the Salt River watersheds, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 116 pp. Parker, J., Steinkampf, W. and Flynn, M., 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294. Pearthree, P.A. 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Verde River: AZGS Open-File Report 9613, 26 pp. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 325 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ______, 1993, Geologic and geomorphic setting of the Verde River from Sullivan Lake to Horseshoe Reservoir: AZGS Open – File Report 93-4, 25 pp. Pedler, W. H. and M. Kennard, 1992, Hydro-physical logging: an advance wellbore technology for hydrologic and containment characterization of aquifers: in Arizona Water 2000: Proceedings from the 5th annual Commission on the Arizona Environment and Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1992, , p. 259-265. Discusses Payson Pierce, H.A., 2001, Structural controls on groundwater conditions and estimated aquifer properties near Bill Williams Mountain, Williams Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 01- 4058. ______, 1996, Groundwater availability in the vicinity of Payson, Arizona-transition zone between the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, p.103. Pine Water Company, Inc., 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Ploughe, M. and C.M. Conway, 2002, Finding water in the cracks, Payson, Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Raney, W., 1989, Verde Valley, a geological history: Plateau Vol. 60, No. 3. Reiboldt, A., C. Schlinger and A. Springer, 2002, Wastewater treatment plant effluent discharges in northern Arizona: Perennial flow as a successor to ephemeral flow in a fractured and faulted setting: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Rice, S.E., 2007, Springs as indicators of drought: Physical and geochemical analyses in the middle Verde River watershed, Arizona: Northern Arizona University M.S. Thesis. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 pp. Rogers, S.B., 1999, Geochemistry and Natural Attenuation of Acid Mine Drainage at the Iron King Mine, Cottonwood, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 121 p. Rusinek, W., 1986, Battle for the Verde River: Water, power and politics in Arizona, 1890-1934: Arizona Historical Society Symposium, May 1987, Douglas, Arizona. Sayers, R.C., 1994, Potential impact of stream flow diversion on riparian vegetation: Fossil Creek, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M. .S. thesis. 326 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Schlinger, C., 2003, Sediment transport evaluation for dam removal scenarios, Fossil Springs Diversion Dam, Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Schwab, K.J., 1995, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Big Chino sub-basin of the Verde River Basin, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, Arizona Department of Water Resources HMS No. 28 - 000243 Sommerfield, M.R., P.V. Athey and B.C. Mueller, 1980, Impact of recreation on the water quality of the East Verde River: in Water Quality Monitoring and Management: Proceedings from the Arizona Water Resources Association Symposium, October 1980, Tucson, Arizona, p. 51-69. 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. Steiner, F., et.al, 1991, Draft environmental impact statement, Central Arizona Project, Verde River water transfers, Yavapai County, Arizona: Arizona State University, Department of Planning. _____, 1990, Verde River Corridor-Clarkdale: Arizona State University, Department of Planning, December 1990. Sullivan, M.E., 1993, Functions and values of the Verde River riparian ecosystem and an assessment of adverse impacts to these resources: Supporting document for the initiation of the Verde River advance identification: USEPA, Region 9, March, 364 pp. Thornburg, T. and P. Tabor, 1991, Verde River corridor project, final report and plan of action: Arizona State Parks, June 1991. Town of Camp Verde, 2005, General Plan: Water Resources Element, Ratified by Voters March 8, 2005. Town of Payson Water Department, 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. ______, 2006, Town of Payson Water Resources Management 2005 Status Report. ______, 2005, Town of Payson Water Resources Management 2005 Status Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2003, Water Use Projections Verde Valley Arizona. ______, 2000, Appraisal level study of Water Delivery System Analyses: North Central Arizona Regional Water Supply Project. