Arizona Department of Water Resources October 2009 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 6 Western Plateau Planning Area ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Herbert Guenther Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Tom Carr Assistant Director, Statewide Water Conservation and Strategic Planning Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Assistant Director, Water Management Atlas Team Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Kelly Mott Lacroix Joe Stuart Major Contributors John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garin - 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 6 CONTENTS Preface SECTION 6.0 Overview of the Western Plateau Planning Area 6.0.1 Geography 6.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 6.0.3 Climate 6.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas and Wilderness Areas Managed Waters 6.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 6.0.6 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Efluent Contamination Sites 6.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 6.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Western Plateau Planning Area Studies, Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups Issue Surveys 6.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES SECTION 6.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.1 Geography of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.2 Land Ownership in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.3 Climate of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Coconino Plateau Basin 1 1 3 5 5 12 18 20 20 25 26 26 29 32 34 35 37 38 42 44 45 47 47 48 53 55 56 56 59 60 61 64 70 71 73 76 79 86 91 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.7 Water Quality of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 6.2 Water Resource Characteristics of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.1 Geography of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.2 Land Ownership in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.3 Climate of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.7 Water Quality of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Grand Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 6.3 Water Resource Characteristics of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.1 Geography of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.2 Land Ownership in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.3 Climate of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.7 Water Quality of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 6.4 Water Resource Characteristics of the Paria Basin 6.4.1 Geography of the Paria Basin 6.4.2 Land Ownership in the Paria Basin 6.4.3 Climate of the Paria Basin 6.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Paria Basin 6.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Paria Basin 6.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Paria Basin 6.4.7 Water Quality of the Paria Basin 6.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Paria Basin 6.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin References and Supplemental Reading ii 97 100 105 110 120 121 123 125 127 130 133 138 140 142 143 146 147 149 152 155 161 165 170 173 177 180 188 189 191 193 196 199 201 206 209 212 215 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 SECTION 6.5 Water Resource Characteristics of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.1 Geography of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.2 Land Ownership in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.3 Climate of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.7 Water Quality of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Shivwits Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 6.6 Water Resource Characteristics of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.1 Geography of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.2 Land Ownership in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.3 Climate of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.7 Water Quality of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin References and Supplemental Reading ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Appendix A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Western Plateau Planning Area through 2008 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Reports and Submitted Plans APPENDIX C: Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings APPENDIX D: Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Western Plateau Planning Area (2008) 218 219 221 223 225 228 230 233 235 237 238 242 243 245 247 250 255 257 262 265 269 272 278 281 283 287 295 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 FIGURES Figure 6.0-1 Figure 6.0-2 Figure 6.0-3 Figure 6.0-4 Figure 6.0-5 Figure 6.0-6 Figure 6.0-7 Figure 6.0-8 Figure 6.0-9 Figure 6.0-10 Figure 6.0-11 Figure 6.0-12 Figure 6.0-13 Figure 6.0-14 Figure 6.0-15 Figure 6.0-16 Figure 6.0-17 Figure 6.0-18 Figure 6.0-19 Figure 6.1-1 Figure 6.1-2 Figure 6.1-3 Figure 6.1-4 Figure 6.1-5 Figure 6.1-6 Figure 6.1-7 Figure 6.1-8 Figure 6.1-9 Figure 6.1-10 Figure 6.1-11 Figure 6.1-12 iv Arizona Planning Areas 2 Western Plateau Planning Area 3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona 4 Surface Geology of the Western Plateau Planning Area 6 Generalized stratigraphic section of the Coconino Plateau, Arizona 7 Geologic cross section of the Shivwits Plateau, Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau Basins 11 Western Plateau USGS Watersheds 13 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 18 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Western Plateau Planning Area from 1930-2002 19 Winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988 20 Western Plateau Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 21 Wildires in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2002-2005 25 Western Plateau Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 27 Wilderness Areas in the Western Plateau Planning Area 31 Average Annual Water Supply Utilized in the Western Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 38 Western Plateau Planning Area Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points 41 Western Plateau Planning Area Contamination Sites 46 Average Annual Western Plateau Planning Area Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 47 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 48 Coconino Plateau Basin Geographic Features 72 Coconino Plateau Basin Land Ownership 75 Coconino Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 78 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Little Colorado River near Cameron, water years 1948-2006 (Station #9402000) 80 Coconino Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions 85 Coconino Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 90 Coconino Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions 93 Coconino Plateau Hydrographs 94 Coconino Plateau Basin Well Yields 96 Coconino Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions 99 Coconino Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand 104 Coconino Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.2-1 Figure 6.2-2 Figure 6.2-3 Figure 6.2-4 Figure 6.2-5 Figure 6.2-6 Figure 6.2-7 Figure 6.2-8 Figure 6.2-9 Figure 6.3-1 Figure 6.3-2 Figure 6.3-3 Figure 6.3-4 Figure 6.3-5 Figure 6.3-6 Figure 6.3-7 Figure 6.3-8 Figure 6.3-9 Figure 6.3-10 Figure 6.3-11 Figure 6.3-12 Figure 6.4-1 Figure 6.4-2 Figure 6.4-3 Figure 6.4-4 Figure 6.4-5 Figure 6.4-6 Figure 6.4-7 Figure 6.4-8 Figure 6.4-9 Figure 6.4-10 Figure 6.4-11 Figure 6.5-1 Figure 6.5-2 Figure 6.5-3 Figure 6.5-4 Figure 6.5-5 Grand Wash Basin Geographic Features Grand Wash Basin Land Ownership Grand Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Grand Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions Grand Wash Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Grand Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions Grand Wash Basin Hydrographs Grand Wash Basin Well Yields Grand Wash Basin Water Quality Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Geographic Features Kanab Plateau Basin Land Ownership Kanab Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (acre-feet) Colorado River near Grand Canyon 1923-2005 (Station # 9402500) Kanab Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Kanab Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Hydrographs Kanab Plateau Basin Well Yields Kanab Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand Kanab Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations Paria Basin Geographic Features Paria Basin Land Ownership Paria Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Paria Basin Surface Water Conditions Paria Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Paria Basin Groundwater Conditions Paria Basin Hydrographs Paria Basin Well Yields Paria Basin Water Quality Conditions Paria Basin Cultural Water Demand Paria Basin Adequacy Determinations Shivwits Plateau Basin Geographic Features Shivwits Plateau Basin Land Ownership Shivwits Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Shivwits Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions Shivwits Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 122 124 126 129 132 135 136 137 139 148 151 154 156 160 164 167 168 169 172 176 179 190 192 195 198 200 203 204 205 208 211 214 220 222 224 227 229 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.5-6 Figure 6.5-7 Figure 6.5-8 Figure 6.6-1 Figure 6.6-2 Figure 6.6-3 Figure 6.6-4 Figure 6.6-5 Figure 6.6-6 Figure 6.6-7 Figure 6.6-8 Figure 6.6-9 Figure 6.6-10 Figure 6.6-11 Figure 6.6-12 Figure C-1 Figure C-2 vi Shivwits Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions Shivwits Plateau Basin Hydrograph Shivwits Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions Virgin River Basin Geographic Features Virgin River Basin Land Ownership Virgin River Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (acre-feet) Virgin River at Littleield, Arizona, water years 1930-2006 (Station # 9415000) Virgin River Basin Surface Water Conditions Virgin River Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Virgin River Basin Groundwater Conditions Virgin River Basin Hydrographs Virgin River Basin Well Yields Virgin River Basin Water Quality Conditions Virgin River Basin Cultural Water Demand Virgin River Basin Adequacy Determinations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points in Arizona 231 232 234 244 246 249 251 254 256 259 260 261 264 268 271 289 292 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 TABLES Table 6.0-1 Table 6.0-2 Table 6.0-3 Table 6.0-4 Table 6.0-5 Table 6.0-6 Table 6.0-7 Table 6.0-8 Table 6.0-9 Table 6.0-10 Table 6.0-11 Table 6.0-12 Table 6.0-13 Table 6.0-14 Table 6.0-15 Table 6.0-16 Table 6.1-1 Table 6.1-2 Table 6.1-3 Table 6.1-4 Table 6.1-5 Table 6.1-6 Table 6.1-7 Table 6.1-8 Table 6.1-9 Table 6.1-10 Table 6.2-1 Table 6.2-2 Table 6.2-3 Table 6.2-4 Table 6.2-5 Table 6.3-1 Instream Flow Claims in the Western Plateau Planning Area Endangered Species in the Western Plateau Planning Area Wilderness areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2000 Census population in the Western Plateau Planning Area Communities in the Western Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water adequacy determinations in the Western Plateau Planning Area as of 12/2008 Inventory of surface water right and adjudication ilings in the Western Plateau Planning Area Contamination site in the Western Plateau Planning Area Tribal Water Demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area in 2000 (in acre-feet) Average annual municipal water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Water providers serving 100 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2006, excluding efluent, in the Western Plateau Planning Area Agricultural water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area Active agricultural acres in the Kanab Plateau (2008) and Virgin River (2007) basins Industrial demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area Golf course demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Western Plateau Planning Area Climate Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Surface Water Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Coconino Plateau Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Coconino Plateau Basin Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions in the Coconino Plateau Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Coconino Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Coconino Plateau Basin Efluent Generation in the Coconino Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Grand Wash Basin Springs in the Grand Wash Basin Groundwater Data in the Grand Wash Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Grand Wash Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Grand Wash Basin Climate Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin 26 28 30 34 35 37 40 45 48 49 50 54 55 55 56 60 77 81 82 83 87 92 98 101 102 106 128 131 134 138 141 153 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-2 Table 6.3-3 Table 6.3-4 Table 6.3-5 Table 6.3-6 Table 6.3-7 Table 6.3-8 Table 6.3-9 Table 6.3-10 Table 6.4-1 Table 6.4-2 Table 6.4-3 Table 6.4-4 Table 6.4-5 Table 6.4-6 Table 6.4-7 Table 6.5-1 Table 6.5-2 Table 6.5-3 Table 6.5-4 Table 6.5-5 Table 6.6-1 Table 6.6-2 Table 6.6-3 Table 6.6-4 Table 6.6-5 Table 6.6-6 Table 6.6-7 Table 6.6-8 Table 6.6-9 Table 6.6-10 Table C-1 viii Streamlow Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Kanab Plateau Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Kanab Plateau Basin Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin Groundwater Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Kanab Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Kanab Plateau Basin Efluent Generation in the Kanab Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin Climate Data for the Paria Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Paria Basin Springs in the Paria Basin Groundwater Data for the Paria Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Paria Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Paria Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Groundwater Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Climate Data for the Virgin River Basin Streamlow Data for the Virgin River Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Virgin River Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Virgin River Basin Springs in the Virgin River Basin Groundwater Data in the Virgin River Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Virgin River Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Virgin River Basin Efluent Generation in the Virgin River Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin Count of Surface Water Rights and Adjudications by Planning Area 157 158 159 162 166 171 174 175 178 194 197 199 202 207 210 213 226 228 230 233 236 248 252 253 253 255 258 263 266 267 270 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 6 – WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Preface Volume 6, the Western Plateau Planning Area, is the sixth in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas also indicates where data are lacking and further investigation may be needed. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 6.0-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an executive summary volume composed of background information, and a resource sustainability volume. “Planning areas” are an organizational concept that provide for a regional perspective on supply, demand and water resource issues. A complete discussion of Atlas organization, purpose and scope is found in Volume 1. Also included in Volume 1 is general background information for the state, a description of data sources and methods of analysis for the tables and maps presented in the Atlas, and appendices that provide information on water law, management and programs, and Indian water rights claims and settlements. lies in the part of Arizona north of the Colorado River referred to as the “Arizona Strip”. The planning area contains large tracts of federally protected lands including almost all of Grand Canyon National Park. Elevations range from over 12,000 feet on the San Francisco Peaks to about 1,200 feet at Lake Mead. Nearly half (46%) of Coconino County and 38% of Mohave County are contained within the planning area as well as all or portions of four Indian reservations including the Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab-Paiute and Navajo. The planning area is relatively sparsely populated. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 17,500 with basin population ranging from just 12 in the Shivwits Plateau Basin to over 9,100 in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Colorado City is the largest community with about 4,150 residents in 2006. Other population centers include Williams, Fredonia, Grand Canyon Village, the Beaver Dam/Littleield area, and Cameron on the Navajo Reservation. Between 2001 and 2005, an average of over 9,600 acre-feet of water was used annually in There are additional, more detailed data available to those presented in this volume. They may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department). 6.0 Overview of the Western Plateau Planning Area The Western Plateau Planning Area is composed of six groundwater basins located in northwestern Arizona. About half of the planning area Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Agriculture in the Kanab Plateau Basin. Agriculture is the largest water user in the Planning Area 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 2 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 the planning area for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand). Of this total demand, approximately 6,000 acre-feet was from well pumpage, 3,300 acre-feet was from surface water diversions and almost 300 acre-feet was efluent reuse. Agriculture was the largest demand sector with approximately 4,600 acre-feet of demand a year or 52% of the total demand. The municipal sector demand averaged about 4,000 acre-feet a year (AFA) and industrial demand averaged almost 1,000 AFA. 6.0.1 Geography The Western Plateau Planning Area covers about 13,700 square miles and includes the Coconino Plateau, Grand Wash, Kanab Plateau, Paria, Shivwits Plateau and Virgin River basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 6.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the State of Utah, on the east by the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, on the south by the Central Highlands and Upper Colorado River planning Figure 6.0-2 Western Plateau Planning Area Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 areas and on the west by the State of Nevada (Figure 6.0-1). The planning area includes parts of three watersheds, which are discussed in Section 6.0.2. The Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation (188 square miles) and the Havasupai Indian Reservation (294 square miles) are located entirely within the planning area. In addition, the planning area includes the western portion of the Navajo Indian Reservation (1,177 square miles) and the northeastern portion of the Hualapai Indian Reservation (741 square miles) (Figure 6.0-1). Almost all of the planning area is within the Colorado Plateau physiographic province characterized by generally horizontally stratiied sedimentary rocks that have eroded into numerous incised canyons and high desert plateaus (Figure 6.0-3). The extreme western part of the planning area, encompassing the western portions of the Virgin River and Grand Wash basins, extends into the Basin and Range physiographic Figure 6.0-3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona Data source: Fenneman and Johnson, 1946 4 province, which is characterized by northwestsoutheast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys. The Coconino Plateau Basin contains the largest elevational range in the planning area with elevations ranging from 1,400 feet where the Colorado River exits the basin in the Grand Canyon to over 12,000 feet in the San Francisco Peaks at the southeastern edge of the basin. A unique geographic feature of the planning area is the Grand Canyon, incised by the Colorado River and its tributaries over a 5-6 million year period. The average depth of the canyon is 4,000 feet over its 277 mile length, and 6,000 feet at its deepest point. Its average width is 10 miles. The geologic record at the Grand Canyon is unique in the variety of rocks and their exposure in the canyon walls, with nearly half of the earth’s 4.6-billion-year history displayed (NPS, 2005). Most rocks in the Grand Canyon date from the Paleozoic Era (550-250 million years ago) but there are scattered remnants of Precambrian Vishnu Schist as old as 2 billion years in age in the inner gorge. Western Plateau Plateau Planning Area geology including the location of Precambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon is shown in Figure 6.0-4. With the exception of Kaibab Limestone, younger Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks (250 million years old to the present) are largely missing at Grand Canyon, having been either never deposited or worn away. The different rock layers in the canyon respond differently to erosion leading to the canyon’s distinctive shape (NPS, 2005). Lava lows ranging in age from 1,000 to 1 million years old are found in the western part of the canyon. The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River form a signiicant physical barrier between the Arizona Strip and the rest of the planning area and the state. Highway 89A at Navajo Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Bridge and Highway 89 at Glen Canyon Dam are the only highways that span the Colorado River linking the Arizona Strip to the rest of the state. By contrast, there are a number of road links between the Arizona Strip and Utah. As a result, the Arizona Strip has strong historic, cultural and economic ties to Utah. South and east of the Colorado River, the Coconino Plateau marks the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau which covers 130,000 square miles across southeastern Utah, northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and western Colorado. The Coconino Plateau stretches east toward the Colorado River surface water divide and south to the Mogollon Rim, which is less well deined to the northwest, and deines the southern boundary of the Coconino Plateau Basin. Most of the Coconino Plateau is above 5,000 feet in elevation and consists of low hills, mesas, broad valleys and lava lows in the southern portion. The plateau is deined by large elevational changes along its margins, notably the south rim of the Grand Canyon (Bills and others, 2007). changes to a broad alluvial valley with numerous washes that drain the upland and mountain areas. The Virgin Mountains, south of the river, form the southwest edge of the Colorado Plateau. Other signiicant geographic features are numerous high plateaus, steep cliffs, deeply incised canyons and few surface water features. 