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 327 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 United States Congress, 1990, The Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of1990: 161st Congress, 2nd session, Senate committee on Indian Affairs, Report no. 101-479. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1982, Verde River: Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement: USFS, Southwestern Region, September 1982. U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Aquifer framework and groundwater flow paths in the Big and Little Chino basin: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-078. ______, 1991, Basin characteristics and stream flow statistics in Arizona as of 1989: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4041. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, Advance identification of functions and values of the Verde River, Arizona: Final Study Plan Verde Watershed Association and the USDA, 1996, Summary report, Verde Cooperative River Basin Study, Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai counties, Arizona, 34 pp. Verde Watershed Symposium, 2001, State of the Watershed in 2001: Proceedings, Cliff Castle Lodge and Conference Center, Camp Verde, Arizona. 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. Weiztman, M., 2002, Geology and hydrology of the Payson, Strawberry, Diamond Ridge areas, Gila and Coconino counties, central Arizona: AZGS Bulletin CR-02-B, 17 pp. Whitmore, W., E.A. Cook and F. Steiner, 1991, Verde River visual assessment: Verde River Corridor Study, Tapico to Beasley Flat: Arizona State University, Department of Planning, draft report, May 1991. Wilkinson, R.W., 2000, Water resources of Bellemont Park, Coconino County, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 263 pp. Wirt, L., 2004, Hydrogeologic Review of the Drake Cement Project, Yavapai County Arizona: USGS Open File Report 2004-1439. Wirt, L., and H.W. Hjalmarson, 2000, Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 99-0378, 47 pp. ______, 1999, Geologic controls on groundwater movement, upper Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. 328 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Wirt, L., 1992, The use of stable isotopes and water chemistry to determine movement of water in the upper Verde River basin, Yavapai County, Arizona: in Protecting Riparian Systems-Meeting the Challenges of Urban Needs: Abstracts from the 6th annual meeting of the Arizona Riparian Council, April 1992, Cottonwood Arizona, p. 16-17. Woodhouse, B.G, and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Investigation of the geology and hydrology of the upper and middle Verde River watershed of central Arizona: A project of the Rural Arizona Initiative, USGS Fact Sheet 059-02. Woodhouse, B.G., J.T.C. Parker, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2000, USGS investigation of rural Arizona watersheds: Coconino Plateau, upper and middle Verde River, and Fossil Creek- East Verde River -Tonto Creek: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p. 97. Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee, 2004, Big Chino sub-basin historical and current water uses and water use projections: Draft, Feb.2004, 38 pp. Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 329 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAWS ACC ADMMR ADWR ADEQ AGFD ALERT ALRIS AMA AWPF AZMET BIA BLM CAP CERCLA CLIMAS CPC DES DOD EPA ESA FCD GIS gpcd gpm GWSI HIA HSR HUC ITCA LUST maf M&I NEMO NHD NOAA NPS NRCD NRCS NWIS NWS Pan ET PCE Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Game and Fish Department Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Bureau of Land Management Central Arizona Project Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Climate Assessment for the Southwest Center for Plant Conservation Arizona Department of Economic Security United States Department