6.0.2 Hydrology1 Groundwater Hydrology The Western Plateau Planning Area is characterized by relatively lat-lying, alternating sequences of sandstones, limestones and shales. As shown in Figure 6.0-4, Mesozoic to Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks cover most of the planning area. Faults and folds in these rocks affect groundwater movement along the regional gradient. The westernmost basins contain basin-ill sediments that consist of silt, sand and gravel. The characteristics of regional and local aquifers in the planning area are described below. In the northwest corner of the planning area, the Virgin River cuts through the Beaver Dam Coconino Plateau Basin Mountains creating the Virgin River Gorge. The Redwall-Muav (R or limestone) aquifer is West of the gorge, the topography abruptly the primary water-bearing unit of the Coconino Plateau Basin. The Kaibab, Coconino and Supai formations comprise the regional Coconino Aquifer (C-aquifer) that overlies the R-aquifer. The Moenkopi Formation volcanic rocks and unconsolidated sediments overlie the C- and R-aquifers and provide locally important sources of water. A generalized stratigraphic section of the Coconino Plateau that illustrates the relationship between these various units is shown on Figure 6.0-5. Perched aquifer zones in association with volcanic rocks occur primarily in the central and southern part of the basin and in consolidated sedimentary rocks Vermilion Cliffs, Kanab Plateau Basin. The planning area includes numerous high plateaus, steep west and northwest of the volcanic ields. These cliffs and deeply incised canyons. perched aquifers are dependent on recharge 1 Except as noted, much of the information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume II, ADWR August, 1994. (ADWR 1994) Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-4 Surface Geology of the Western Plateau Planning Area (Based on Reynolds, 1988) from precipitation and runoff and may be undependable water supplies. An exception is the “Inner Basin Aquifer” of the San Francisco Peaks where a water-bearing zone is contained in glacial outwash and volcanic rocks and is used by the City of Flagstaff as a water supply (USBOR, 2006). The R-aquifer underlies the entire Coconino Plateau Basin with depths of greater than 3,000 feet below land surface (bls) in most areas (Bills and others, 2007). Relatively few wells have 6 been completed in the R-aquifer in the basin due to its extreme depth. In the northeast part of the basin, the R-aquifer is in partial hydraulic connection with the C-aquifer through faults and other fractures. Shale units within the R-aquifer impede downward low. The C-aquifer, consisting of hydraulically connected sandstones, limestones and shales occurs primarily in the eastern portion of the basin. Although perched zones occur, it is largely drained of water in the rest of the Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-5 Generalized stratigraphic section of the Coconino Plateau, Arizona (Bills and Flynn, 2002) Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 basin, coincident with the northeast-southwest trending Mesa Butte Fault (Bills and others, 2007). Iniltration of precipitation through volcanic rocks and the Kaibab Formation is the primary source of recharge to the C-aquifer. in the basin are relatively low and depend on the occurrence of fractures, faults and solution channels. The median of well yields reported from 16 large diameter (>10 inches) wells was 45.5 gallons per minute (gpm). Lateral movement of groundwater in the R- and C- aquifers occurs through fracture zones and solution cavities. In the northeastern portion of the Coconino Plateau Basin, groundwater moves relatively rapidly from the C-aquifer to the R-aquifer through solution channels and fractures (USBOR, 2006). Regional low is generally northward toward the Grand Canyon where springs discharge along the Little Colorado and Colorado rivers and Havasu Creek (see Figure 6.1-7). Widely-spaced faults and folds also affect groundwater movement in the region. The Mesa Butte Fault and the Cataract Syncline direct low to major discharge areas on the lower Little Colorado River at Blue Springs and in Cataract Canyon (Montgomery and others, 2000). The Blue Springs area is considered the primary groundwater drain from the Little Colorado River Basin, although the primary source of the water is not well known (Hart, and others, 2002). Local low characteristics are poorly understood because of the complex geologic structure and because aquifer depths limit exploratory drilling and testing. The varying chemistry of springs and residence time for groundwater discharge suggests that water discharging from the R-aquifer is from many different recharge areas and follows different low paths. (USBOR, 2006) Water levels in basin wells are typically quite deep. Tusayan’s water supply plan reports water level depths of 2,347 and 2,425 feet in two system wells with well yields of 65-80 gpm (HydroResources, 2007). While water has been found in perched aquifers near Williams at depths less than 950 feet bls, yields from these more shallow wells are generally less than ive gpm. At Williams, three of the four water system wells are drilled to depths exceeding 3,500 feet bls. Water level depths in these wells An annual natural recharge rate is not available for the basin. ADWR estimated that as much as 3.0 million acre-feet (maf) of water may be stored in basin aquifers based on assumptions by Montgomery and others (2000) of the plateau’s area of about 10,000 sq. mi., average saturated thickness of 800 feet and an average speciic yield of 0.1%. Their study area was larger than City of Williams. At Williams, three of four water the basin but included most of it. Well yields system wells are drilled to depths exceeding 3,500 feet bls. 8 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 are between 2,740 and 2,875 feet. Water in the deepest of the Williams wells is of poor quality with elevated metal concentrations, including arsenic, and high corrosivity (City of Williams, 2007). Water quality is generally good in the basin but poor locally where there is leakage from overlying units or other factors. Water quality in the upper and middle parts of the C-aquifer is good, but generally degrades due to salts at increasing depths. Most of the water quality data shown in Table 6.1-7 is from springs where elevated levels of arsenic and total dissolved Pipe Springs National Monument. Water bearing units in this area include alluvium, Navajo Sandsolids (TDS) were most commonly detected. Grand Wash Basin The Grand Wash Basin in the western part of the planning area is located along the boundary of the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range physiographic regions. Groundwater is found in recent stream alluvium, basin ill, and sedimentary rocks of the Muddy Creek Formation and underlying Cottonwood Wash Formation. The Muddy Creek Formation is composed of siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates with interbedded basaltic lavas in the northern part of the basin. The Cottonwood Wash Formation is composed of sandstones and siltstones. There is a relatively well-deined basin-ill aquifer interbedded with basalt lows between Grand Wash and Gyp Wash (located west of the Grand Wash Cliffs, see Figure 6.2-1). This aquifer is underlain by the Muddy Creek Formation, which restricts the downward movement of water. This area was identiied as favorable for groundwater development in a geohydrologic reconnaissance study of Lake Mead National Recreation Area conducted by the USGS (Bales and Laney, 1992). stone, the Kayenta and Moenave formations and the Shinarump Formation from precipitation or local surface runoff is assumed to be small. In the southwestern corner of the basin, surface water from Lake Mead has saturated adjacent rocks and deposits in quantities greater than pre-lake conditions. This saturated zone is estimated to extend less than half a mile inland from the lake (Bales and Laney, 1992). Only 12 wells are registered in the basin. A median well yield is not available. Well yields were estimated to range from 0-500 feet by Anning and Duet (1994). Two wells measured in the basin report water level depths ranging from about 20 feet to over 500 feet bls (see Figure 6.2-6). Water quality is generally good although total dissolved solids concentrations equal or exceed drinking water standards at several springs (Table 6.2-4). Kanab Plateau Basin The Kanab Plateau Basin is characterized by high plateaus, plains and incised canyons. The basin contains a lat-lying to gently sloping sequence of alternating sandstones, limestones Data on groundwater low direction, annual and shales. Groundwater is found in several natural recharge rate and groundwater in aquifers composed of these sedimentary rocks, storage is not available for the basin. Recharge which are generally isolated and not hydraulical- Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ly connected. Water bearing units in the vicinity of Pipe Spring National Monument include alluvium, Navajo Sandstone, the Kayenta and Moenave formations, and the Shinarump Formation (Truini and others, 2004). Groundwater also occurs in recent stream alluvium, including the Cane Beds area west of Moccasin. Department data indicate well yields ranging from 30 to 1,400 gpm with a median well yield of 520 gpm for three large diameter (>10gpm) wells. The two largest yields come from wells completed in sedimentary rocks. Water levels in basin wells are relatively deep, ranging from about 480 feet to 1,500 feet bls. Arsenic concentrations above the drinking water standard Within the sedimentary rock aquifers, faults act have been measured at a number of wells in the as conduits for vertical and lateral groundwater Wahweap area (see Table 6.3-7). movement. Major faults include the Toroweap and Sevier faults. Regional groundwater low Shivwits Plateau Basin direction, annual natural recharge rate and Most of the Shivwits Plateau Basin is high groundwater storage data are not available for plateau with elevations of 4,000 to 6,000 feet. the basin. The median well yield reported for The basin contains an alternating sequence of ten large diameter (>10gpm) wells was 70 gpm. limestones, sandstones and shales with alluvial Hydrographs are available for two basin wells sands and gravels along larger washes and can- one completed in the Kayenta Formation at yons. Figure 6.0-6 shows a cross section of the Moccasin, with a recent water level of 87 feet geology in the Shivwits Plateau, Kanab Plateau bls, and a second completed in “sedimentary and the western portion of the Coconino Plateau rock” south of Fredonia with a recent water level basins. The cross section begins in the westof 611 feet bls (Figure 6.3-7). Elevated levels of central portion of the Shivwits Plateau Basin TDS and lead have been measured at some well (T33N, R12W) and follows a southeastern diand spring sites (Table 6.3-7) although water agonal across the Shivwits Plateau and Kanab quality is generally good for most uses. Plateau basins, ending just across the Colorado River in the Aubrey Cliffs in the Coconino PlaParia Basin teau Basin (T32N, R7W). The cross section The geologic structure of the Paria Basin is provides the general location of the water beartypical of the Colorado Plateau with a gently- ing units beneath the region and their depth and sloping sequence of limestone, sandstone and thickness in particular areas. The diagram also shale formations. The principal aquifer is the shows the impact of the Hurricane Fault on the N-aquifer composed of Navajo Sandstone and cross section occurrence of the geologic units. the Kayenta and Moenave formations. In places on the Paria Plateau, precipitation collects in Stream alluvium is the major aquifer in the basin sand deposits in limited quantities and may be but well yields are relatively low. A number recovered from shallow wells (Bush and Lane, of dry wells have reportedly been drilled into 1980). Groundwater movement is generally the sedimentary rocks but some encountered from south to north with discharge at springs in water in faults and fractures. Groundwater Paria River Canyon. Some groundwater moves recharge occurs from iniltration of rainfall and south toward the Vermilion Cliffs, which form snowmelt. Data on groundwater low direction, the southern basin boundary. An annual natu- annual natural recharge rate and groundwater in ral recharge rate is not available for the basin. storage is not available for the basin. Groundwater in storage is estimated at 1.5 maf. There are only 18 registered wells in the basin. Little groundwater development has occurred Department data indicate well yields ranging with only 12 wells registered in the basin. from 0 to 45 gpm with a median well yield of 5 10 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 PLATEA U Shivwits Plateau 1,500 Cocon in o Sa n dst on e Uinkaret Plateau Colorado River SHIVWITS Hurricane Fault Tor ow e a p For m a t ion Grassy Mountain Whitmore Canyon 2,000 Agway Valley Parashant Canyon METERS 2,500 Dellenbaugh Fault Figure 6.0-6 Geologic cross section of the Shivwits Plateau, Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau Basins (modiied from Billingsley and Welmeyer, 2003) METERS 2,500 2,000 Coconino Plateau 1,500 1,000 1,000 500 500 SEA LEVEL SEA LEVEL 1524 meters = 5000 feet VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X2 Re ce n t St r e a m Allu viu m Te m ple Bu t t e For m a t ion Shivwits Plateau Basin gpm for 17 large diameter (>10gpm) wells. Recent water levels in wells range from 10 feet bls to over 960 feet bls (see Figure 6.5-7). Water from springs and seeps is generally of better quality than well water, although the arsenic level at one spring exceeded the drinking water standard (Table 6.5-4). Virgin River Basin Located in the northwestern corner of Arizona, the Virgin River Basin contains a broad alluvial valley in the western half and the relatively high elevation Beaver Dam and Virgin Mountains in the south and east. Principal aquifers are basin ill in the Virgin River Valley and Beaver Dam Wash, and the Muddy Creek Formation. The mountainous portions of the basin are underlain by sedimentary and igneous rocks with little groundwater development. Br igh t An ge l Sh a le Ta pe a t s Sa n dst on e Kanab Plateau Basin Coconino Plateau Basin gravels and boulders. In the Virgin River Valley, the basin-ill aquifer contains loodplain and terrace alluvium southwest of Littleield and includes alluvial-fan deposits from the Virgin Mountains. Groundwater is unconined and lows toward the southwest. In Beaver Dam Wash, the basin-ill aquifer is largely isolated from other water bearing units in the basin and is also unconined. Groundwater low is toward the Virgin River Valley. The Muddy Creek Formation consists of a series of siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates that is utilized as a water supply in the western part of the basin and by the City of Mesquite, Nevada adjacent to the basin along Interstate 15 (Black and Rascona, 1991). It is several thousand feet thick in places and covers the land surface over much of the basin north of the Virgin River. The Muddy Creek Formation is underlain by saturated Paleozoic The basin-ill aquifers are composed of a younger loodplain unit carbonate rocks. South of the Virgin River, alluvial deposits and an older underlying unit of semi-consolidated silts, sands, from the Virgin Mountains overlie the Muddy Creek Formation. Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Fault and fracture zones in the formation between 1997 and 2002 listed in Table 6.6-7 control groundwater movement and may have show elevated concentrations of arsenic, nitrate groundwater development potential (Dixon and and radionuclides. Katzer, 2002). Surface Water Hydrology Between Littleield and the Virgin River Mountains and south of the Virgin River, a The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides and shallow, basin-ill aquifer overlies a limestone subdivides the United States into successively formation known locally as the Littleield smaller hydrologic units based on hydrologic Formation. Few wells are completed in the features. These units are classiied into four shallow aquifer but a number of springs emanate levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, from groundwater lowing over or through subregions, accounting units and cataloging the Littleield Formation (Black and Rascona, units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level in the system is used 1991). to identify any hydrologic area (Seaber et al., Natural recharge is estimated at less than 30,000 1987). A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting AFA. Groundwater in storage is estimated to units, which are used by the USGS for designing total 1.7 maf. Well yields range widely in the and managing the National Water Data Network. basin, as listed on Table 6.6-6, from a reported There are portions of three watersheds in the 10 gpm in the Virgin River basin-ill aquifer planning area at the accounting unit level: Upper to over 5,000 gpm during a pump test in the Colorado River-Lake Powell; Little Colorado Beaver Dam Wash basin-ill aquifer (Black and River; and Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry Rascona, 1991). The median of well yields to Lake Mead (Figure 6.0-7). reported from 53 large diameter (>10 inch) wells completed in the basin is 650 gpm. Water Upper Colorado River-Lake Powell Watershed quality ranges from very good to poor, the The boundary of the Upper Colorado Riverlatter due to elevated concentrations of arsenic, Lake Powell Watershed in Arizona coincides chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids. generally with the Paria Basin boundary. It Salt concentrations in groundwater increase includes the Paria River Canyon and a small downstream in the loodplain area along the portion of the Kanab Plateau Basin. The Paria Virgin River. Water quality data collected River originates in south-central Utah, draining an area of about 1,410 square miles before discharging to the Colorado River north of Lees Ferry. The annual lood series of the Paria River shows a decrease in lood peaks over the period 1909, 1924-2003. There have been no signiicant changes in basin diversions over this period, suggesting that construction of stockponds may be responsible (Webb and others, 2007). Virgin River Mountains and Virgin River Valley. Principal aquifers are basin ill in the Virgin River Valley and Beaver Dam Wash, and the Muddy Creek Formation. 