of Defense Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Flood Control District Geographic Information System Gallons per capita per day Gallons per minute Groundwater Site Inventory System Historically Irrigated Acres Hydrographic Survey Report Hydrologic Unit Code Intertribal Council of Arizona Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Municipal and Industrial Non-point Education for Municipal Officials National Hydrography Dataset National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water Information System National Weather Service Pan Evaportranspiration tetrachloroethene Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 331 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 PDO SNOTEL SRP TDS USBOR USDA USFS USFWS USGS VRP WAC WIFA WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP Pacific Decadal Oscillation SNOpack TELemetry Salt River Project Total Dissolved Solids United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Voluntary Remediation Program Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant 332 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix A Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 333 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 APPENDIX A AWPF Funded Projects In the Central Highlands Planning Area through FY 2008 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Agua Fria 96-0007 Ash Creek Riparian Protection Project Stream Restoration Agua Fria 03-117 Lynx Creek Restoration at Sediment Trap #2 Stream Restoration Salt River 95-021 Lofer Cienega Restoration Project Fencing & Habitat Protection Salt River 95-022 Gooseberry Watershed Restoration Project Stream Restoration Salt River 99-083 Cherry Creek Enhancement Demonstration Project Stream Restoration Salt River 05-128 Canyon Creek Riparian Restoration Project, Reach 4-5 Fencing & Habitat Protection Tonto Creek 95-019 Quantifying Anti-Erosion Traits of Streambank Graminoids Tonto Creek 99-097 Dakini Valley Riparian Project Upper Hassayampa 99-088 Wickenburg High School Stream Habitat Creation Verde River 95-001 Stable Isotope Assessment of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction – Application to the Verde River Headwaters Research Verde River 95-003 Sycamore Creek Riparian Management Area Fencing Verde River 95-004 Road Reclamation to Improve Riparian Habitat Along the Hassayampa and Verde Rivers Verde River 95-006 Critical Riparian Habitat Restoration Along a Perennial Reach of a Verde River Tributary Verde River 95-017 Restoration of Fossil Creek Riparian Ecosystem Research Verde River 97-030 Walnut Creek Center for Education and Research – Biological Inventory Research Project Title 334 Page 1 of 11 Project Category Research Fencing & Revegetation Constructed Wetland Restoration Revegetation Stream Restoration Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Verde River 98-047 Upper Verde Adaptive Management Unit Verde River 98-050 Watershed Restoration of a High Elevation Riparian Community Project Title Project Category Fencing Watershed & Stream Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Verde River 98-055 Horseshoe Allotment: Verde Riparian Project II Verde River 98-057 Upper Verde Valley Riparian Area Historical Analysis Research Verde River 98-058 Effects of Removal of Livestock Grazing on Riparian Vegetation and Channel Conditions of Selected Reaches of the Upper Verde River Research Verde River 98-059 Verde River Headwaters Riparian Restoration Demonstration Project Verde River 99-078 Aquifer Framework and Ground-Water Flow Paths in Big and Little Chino Basins Research Verde River 99-091 Effects of Livestock Use Levels on Riparian Trees on the Verde River Research Verde River 03-118 Verde River Riparian Area Partnership Project Verde River 04-120 Verde River Headwaters 3-D Hydrogological Model Framework and Visualization Research Verde River 05-133 Verde Wild and Scenic River Fence Exclosure Fencing Verde River 07-149 Control of Tamarisk on 12 Miles if the Upper Verde River Verde River 08-161 Montezuma Well Riparian Pasture Restoration Project Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Page 2 of 11 Channel Restoration Exotic Species Control Habitat Protection Habitat