12 The Paria River and the Colorado River are the only perennial streams in this portion of the watershed. The single streamlow gage in the watershed is located on the Paria River at Lees Ferry. With 79 years of record, the average annual Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 low is over 20,000 acre-feet and maximum low was almost 48,000 acre-feet in 1980 (Table 6.3-2). There are two nearby gages on the west side of the Colorado River in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area; the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River at Lees Ferry. The gage below Glen Canyon Dam was installed after dam construction and relects regulatory/managed releases from Lake Powell. Prior to construction of the dam in 1963, the average low was about 12.9 maf per year. The average annual low at this gage is now 8.4 maf. Downstream, low records at the gage on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry show an average annual low of 20.3 maf. This gage has been in operation since 1921. In May 1983, a heavy snowpack in the Upper Colorado River Basin combined with sudden warming and rainfall caused severe looding along the Colorado River, forcing use of the Glen Canyon Dam spillways for the irst time since dam completion in 1964. The total discharge peaked at 92,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the reservoir level topped out on July 15th, six feet below the crest of the dam (Hannon, 2003). Figure 6.0-7 Western Plateau USGS Watersheds (USGS, 2005) Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 By contrast, daily releases from Glen Canyon Dam in August 2009 were 13,000 cfs on average and, due to prolonged drought, the reservoir is projected to be at 65.8% capacity by the end of the water year on September 30, 2009 (USBOR, 2009). From 2000 though 2008, inlow to Lake Powell was below average in all but two years. Further, the average natural low during this period for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry is the lowest nine-year average in over 100 years of record keeping on the Colorado River (USBOR, 2008). Lake Powell provides water storage to meet low obligations at Lees Ferry under the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact. (See Volume 1) The Compact apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basin states the beneicial consumptive use of 7.5 maf of water to each basin annually, measured at the Colorado River at the Compact Point near Lees Ferry. The reservoir has a total storage capacity of 27 maf, generally equivalent to the average annual low of the Colorado River over a two-year period, making it the second largest reservoir in the country. The Glen Canyon Power Plant consists of eight generating units and provides most of the electrical energy generated by the Colorado River Storage Project. Total generating capacity is 1,296,000 kilowatts (USBOR, 2005). There are no major springs (>10gpm) in the watershed although springs reportedly have supported domestic and stock watering uses in the Paria Basin (Bush and Lane, 1980). The Paria River has been identiied as an impaired reach for its entire 29-mile length in Arizona, due to a high concentration of suspended sediments (ADEQ, 2005a), see Figures 6.3-10 and 6.4-9. Lake Powell near Wahweap. From 2000 though 2008, inlow to Lake Powell was below average in all but two years. Area, this watershed covers the eastern portion of the Coconino Plateau Basin from The Gap and Desert View south toward Flagstaff. The Little Colorado River is the major drainage in the entire Coconino Plateau Basin, lowing east to west to join the Colorado River. The only perennial low in this portion of the watershed is a 13-mile stretch of the Little Colorado River below Blue Springs. An active gage on the Little Colorado River at Cameron has been in operation since 1947. Flow is highest in the winter at this gage, with a median annual low of over 138,000 acre-feet. Maximum annual low at this gage was over 603,000 acre-feet in 1993 (see Figures 6.1-4 and 6.1-5 and Table 6.1-2). The springs in the lower reach of the Little Colorado River, about 13 miles upstream of its conluence with the Colorado River, are sometimes collectively referred to as Blue Springs. Other sources refer to the main spring as Blue Spring. Discharge from the Blue Springs area is estimated at over 101,000 gpm, or about 164,000 AFA (Table 6.1-5). These springs emanate from solution channels in the The Little Colorado River Watershed The Little Colorado River Watershed extends R-aquifer while the discharge is thought to be over a large portion of northeastern Arizona, downward leakage from the C-aquifer (Leake including most of the Eastern Plateau Planning and others, 2005). Area. Within the Western Plateau Planning 14 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead Watershed Most of the Western Plateau Planning Area is included in the Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead Watershed, which extends into the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. The watershed is drained by the Colorado River, which lows southwest from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. There are a number of perennial streams in the Kanab Plateau Basin that low to the Colorado River including Kanab, Bright Angel, Nankoweap, Shinumo and Tapeats Creeks. None of these streams have low gages. In the Coconino Plateau Basin, major perennial tributaries are Havasu and Diamond creeks. West of Diamond Creek, the only perennial lows are the Virgin River, which lows through the planning area from its headwaters in Utah to Lake Mead in Nevada, and an approximately one-mile reach of a tributary, Beaver Dam Wash. Prior to construction of the Glen Canyon Dam, low in the Colorado was highly unpredictable with wide year-to-year variability and spring looding. Operation of the dam for electrical generation requires large water releases with daily and weekly luctuations and releases during historically low low seasons. Provisions of the Record of Decision (1996) for the Glen Canyon Dam Final EIS and the Glen Canyon Dam Operating Criteria (1997) set restrictions on daily and hourly lows. The maximum low may not exceed 25,000 cfs except for beach/ habitat-building lows, habitat maintenance lows, or when necessary during above average hydrologic conditions. Minimum lows are restricted to 5,000 to 8,000 cfs depending on the time of day. Further, daily luctuation limits are 5,000 cfs to 8,000 cfs depending on monthly release volumes. (USBOR, 2008) A tree-ring-based reconstruction of over 500 years of Colorado River streamlow found as many as eight droughts similar in severity to the Flow in the Colorado River downstream from Lake Powell is controlled by releases from Glen Canyon Dam, which has signiicantly impacted low volumes and historic seasonal variations in low as mentioned in the previous watershed discussion. There are ive streamlow gages along the Colorado River in this watershed. The three easternmost gages are located above the Little Colorado River and near Bright Angel Creek (see Figure 6.3-5). These gages have varying periods of record and show average annual lows of 8.5 to 11.2 maf a year. A gage with 79 years of record (Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Table 6.3.2), the only pre-dam gage, has the highest mean low (11.2 maf) and highest maximum low of 20.5 maf in 1984. The two westernmost gages are located near Havasu Creek and Diamond Creek (see Figure 6.1-5) and are post-dam gages. The only currently operating gage (above Diamond Creek) has a similar low regime to the other post-dam gages in the watershed with a mean low of 10.4 Glen Canyon Dam. Flow in the Colorado River downstream from Lake Powell is controlled by maf and a maximum low of 15.97 maf (Table releases from the dam. 6.1-2). Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 2000-2004 drought period. The reconstruction also suggests that the last 100-year period was wetter than the average for the last ive centuries, and that average annual lows regularly vary from one decade to the next by more than 1.0 maf. The most severe sustained drought (based on the lowest 20-year average) in the Upper Colorado River basin apparently occurred in the last part of the 16th century. (Meko and others, 2007) The other major river in the watershed is the Virgin River, which drains an area of about 6,100 square miles. The river lows from its headwaters north of Zion National Park in Utah to Lake Mead. Prior to construction of Hoover Dam it lowed to the Colorado River. Now, its lower 20-30 mile former reach has been inundated by the Overton Arm of Lake Mead. Dixon and Katzer (2002) estimated the Virgin River outlow to Lake Mead at 132,000 AFA. In Arizona, seepage losses between 10 to 35 cfs were estimated upstream of the Narrows gage (Cole and Katzer, 2000). Flow lost from the Virgin River to the groundwater system reenters the river via discharge from the Littleield Springs. Measuring discharge rates at the springs is dificult because they are located in the Virgin River channel and can only be observed during low low when the sediment load is near zero (Dixon and Katzer, 2002). An estimated 20 to almost 70 cfs (14,500 to 50,700 AFA) reenters the Virgin River via springs and groundwater discharge between the Narrows and Littleield gages (Cole and Katzer, 2000). Since 1998 average annual low in the Virgin River above the Narrows gage has been about 92,600 acre-feet. Below the Narrows gage, average annual low increases to 174,502 acrefeet at the Littleield gage, with a 72 year period of record. The short perennial reach of Beaver Dam Wash is The entire reach of the Virgin River within supported by springs that collectively discharge Arizona is perennial (AGFD, 1997). Reportedly, over 1,100 gpm. Beaver Dam Wash discharges there were historic periods of no low in the to the Virgin River north of the Littleield gage. Virgin River above the Littleield Springs (Figure 6.6-6), a collection of eight springs A number of major springs issue from the located over a distance of seven miles between Redwall and Muav limestones and to a lesser the Narrows and Littleield gages (see Figure extent, the Tapeats Sandstone, in the vicinity 6.6-5 for gage location). These periods of no low of the Colorado River in the Kanab Plateau were determined from a gage installed upstream of the Littleield Springs (1951-1956 and 1976) and were caused by irrigation diversions near St. George, Utah and seepage losses near Bloomington, Utah. (Trudeau and others, 1983) Substantial seepage losses from the Virgin River to the groundwater system between the near St. George and Bloomington gages were reported by Trudeau (1979). This reach begins about a half mile north of the Arizona border and extends to St. George. However, post-1990 gage data and seepage measurements suggest that the historical seepage losses to the groundwater Virgin River near Littleield. Average annual low in system in Utah are no longer occurring (Cole the Virgin River above the Narrows gage is about and Katzer, 2000). 92,600 acre-feet. 16 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 and Coconino Plateau basins. The largest are Havasu Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin with a discharge of about 28,500 gpm, and Tapeats Spring in the Kanab Plateau Basin with a discharge of about 18,700 gpm. Havasu Creek is perennial below Havasu Spring, located upstream of the village of Supai, and contains moderate levels of calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate from the springs. Calcium carbonate precipitates out of the spring water, forming travertine deposits along the creek bottom/bed. A major lash lood event occurred on Havasu and Cataract Creeks from August15th- 17th, 2008, causing severe damage to Supai Village and nearby campgrounds on the Havasupai Reservation and stranding tourists and residents. Estimated lood lows were 6-7000 cfs. In response, two streamlow and precipitation gages were installed upstream to provide timely and accurate lood warnings to the Havasupai Nation and campgrounds along Havasu Creek. Roaring Springs, located 3,000 feet below the North Rim, emanates from a cave in the Muav Limestone above the intersection of the Roaring Springs and Bright Angel faults. It has a discharge of almost 2,000 gpm and is the water supply for the North and South Rims of Grand Canyon National Park (USBOR, 2002). A group of major springs with discharge rates between 11 and 90 gpm are found in the vicinity of Moccasin and Kaibab in the north-central part of the Kanab Plateau Basin. Studies at Pipe Spring National Monument indicate that spring discharge is from a sandstone unit of the Kayenta Formation. Fine-grained sediments below the unit create a conining layer that restricts vertical water movement and forces groundwater to move along bedding planes and fractures in the Navajo Sandstone and the upper unit of the Kayenta Formation. In the monument, discharge at Pipe Spring declined between 1976 and 2003 but increased at Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Deer Creek Falls, created by Deer Creek Spring (3,542 gpm) in the Kanab Plateau Basin. A number of major springs issue from the Redwall and Muav limestones and to a lesser extent, the Tapeats Sandstone, in the vicinity of the Colorado River in the Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau basins. Tunnel Spring for reasons that are unclear. The combined spring discharge declined about 0.5 gpm per year between 1986 and 2001 (Truini and others, 2004). A handful of major springs are found in the other basins in the watershed. In the Grand Wash Basin, three major springs, (Tassi, Whiskey and an unnamed spring) discharge from the basin-ill aquifer where it overlies a conining unit, the Muddy Creek Formation (Bales and Laney, 1992). This may be the case with other springs in the basin. The only major spring in the Shivwits Plateau Basin, with a measured 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 discharge of 331 gpm is found at the mouth of cooler than the statewide average (59.5°F). Average annual precipitation in the planning Spring Canyon at the Colorado River. area is 12.1 inches, the same as the statewide There are two impaired stream reaches in average. Annual totals vary widely across the the watershed. Twenty-eight miles of the area, from 6-9 inches at low elevations (less Colorado River from Parashant Canyon to than 5,000 ft.) and rain shadow stations such Diamond Creek are impaired due to selenium as Wahweap, Fredonia, and Beaver Dam, to and suspended sediment concentrations (Table greater than 20 inches at Williams and Bright 6.1-7). These same constituents are responsible Angel Ranger Station in Grand Canyon National for the impairment designation of ten miles of Park. On average, the Western Plateau Planning the Virgin River from Beaver Dam Wash to Big Area exhibits the bi-modal precipitation pattern characteristic of Arizona (see Figure 6.0-8); Bend Wash (Figure 6.6-10). however, the northwestern part of the planning area, near the borders of Nevada and Utah, 6.0.3 Climate2 exhibits a stronger late winter peak, whereas The average annual temperature of the Western the eastern and southern part of the area shows Plateau Planning Area (57.9°F) is somewhat a stronger summer peak. Figure 6.0-8 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 80 3.0 Precipitation Temperature 75 2.5 65 Precipitation (in.) 2.0 60 1.5 55 50 1.0 45 0.5 40 0.0 35 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: CLIMAS 2 Information in this section was provided by the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, September 2007 18 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Temperature (F) 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Frontal storm systems moving west-to-east, guided by the jet stream, deliver the area’s winter and spring precipitation. Summer monsoon thunderstorms arrive later in this part of the state than elsewhere, and August is clearly the peak month, on average, for summer precipitation. However, year-to-year summer precipitation variability is pronounced, with some years showing July peaks. The area shows a strong response to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, with El Niño winters registering wet conditions 52% of the time and dry conditions less than 30% of the time; La Niña winters are dry 54% of the time and wet only 21% of the time. Average annual temperatures in the Western Plateau Planning Area have been increasing since the 1930s, and especially rapidly since the mid-1970s (see Figure 6.0-9). The long-term trend is superimposed on decadal variability generated primarily by Paciic Ocean and atmosphere variations. Decadal variations are particularly obvious in the instrumental record of precipitation. Drought conditions are apparent for the decades of the 1940s-early 1970s and since the mid-1990s, whereas the 1930s and mid-1970s through the mid-1990s were relatively wet. Figure 6.0-9 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Western Plateau Planning Area from 1930-2002 22 62 20 60 18 59 16 Precipitation (in.) Temperature (F) 61 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 58 57 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 14 12 56 10 55 8 54 6 53 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 4 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Year Horizontal lines are average temperature (57.9 °F) and precipitation (12.1 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: CLIMAS. Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Winter precipitation records dating to 1000 A.D., estimated from tree-ring reconstructions, show extended periods of above and below average precipitation in every century (Figure 6.0-10). Notably dry periods include the late 1500s, which feature the driest decade in this part of the state, and the late 1200s. The Western Plateau Planning Area was relatively wet during the late 1400s, early 1600s, and early 1900s. 6.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions relect the geography, climate and cultural activities in an area 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 low claims, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected from development as national parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness areas, and managed waters. Vegetation Information on ecoregions and biotic (vegetative) communities in the planning area are shown on Figure 6.0-11. Three of Arizona’s six ecoregions are included in the planning area: the Colorado Plateau Shrublands, which covers most of the area, the Mojave Desert in the western portion, and the Arizona Mountains Forests ecoregion in the eastern section. Biotic communities range from Mohave desertscrub in the western part of the planning area and along the Colorado River to a small area of alpine tundra in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Figure 6.0-10 Winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988 2.0 1.5 Precipitation anomaly (inches) 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Year 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: CLIMAS. 20 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Much of the planning area is covered by Great Basin conifer woodland and plains and Great Basin grassland. mix of conifers that may include Douglas-ir, white ir, limber pine, blue spruce, and white pine, with ponderosa pine on warmer slopes. Aspen and Gambel oak are prominent in these forests following disturbances. Below 8,000 feet in areas that receive about 18 to 26 inches of annual precipitation, the mix of species gives way to almost pure stands of ponderosa pine, particularly on the Kaibab Plateau and at the south rim of the Grand Canyon. About half of the precipitation occurs during the growing season, which permits forests to exist on less than 25 inches of annual rainfall, making them some of the driest forests in North America (Brown, 1982). Alpine tundra communities are found only at the highest elevations on the San Francisco Peaks, generally over 12,000 feet. The Peaks are the southernmost climatic alpine area in the United States. Because of the relatively harsh climate, only specially-adapted species can survive. Plants are commonly small and ground-hugging and include mosses, lichens and herbs. An area of the Peaks has been closed to travel to protect an endemic groundsel (Senecio franciscanus), a threatened species. Small areas of subalpine grassland are also found on the San Francisco Peaks and on the Kaibab Plateau at elevations Great Basin conifer (piñon-juniper) woodlands above 8,500 feet that receive from 30 to 45 cover large areas below the ponderosa pine forest inches of annual rainfall (Grahame and Sisk, at elevations between about 5,000 and 7,500 2002). High elevation subalpine conifer forests are limited to relatively small isolated mountaintop stands on the Kaibab Plateau and the San Francisco Peaks area 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 ir, spruce and aspen trees and receive much of their annual precipitation as snow. Summer precipitation is also a substantial component of annual precipitation. Bristlecone pine stands occur at elevations around 11,000 feet on the San Francisco Peaks (Brown, 1982). Signiicant stands of aspen occur in places, especially in areas that have been burned. Natural ires are relatively uncommon in subalpine conifer forests with patchy crown ires occurring about every several hundred years, and surface ires occurring every 15 to 30 years (Graham and Sisk, 2002). Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean Montane conifer forests commonly occur between about 7,200 to 8,700 feet. Above 8,000 feet in areas that receive from 25 to 30 Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean Montane inches of annual rainfall, the forest contains a Forest near Jacob Lake, Kanab Plateau Basin. 22 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 fall occurs. This vegetative community is dominated by multi-branched, aromatic shrubs with evergreen leaves, primarily sagebrush, blackbrush and shadscale. Great Basin desertscrub is found in all basins in the Western Plateau Planning Area except the Paria Basin. In addition to shrubs, vegetation consists primarily of grasses. Grazing has heavily impacted native grasses in this community, which have been replaced by exotic species including cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is highly lammable, and where it is a signiicant Plains grasslands, primarily composed of mixed component of sagebrush stands, the incidence or short-grass communities, are widespread in of ire is greatly increased (Brown, 1982). the planning area at elevations above about 4,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches Mohave desertscrub covers a transitional zone of annual precipitation. These areas are located between the higher and cooler Great Basin primarily in the Coconino Plateau, Kanab Plateau desert and the lower, hotter Sonoran desert. It and Shivwits Plateau basins. On the Arizona is found along the Colorado River and in the Strip, Great Plains grassland, which is drier and western part of the planning area at elevations receives a larger percentage of annual rainfall below about 3,500 feet. While many of the same in the winter and spring, transitions with plains plants found in the other deserts occur here, grasslands (Brown, 1982). Native bunchgrasses some are found only in the Mohave Desert such have been largely replaced by Eurasian annual as the Joshua tree. The Mohave Desert is rich species such as cheatgrass due to grazing and in endemic ephemeral plants, most of which are ire-suppression practices (Grahame and Sisk, winter annuals (Brown, 1982). 