Restoration 335 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 336 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix B Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 337 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans PCC 91-000692 FACILITY ARCOSANTI CAMP 91-000645 BLACK CANYON CITY WID BRADSHAW MT VIEW WATER COLDWATER CANYON COLDWATER CANYON WC CORDES LAKE WATER COMPANY CORDES LAKES I 91-000657 91-000658 91-000638 91-000646 91-000678 91-000614 91-000616 91-000659 91-000679 91-000628 91-000655 91-000662 91-000689 91-000288 91-000155 Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 2006 Delivered 2007 Delivered to Withdrawn NR AGF AGF 266 266 247 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 246 246 247 CUSTOMER 181 181 145 CUSTOMER AGF 184 184 148 CUSTOMER AGF 36 36 37 CUSTOMER NR AGF 73 73 73 CUSTOMER NR AGF 290 290 253 CUSTOMER 283 283 255 CUSTOMER AGF 63 63 250 CUSTOMER 55 55 55 CUSTOMER CORDES LAKES II AGF 327 327 250 CUSTOMER 355 355 355 CUSTOMER CORDES LAKES III CORDES LAKES VI, VII, VIII GAMBEL QUAIL MH & RV PARK MAYER DOMESTIC WATER IMPR AGF 165 165 250 CUSTOMER 171 171 171 CUSTOMER AGF 621 621 250 CUSTOMER 592 592 592 CUSTOMER AGF 11 11 11 CUSTOMER 11 11 11 CUSTOMER AGF 114 114 123 CUSTOMER 108 108 124 CUSTOMER ORME RANCH SCHOOL AGF 18 9 CUSTOMER 29 29 CUSTOMER 2,686 2,686 2686 CUSTOMER 3 3 4 CUSTOMER PHILADELPHIA WATER SYSTEM QUARTER CIRCLE V BAR RANCH APACHE LAKE MARINARESORT APACHE TRAIL MHP AGF NR 9 NR 9 9 CUSTOMER SRB 26 SRB 9 8,458 26 26 CUSTOMER 9 8 CUSTOMER 8,458 8458 CUSTOMER SRB 91-000165 DEROSE TRAILER PARK SRB 8 8 8 CUSTOMER 91-000122 91-000162 GLOBE, CITY OF HOLIDAY HILLS MHP SRB SRB 1,603 4 1,603 4 1441 4 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 91-000156 PUEBLO HEIGHTS MHP ROOSEVELT LAKE ESTATES ROOSEVELT LAKE RESORT INC THE OAKS MOBILE HOME PARK CHRISTOPHER CREEK HAVEN SRB 91-000126 91-000546 91-000120 9 NR SRB 91-000137 9 NR AGF ARROYO WATER CO INC 91-000528 2007 2007 Delivered to Delivered 12 AUGUST HILLS MHP AZ WATER CO MIAMI/CLAYPOOL AZ WATER CO PINETOP LAKES AZ WATER CO - SAN MANUEL AZ WATER CO SUPERIOR SYS 91-000527 2007 Total Demand 12 91-000151 91-000374 2007 Received 12 91-000160 91-000117 2007 Diverted NR 29 NR SRB 968 968 896 CUSTOMER 1,024 1,024 939 CUSTOMER SRB 208 208 166 CUSTOMER 228 228 184 CUSTOMER 646 582 CUSTOMER 661 582 CUSTOMER 8 8 8 CUSTOMER 1,642 3 1,642 3 1480 3 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER SRB 646 NR SRB SRB NR NR 37 NR SRB NR 11 NR 37 SRB TON 661 32 NR CUSTOMER NR 11 11 338 CUSTOMER 7 7 7 CUSTOMER 15 15 13 CUSTOMER Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Page 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans (Cont) PCC FACILITY Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 2006 Delivered 2007 Delivered to Withdrawn 91-000163 CHRISTOPHER CREEK MHP TON 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 91-000130 EAST VERDE WATER TON 16 16 15 CUSTOMER 91-000150 STAR VALLEY MOTEL MH & RV TON 91-000138 STAR VALLEY WATER TON 77 77 72 CUSTOMER TON 7 7 7 CUSTOMER 91-000127 91-000212 91-000129 91-000148 91-000184 91-000615 91-000189 91-000672 91-000267 91-000256 91-000198 91-000642 91-000643 91-000605 91-000606 91-000607 91-000082 91-000635 TONTO CREEK UTILITY CO TONTO HILLS UTILITY COMPANY TONTO VILLAGE WATER CO UNITED UTILITIES DEER CREEK CABALLEROS WATER CO CONGRESS DWID COUNTRY CLUB ACRES WATER INC ESCAPEES AT NORTH RANCH G LAZY B MOBILE HOME PARK STONEHEDGE ESTATES WICKENBURG, TOWN OF YARNELL WATER IMPROVEMENT ASSN YAVAPAI COUNTRY CLUB WATER ABRA WC ASH FORK WATER SERVICE AUBREY WATER COSELIGMAN AZ WATER CO PINEWOOD AZ WATER CO RIMROCK 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 4 4 4 CUSTOMER 8 7 CUSTOMER 259 259 259 CUSTOMER 78 78 78 CUSTOMER 47 47 47 CUSTOMER 18 18 CUSTOMER 1,729 1,729/444 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 9 9 CUSTOMER NR NR 8 NR NR TON 24 24 20 CUSTOMER NR TON 27 27 26 CUSTOMER NR UHA 96 96 96 CUSTOMER NR UHA 270 270 270 CUSTOMER NR UHA UHA 39 39 UHA 39 CUSTOMER NR UHA 5 UHA 1,944 UHA 6 NR 5 UHA 5 2007 2007 Delivered to Delivered NR NR TON 2007 Total Demand 5 CUSTOMER 1,944 1,944/464 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 18 1,729 6 6 CUSTOMER 9 5 5 