2002). There are reaches of riparian vegetation along Interior chaparral occupies mid-elevation the major watercourses in the planning area infoothill, mountain slopes and canyons in the cluding the Colorado River, Kanab Creek, Paria Virgin Mountains in the Virgin River and Grand River and Virgin River. Prior to construction Wash basins, and in several isolated locations of Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado River supin the southern part of the Shivwits Plateau ported a “sparse” riparian ecosystem above the Basin. It is found in areas between about 3,500 high water zone of 100,000 cfs. Following conand 6,000 feet in elevation that receive 15 to 25 inches of annual precipitation (Brown, 1982). Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Typical shrubby species are mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and manzanita. Chaparral plants are well adapted to drought conditions. feet that receive about 10 to 20 inches of annual precipitation. Extensive stands exist throughout the planning area as shown on Figure 6.0-11. Piñon pine dominates at higher elevation while junipers are the dominant species at lower and drier areas that may include open grasslands. Bark beetle infestations have killed large areas of piñon pine southeast of Valle and smaller areas south of the South Rim in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Great Basin desertscrub occurs in northern Arizona mostly at elevations of 4,000 to 6,500 feet where an average of about 7 to 12 inches of rain- Mohave desertscrub in the Virgin River Basin. Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 struction, the new high water zone lowered and there was die-off in the upslope areas. However a mix of native and non-native species has increased in the new zone under the more stable conditions and higher year-round low lows. Riparian vegetation has also increased in tributary canyons. (Webb and others, 2007) of pine bark beetle populations ever recorded in Arizona forests during 2002 – 2004. Based on aerial surveys conducted in 2004 by the U.S. Forest Service, substantial bark beetle-caused ponderosa pine mortality occurred in a swath of forest stretching northeast from Williams and on forest lands south of the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. While drought conditions improved in 2004 and 2005, Ponderosa pine mortality due to Ips beetles increased in 2006, with 6,850 acres infested on the Kaibab National Forest. Other beetle species have also attacked trees on the Kaibab Plateau and on the San Francisco Peaks (USDA, 2006). By 2008, bark beetle activity had decreased substantially with only 560 affected acres in the Kaibab National Forest. However, almost 67,000 acres of aspen damage by defoliating insects was observed on the Kaibab in that year. Study plots were established in Arizona in 2003-2004 to monitor the impacts from bark beetle infestations on fuel loading and ire behavior. Preliminary analysis shows that mortality plots have signiicantly higher fuel loads than areas with no mortality. (USDA, 2008) Within the alluvial reaches of Kanab Creek, thick stands of coyote willow that historically grew have been replaced by a mix of native and non-native trees growing in the channel. Downstream in Kanab Canyon large loods and low baselow precludes establishment of signiicant riparian vegetation. Along the Paria River upstream of its conluence with the Colorado River tamarisk, coyote willow and scattered cottonwood are found. Historically, willow and some cottonwood were present in this reach (Webb and others, 2007). Downstream from the Virgin River Gorge to Lake Mead, extensive stands of native and non-native vegetation exist along the Virgin River. Tamarisk is predominant downstream of Littleield (Webb and others, 2007). Dixon and Katzer (2000) estimated that nearly 10,000 acre-feet of water is used by phreatophytes along the Virgin River from the Little- Mortality rates of 60 to 95 percent in low elevation aspen groves, around 7,000 feet, has ield gage to the state line. been observed on the Kaibab and Coconino Several years of drought combined with high national forests. Sudden Aspen Death (SAD) tree densities resulted in the largest outbreak is believed caused by a combination of factors including drought and warmer temperatures that make trees more vulnerable to pests and pathogens. Fire exclusion is also thought to be a factor in longer term decline of aspen throughout the western U.S. Research is being conducted on the Kaibab National Forest to determine the cause of SAD and determine whether aspen are permanently disappearing from its lower elevation range. (Stevens, 2009) Vegetation along the Virgin River south of Beaver Dam/Littleield. 24 A number of major wildires occurred in the Western Plateau Planning Area during the severe drought years between 2002 and 2006 (see Figure 6.0-12). The largest was the lightning- Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-12 Wildires in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2002-2005 (USFS 2007a) caused Warm Fire, which consumed about 40,000 acres on the central Kaibab Plateau in 2006. Of the area burned, about 30 percent was identiied as having high burn severity related to soil and watershed conditions (USFS, 2007b). In the Southwest, ire can be among the most signiicant watershed disturbance agents, particularly to peak stream lows. Increased peak lows can degrade stream channels and make them unstable, increase sediment production and cause lood damage. (Neary and others, 2003) Spring season and less snow cover could result in vegetative changes in the planning area with implications on runoff, iniltration and water supplies. Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs The objective of the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) Program is to provide funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. Eleven projects have been funded in the Drought, wildire and long-term climate change planning area through 2008. Six projects were involving warmer temperatures with earlier funded in the Coconino Plateau Basin involving Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 research, restoration and exotic species control. Three projects in the Kanab Plateau Basin and one each in the Grand Wash and Paria basins were also funded involving restoration, research, revegetation, exotic species control and watershed enhancement. A list of projects and types of projects funded in the Western Plateau Planning Area through 2008 is found in Appendix A. A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Volume 1 and on the Department’s website. Instream Flow Claims An instream low water right is a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. An application to appropriate public water for instream low purposes moves through a number of administrative steps culminating in the Department’s approval or rejection of the application. Streamlow measurement data, a study that substantiates the streamlow volume requested and quantiies the relationship between the claimed beneicial use(s) and the requested streamlow rates are required before the Department will issue a permit to appropriate. Following approval of a permit, the permit holder has four years to demonstrate that the instream low right is being used in a manner consistent with the terms of the issued permit. After the permit holder submits proof of the appropriation, the Department issues the permit holder a Certiicate of Water Right (CWR) with a priority date that relates back to the date of the application. A CWR evidences 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. All permits and certiicates are for speciic uses at speciic places and are endorsed with the priority date and extent and purpose(s) of the right(s). The right must be beneicially used or it may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture. Seven applications for instream low claims were iled by the Bureau of Land Management in the Virgin River Basin. Applications are listed in Table 6.0-1 and instream low reaches are shown on Figure 6.0-13. Six applications have been iled on reaches of the Virgin River and one has been iled on a reach of Beaver Dam Wash. All applications are currently pending. Threatened and Endangered Species A number of listed threatened and endangered species3 may be present in the Western Plateau Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of 2008 are shown in Table 6.0-2. Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development Table 6.0-1 Instream Flow Claims in the Western Plateau Planning Area Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 1 Beaver Dam Wash BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94843.0 Pending Pending 8/24/1989 2 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94819.0 Pending Pending 6/1/1989 3 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94865.0 Pending Pending 10/20/1989 4 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-96159.0 Pending Pending 12/23/1991 5 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94866.0 Pending Pending 10/20/1989 6 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-96134.0 Pending Pending 10/30/1991 7 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-96133.0 Pending Pending 10/30/1991 Source: ADWR 2008a An “endangered species” is deined by the USFWS as “an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a signiicant 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 signiicant portion of its range.” 