5 VRB 163 163 149 CUSTOMER 169 169 169 CUSTOMER VRB 125 125 119 CUSTOMER 138 138 126 CUSTOMER VRB 176 176 114 CUSTOMER 155 155 126 CUSTOMER VRB 342 342 262 CUSTOMER 390 390 286 CUSTOMER VRB 326 326 288 CUSTOMER 337 337 301 CUSTOMER VRB 3,332 3,332 3073 CUSTOMER 3,396 3,396 3131 CUSTOMER 91-000083 AZ WATER CO - SEDONA WATER SYSTEM 91-000663 AZ WATER CO - VALLEY VISTA VRB 420 420 406 CUSTOMER 432 432 413 CUSTOMER 91-000694 BEAVER CREEK STORE VRB 8 8 7 CUSTOMER 8 8 7 CUSTOMER 91-000119 BEAVER VALLEY WC VRB 7 31 31 CUSTOMER 91-000609 91-000693 BIG PARK WATER CO BUFFALO RUN MHP CAMP VERDE WATER SYS-VER VRB VRB 880 880 833 CUSTOMER 925 886 CUSTOMER VRB 12 15 15 CUSTOMER 91-000649 24 NR 925 NR NR 12 8 CUSTOMER 15 339 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Page 2 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans (Cont) PCC FACILITY Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 2006 Delivered 2007 Delivered to Withdrawn 91-000610 CAMP VERDE WTR SYSTEM VRB 460 460 458 CUSTOMER 91-000664 CATHEDRAL ROCK ESTATES WATER COOP VRB 2 2 2 CUSTOMER 91-000611 91-000617 91-000700 91-000613 91-000702 91-000618 91-000621 91-000698 91-000121 CATHEDRAL VISTA WC CLARKDALE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM CLEAR CREEK MOBILE HOME CLEMENCEAU WATER CO C-OASIS PARK COTTONWOOD WATER WORKS CUP OF GOLD WATER CO DELLS VIEW WC ER WATER COSTRAWBERRY 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 517 517 19 19 19 CUSTOMER 20 20 20 CUSTOMER VRB 405 405 430 CUSTOMER 487 487 435 CUSTOMER 4 4 4 CUSTOMER 254 254 254 CUSTOMER 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 1,359 1,359 1359 CUSTOMER 20 20 CUSTOMER 660 443/4 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 229 192 27 27 CUSTOMER 44 44 CUSTOMER NR VRB VRB 266 266 VRB 3 3 VRB 1,514 1,514 VRB NR VRB NR VRB 145 276 95/46 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ OTHER 20 107 25 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 573 391/4 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 145 NR NR NR VRB NR 91-000104 FOREST HIGHLANDS WATER CO VRB 569 91-000705 GILPINS TRAILER PARK VRB 11 11 11 CUSTOMER NR 91-000164 GISELA VRB 55 55 46 CUSTOMER NR 91-000152 JAKE'S CORNER VRB 91-000626 JEROME, TOWN OF VRB 90 CUSTOMER 4 VRB NR 91-000159 VRB NR 91-000651 LITTLE PARK WATER CO VRB 91-000158 196 VRB 6 6 5 CUSTOMER NR VRB 19 19 29 CUSTOMER NR VRB MESA DEL CABALLO VRB 91-000661 MICHAELS RANCH MONTEZUMA HEIGHTS WATER MONTEZUMA RIMROCK WC, LLC OAK CREEK PUBLIC SERVICE, LLC VRB 45 229 27 CUSTOMER NR 45 2 CUSTOMER NR 235 MEADS RANCH 91-000631 NR 235 91-000133 91-000648 4 LCR 91-000124 91-000677 656 NR KACHINA VILLAGE UTILITIES LAKE ROOSEVELT GARDENS EAST LAKE VERDE WATER COMPANY LAMPLIGHTER RV RESORT LAZY D RANCH MOTEL 91-000627 CUSTOMER VRB FLOWING SPRINGS 91-000128 517 NR 91-000131 91-000090 2007 2007 Delivered to Delivered 43 CUSTOMER 44 NR 2 2 CUSTOMER 13 13 12 CUSTOMER 13 13 12 CUSTOMER VRB 24 24 24 CUSTOMER 22 22 22 CUSTOMER VRB 42 42 38 CUSTOMER 46 46 46 CUSTOMER VRB 66 66 66 CUSTOMER 66 66 66 CUSTOMER NR NR 340 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Page 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans (Cont) Basin 2006 Withdrawn OAK CREEK VALLEY OAK CREEK WATER CO #1 VRB 479 479 479 CUSTOMER 568 568 567 VRB 309 309 280 CUSTOMER 317 317 290 CUSTOMER 91-000134 PAYSON, TOWN OF VRB 1,815 1,815 1,689/31 1732/31 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 91-000143 PINE CREEK CANYON DWID CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM VRB 8 8 5 CUSTOMER 91-000656 PINE VALLEY WATER CO VRB 47 47 44 CUSTOMER 47 45 CUSTOMER PINE WATER ASSN DWID PINE WC PINEDALE DOMESTIC WATER 10 10 CUSTOMER VRB 145 VRB 61 46 46 CUSTOMER PONDEROSA GLEN MHP VRB 108 88 CUSTOMER 5 5 CUSTOMER 112 112 CUSTOMER 34 34 CUSTOMER PCC 91-000665 91-000630 91-000125 91-000135 91-000392 91-000153 91-000094 91-000110 91-000650 91-000136 91-000660 FACILITY PONDEROSA UTILITY CORPORATION RAINBOW TP RED ROCK CROSSING MOBILE RIM TRAIL DWID SEDONA VENTURE WATER SYST VRB VRB 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 8 27 82 8 6 CUSTOMER 172 152 CUSTOMER 61 59 CUSTOMER 2007 Total Demand 1,837 2007 2007 Delivered to Delivered CUSTOMER NR 47 10 NR 46 77 CUSTOMER 108 NR 6 6 CUSTOMER 5 111 111 CUSTOMER 112 NR NR 111 2007 Received NR 82 6 2007 Diverted 1,837 NR VRB VRB 2006 2006 Delivered 2007 Delivered to Withdrawn NR VRB VRB 2006 Total Demand NR VRB NR SOLITUDE TRAILS DWID VRB NR STAR VALE MHP VRB NR VRB NR 10 10 10 CUSTOMER VRB NR 5 5 5 CUSTOMER 91-000685 SIERRA VERDE RANCH 91-000154 91-000149 34 NR SUNSET VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK SUNSHINERS MOBILE HOME PK UNITED UTILITIES GARDENS WEST UNITED UTILITIES GERONIMO ESTATES VERDE LAKES WTRSTILL WTR VERDE LKS WATERCLEAR CK VERDE LKS WATERVERDE LKS VERDE SANTA FE VRB 88 88 74 CUSTOMER 95 95 75 CUSTOMER VRB 189 189 176 CUSTOMER 177 177 177 CUSTOMER 91-000667 VERDE VALLEY MANOR VRB 37 37 37 CUSTOMER 36 36 36 CUSTOMER 91-000140 WHISPERING PINES VRB 15 15 14 CUSTOMER 41 41 CUSTOMER 47 47 CUSTOMER 91-000695 91-000342 91-000144 91-000132 91-000706 91-000668 91-000644 91-000812 VRB 63 63 58 CUSTOMER NR VRB 5 5 5 CUSTOMER NR VRB 78 78 60 CUSTOMER 48 48 52 CUSTOMER VRB 75 75 57 CUSTOMER 123 123 56 CUSTOMER WHITE HILLS TRAILER VRB 41 PARK WILLOWS MOBILE HOME VRB 91-000670 PARK PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) 91-000696 NR 47 NR NR 341 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Page 4 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Community Water Systems that have submitted a plan to the Department as of 12/2008 PCC 91-000614 91-000616 91-000628 91-000638 91-000645 91-000646 91-000657 91-000658 91-000659 91-000662 91-000692 91-000117 91-000122 91-000126 91-000137 91-000151 91-000155 91-000160 91-000162 91-000165 91-000288 91-000374 91-000527 91-000546 91-000120 91-000127 91-000130 91-000138 91-000148 91-000189 91-000198 91-000256 91-000615 91-000642 91-000643 91-000672 91-000082 91-000083 91-000094 91-000104 91-000121 91-000124 91-000125 91-000128 91-000131 91-000132 91-000133 91-000134 91-000135 91-000140 91-000143 NAME COLDWATER CANYON WC CORDES LAKE WATER COMPANY MAYER DOMESTIC WATER IMPR BLACK CANYON CITY WID CORDES LAKES I BRADSHAW MT VIEW WATER CORDES LAKES II CORDES LAKES III CORDES LAKES VI, VII, VIII PHILADELPHIA WATER SYSTEM ARCOSANTI CAMP AZ WATER CO - MIAMI/CLAYPOOL GLOBE, CITY OF ROOSEVELT LAKE RESORT INC ROOSEVELT LAKE ESTATES ARROYO WATER CO INC APACHE TRAIL MHP AUGUST HILLS MHP HOLIDAY HILLS MHP DEROSE TRAILER PARK APACHE LAKE MARINA-RESORT AZ WATER CO - PINETOP LAKES AZ WATER CO - SAN MANUEL THE OAKS MOBILE HOME PARK CHRISTOPHER CREEK HAVEN TONTO CREEK UTILITY CO EAST VERDE WATER STAR VALLEY WATER UNITED UTILITIES - DEER CREEK COUNTRY CLUB ACRES WATER INC WICKENBURG, TOWN OF STONEHEDGE ESTATES CONGRESS DWID YARNELL WATER IMPROVEMENT ASSN YAVAPAI COUNTRY CLUB WATER ESCAPEES AT NORTH RANCH AZ WATER CO - PINEWOOD AZ WATER CO - SEDONA WATER SYSTEM PONDEROSA UTILITY CORPOR FOREST HIGHLANDS WATER CO ER WATER CO-STRAWBERRY MEADS RANCH PINE WATER ASSN DWID LAKE ROOSEVELT GARDENS EAST FLOWING SPRINGS UNITED UTILITIES - GERONIMO ESTATES MESA DEL CABALLO PAYSON, TOWN OF PINE WC WHISPERING PINES PINE CREEK CANYON DWID 342 Basin AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF AGF SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB TON TON TON TON TON UHA UHA UHA UHA UHA UHA UHA VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Community Water Systems that have submitted a plan to the Department as of 12/2008 (Cont) PCC NAME 91-000144 UNITED UTILITIES - GARDENS WEST 91-000145 NORTH BAY ESTATES WATER 91-000154 SOLITUDE TRAILS DWID 91-000164 GISELA 91-000342 SUNSHINERS MOBILE HOME PK 91-000392 PINEDALE DOMESTIC WATER 91-000605 ABRA WC 91-000606 ASH FORK WATER SERVICE 91-000607 AUBREY WATER CO-SELIGMAN 91-000609 BIG PARK WATER CO 91-000610 CAMP VERDE WTR SYSTEM 91-000611 CATHEDRAL VISTA WC 91-000613 CLEMENCEAU WATER CO 91-000617 CLARKDALE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM 91-000618 COTTONWOOD WATER WORKS 91-000621 CUP OF GOLD WATER CO 91-000626 JEROME, TOWN OF 91-000627 LAKE VERDE WATER COMPANY 91-000630 OAK CREEK WATER CO #1 91-000631 OAK CREEK PUBLIC SERVICE, LLC 91-000635 AZ WATER CO - RIMROCK 91-000644 VERDE LKS WATER-VERDE LKS 91-000648 MONTEZUMA RIMROCK WC, LLC 91-000649 CAMP VERDE WATER SYS-VER 91-000650 RED ROCK CROSSING MOBILE 91-000651 LITTLE PARK WATER CO 91-000656 PINE VALLEY WATER CO 91-000660 SEDONA VENTURE WATER SYST 91-000661 MICHAELS RANCH 91-000663 AZ WATER CO - VALLEY VISTA 91-000665 OAK CREEK VALLEY 91-000667 VERDE VALLEY MANOR 91-000668 VERDE LKS WATER-CLEAR CK 91-000670 WILLOWS MOBILE HOME PARK 91-000677 MONTEZUMA HEIGHTS WATER 91-000685 SIERRA VERDE RANCH 91-000694 BEAVER CREEK STORE 91-000695 SUNSET VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK 91-000696 WHITE HILLS TRAILER PARK 91-000700 CLEAR CREEK MOBILE HOME 91-000702 C-OASIS PARK 91-000706 VERDE LAKES WTR-STILL WTR 91-000810 RINCON COUNTRY EAST RV PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Basin VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB VRB 343 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 344 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix C Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 345 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream flow maintenance 346 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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. 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 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 347 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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. Arizona currently has two general stream 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 statebased 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. § 45-256. The Gila Adjudication was initiated in 1974 when SRP filed a petition to determine the water rights in the Salt River Watershed above the Granite Reef Diversion. Since that time, the adjudication area has grown and now covers over 53,000 square miles. It is divided into 7 watersheds and includes 12 Indian reservations and over 24,000 parties. The LCR Adjudication was initiated by a petition filed by Phelps Dodge in 1978. This adjudication now covers 27,000 square miles and 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 348 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 other factors. However, a person Figure C-1 General Stream Adjudications in Arizona 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. Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 349 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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. 350 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 351 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 352 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix D Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 353 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 APPENDIX D: RURAL WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPS ISSUE SUMMARY (2008) 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 x x 354 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. Numeric Groundwater Model completed Strategic Plan has been Issues x x x 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 Limited groundwater data for entire region Minor Arsenic issues in Woody Mtn. Well field (9-14 ppb) Unregulated lot splits Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Watershed Partnership MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments x 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 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 Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices 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 355 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Watershed Partnership CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Payson Strawberry Pine Gila County Brooks Utilities Rim Trails WID Pine Strawberry WID Local citizens and special interests Projects & Accomplishments x x Tonto Apache Nation Mogollon Highlands Partnership ADWR SRP USFS USGS USBoR x x x x Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership 356 Mayer City Cordes Lakes Spring Valley Black Canyon Yavapai County Local Citizens ADWR ADEQ Cooperative Extension State Lands x x x x x Issues Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model completed. Completed Water Supply Appraisal Study to identify current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. Strategic Plan completed Feasibility study and cost estimates for Blue Ridge Reservoir pipeline completed Obtained approximately 3,500 ac-ft of surface water from Craigen Reservoir. Numeric groundwater model completed. x x Watershed Reconnaissance studies Active recharge site identification study. Corp of Engineers watershed appraisal study completed Corp of Engineers watershed feasibility study initiated Completed wet dry mapping of Agua Fria R. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Limited water resources to meet current demands. Environmental, supply, treatment, transportation and financing costs associated with augmentation from Blue Ridge reservoir Numerous private water companies, Arizona Corporation Commission and Domestic Water Improvement District conflicts Interbasin transfer conflicts resulting from Payson’s ability to pump from two different basins Seasonal demand issues; peaking problems County encouragement of growth in Pine and Strawberry Unresolved Indian water rights settlements Environmental issues pertaining to Fossil Creek Limited groundwater data for entire region Costs associated with hauling water Access to water development on public lands Infrastructure needs for private water companies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Proposed growth in the Mayer, Bensch Ranch and Spring Valley areas Limited groundwater supplies Little or no groundwater data Groundwater and surface water supplies are very drought sensitive Potential water quality attributed to local septic systems and discharges from Prescott Valley Poorly constructed and maintained infrastructure in some areas Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Watershed Partnership CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Primary Participants BLM/Agua Fria Nat. Monument USFS Prescott Valley Chino Valley Yavapai County Camp Verde Cottonwood Prescott Paulden Sedona Clarkdale Jerome 24 local special interest groups TNC Yavapai Water Advisory Committee Yavapai Apache Prescott Groundwater completed study x Limited funding resources for projects, infrastructure and studies x Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model Study of geologic framework of aquifer units and groundwater flow paths of Verde River headwaters using aeromagnetic and gravity data. Verde River Watershed Study. Water educational forum conducted for WAC and public with ultimate goal of developing water management plan for Verde watershed area. Big Chino Subbasin Historical and Current Water Uses and Water Use Projectionsn study. Riparian demand study of Middle Verde Numeric groundwater model completed. Prescott AMA groundwater model. Study of groundwater flow paths for upper and middle Verde using stable isotopes. Prescott purchased JWK Ranch in Big Chino to import 8,717 acft annually to Prescott and x Potential impacts resulting from the transfer of 8,717 ac-ft from Big Chino to Prescott and Prescott Valley 25,000 to 30,000 approved lots still outstanding in Prescott AMA Multiple developments currently under construction in the tri-city region of the AMA ESA issues associated with the Verde Proposed critical habitat area in Verde Valley for Willow Fly Catcher New Arsenic standards Pending Subflow decision Political and philosophical differences between AMA and Verde Valley Countywide growth and unregulated lot splits Indian water rights Thousands of private domestic wells already permitted and more being requested daily Potential water quality impacts on groundwater system from the thousands of septic systems Potential development rumors of the CVCF Ranch in the Big Chino Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies x x x USGS USF&W x x x x x x Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices quality Issues x Yavapai ADWR ADEQ SRP NRCD Cooperative Extension NAU USFS USBoR Projects & Accomplishments x x x x x x x x x x x x x planning, 357 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Watershed Partnership CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments x x x 358 Issues Prescott Valley Groundwater monitoring program in Big Chino initiated. Developed water demand scenarios to run on groundwater model Initiated Water Supply Appraisal Study with BOR/ADWR Central Highlands Planning Area Appendices