3 26 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-2 Endangered Species in the Western Plateau Planning Area Common Name Threatened Brady Pincushion Cactus Bald Eagle Endangered X X Elevation/Habitat 3,400-5,200 ft,/Gravelly alluvium with sparse vegetation on gently sloping benches and terraces Varies/Large trees or cliffs near water California Brown Pelican X Varies/Lakes and rivers California Condor X 2,000-6,500 ft,/Steep terrain with rock outcroppings, cliffs and caves Desert Tortoise (Mohave Population) 1,000-4,000 ft./Sandy loam to rocky soils in valleys, bajadas and hills X Holmgren Milk-Vetch X 2,480-2,999 ft./Skirt edges of hill and plateau formations slightly above or at the edge of drainage areas Humpback Chub X 1,530-4,400 ft,/Turbulent, high gradient, canyon-bound reaches of large rivers Jones' Cycladenia Kanab Amber Snail Mexican Spotted Owl X X X Sentry Milk-Vetch Siler Pincushion 3,200 ft./Marshes watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone cliffs or limestone 4,100-9,000 ft./Canyons and dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure X Razorback Sucker San Francisco Peaks Groundsel 4,000 to 6,800 ft/ Mixed desert shrub and scattered piñon-juniper communities X <6,000 ft./Riverine and lacustrine areas, not in fast moving water >10,900 ft./Alpine tundra X 7,000-7,960 ft/Uppermost layer of Kaibab limestone that is weathered in small, shallow pockets and networks of small cracks 2,800-5,800 ft./Low red or gray gypsiferous badlands X Southwestern Willow Flycatcher X <8,500 ft./Cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams Virgin River Chub X 1,540-2,360 ft/Swift but not turbulent reaches of the Virgin River Welsh's Milkweed 4,700-6,250 ft./Open, sparsely vegetated sand dunes or sagebrush, juniper, pine and oak communities X Woundfin X 1,900-10,000 ft./Swift parts of silty streams Yuma Clapper Rail X <4,500 ft./Fresh water and brackish marshes Source: USFWS 2008, USDOI 2007 28 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-14). 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 A unique example of endangered species listed in Table 6.0-3. Five wilderness areas are management in the planning area is that of the within the boundaries of national monuments. California condor. Considered one of the most endangered birds in the world, condors were Grand Canyon National Park, a World Heritage placed on the federal endangered species list in Site, encompasses 1,218,375 acres. It was given 1967. In 1987, with only 22 individuals known Federal protection in 1893 as a Forest Reserve to exist, a controversial decision was made to and later as a National Monument, and achieved bring all remaining condors into captivity in National Park status in 1919. It receives almost order to conduct a captive breeding program with ive million visitors each year. Water for both the goal of reintroducing the species to the wild. the North and South Rims of the Park come from Beginning in 1996, six to ten birds have been Roaring Springs, located 3,000 feet below the released each year from the Vermilion Cliffs in North Rim, and transported via pipeline to both the Paria Basin. As of July 2009 there were 75 rims (see Section 6.0.7) (USBOR, 2002). Park condors in Arizona. This reintroduction was lands exist in every groundwater basin except conducted under a special provision of the ESA that allows for the designation of a nonessential experimental population. Under this designation, endangered species protections are relaxed, providing greater lexibility for management of a reintroduction program (AZGF, 2006). in a particular area. The USFWS should be contacted for details regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), designated critical habitat and current listings. National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas and Wilderness Areas The Western Plateau Planning Area has the greatest acreage of federally protected areas as parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness areas of any planning area. It contains almost all of Grand Canyon National Park, three national monuments and small parts of two national recreation areas. In total there are 2.68 million acres of protected federal lands in the planning area, accounting for 31% of the land area. The Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument make up most of the total with more than two million combined acres. Nine wilderness areas are entirely within the planning area as well as part of two others (see Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Colorado River through the Grand Canyon within Grand Canyon National Park. 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-3 Wilderness areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area Wilderness Area Acres Basin Description Rugged mountains, alluvial plains and several miles of the Virgin River Navajo sandstone cliffs, canyons and pinnacles, willow and cottonwoods in wetter canyons Beaver Dam Mountain 19,600 Virgin River Cottonwood Point 6,860 Kanab Plateau Grand Wash Cliffs* 37,030 Grand Wash Kachina Peaks 18,615 Coconino Plateau (part) Kanab Creek 68,340 Kanab Plateau Kendrick Mountain 6,510 Coconino Plateau Mt. Logan* 87,900 Grand Wash Mt. Trumbull* 7,880 Kanab Plateau Paiute* 87,900 Grand Wash, Virgin River Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs* 112,500 Kanab Plateau, Paria (part) Paria Canyon and Vermilion Cliffs, red rock amphitheaters, sandstone arches, towering walls and hanging gardens Saddle Mountain 40,610 Kanab Plateau Nankoweap Rim, narrow drainage bottoms and steep scarp slopes. Total 493,745 Marks transition zone between Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range provinces and contains many canyons Mt. Humphreys and only arctic-alpine vegetation in the state Kanab Creek and a maze of water and wind carved fins, knobs and potholes Remnant of San Francisco Mountain volcanic field Basalt ledges, cinder cones and large eroded amphitheater Large basalt-capped mesa Virgin Mountains and canyons Source: BLM 2006, USFS 2007c *Wilderness areas are within the boundaries of a National Monument the Virgin River and Paria basins, stretching from the conluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers west to Lake Mead. (See land ownership maps in the basin sections). dwindling ecosystems, including desert riparian communities. It is home to numerous rare, endemic, and federally protected plant and animal species (NPS, 2007). The Grand Canyon is of great geologic signiicance, with a record of three of the four eras of geological time, a rich and diverse fossil record, a huge variety of geologic features and rock types, and numerous caves containing extensive geological, paleontological, archeological and biological resources. Incised by the Colorado River, the Canyon is considered one of the inest examples of arid-land erosion in the world, averaging 4,000 feet deep for its entire 277 miles (NPS, 2005). Construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam has signiicantly altered Colorado River lows and sediment deposition, wildlife and habitat along the river in Grand Canyon National Park. A number of studies and actions have been taken and are underway to manage releases from the dam to protect the Park’s resources and to mitigate the impact of dam operations (see “Managed Waters” below). The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument was created by Presidential Proclamation The Park also serves as an ecological refuge, in January 2000. At 1.05 million acres, it is with relatively undisturbed remnants of described in the Proclamation as a geological 30 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 treasure and as a “vast, biologically diverse, impressive landscape…” The physical remoteness of the monument has helped preserve important biological and archeological resources. The monument encompasses the lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau Basin, considered an important watershed for the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon, almost all of Grand Wash Basin and a small area north of Toroweap in the Kanab Plateau Basin (USDOI, 2007). The Monument is jointly administered by the National Park Service (NPS), (211,100 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), (808,727 acres). In November 2000, President Clinton also established the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument by proclamation. Encompassing 294,000 acres, the entire monument is within Arizona. Most of the Paria Plateau Basin and adjoining lands in the Kanab Plateau Basin are within the monument boundaries. The monument was established to protect geologic features including the 2,500-foot deep Paria Canyon, the Paria Plateau, the spectacular cross-bedded sandstones at Coyote Buttes and the 3,000-foot Vermilion Cliffs escarpment, the Arizona release site of the endangered California condor. Figure 6.0-14 Federally Protected Areas in the Western Plateau Planning Area Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 The Arizona Strip Proposed Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), released in March 2007, serves multiple functions. It is a revised Resource Management Plan for the Arizona Strip Field Ofice of the BLM, a new management plan for the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument and a new management plan for the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. It is also a Proposed General Management Plan/ Final EIS for the NPS portion of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, since that monument is jointly administered by the BLM Lake Powell and Wahweap, Paria Basin. and NPS. About 3% of the 1.2 million-acre Glen Canyon The Proposed Plan/FEIS describes and analyzes National Recreation Area is located in the ive alternatives for managing over 3.3 million northeastern corner of the Paria Basin. The acres of lands. Major issues include manage- Recreation area was created by Congress in ment of access and management of areas hav- 1972 to provide for recreational use of Lake ing wilderness characteristics, protection of Powell and adjacent lands and to preserve natural and cultural resources, management of scenic, scientiic, and historic features. It livestock grazing, and recreation (BLM, 2007). surrounds and includes Lake Powell from Lees Three inal management plans and four records Ferry to the Orange Cliffs in Utah. The principal of decision signed by the BLM and NPS were recreation area development within the planning completed in 2008. Both national monuments area is Wahweap, which includes a marina, are withdrawn from mineral entry while grazing campground and visitor center. Fluctuations in is allowed with adjustments to meet manage- the lake level affect recreational activities. Since ment objectives. Further evaluation of routes in designation of the Grand Canyon-Parashant the entire area will continue for several years National Monument, the only remaining portion (USDOI, 2007). of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in the planning area is Lake Mead itself. Pipe Spring National Monument, established in 1923, is located in the Kanab Plateau Ba- Managed Waters sin south of Kaibab and Moccasin. It is a cultural park occupied by several cultures over a The Colorado River is among the most manperiod of about 2,000 years due to the occur- aged rivers in the United States. The river is rence of springs, which have supported farming impounded behind Glen Canyon Dam, which is and ranching activities. There are four springs managed for both electrical generation purposes within the monument boundaries: West Cabin, and to store water to meet low obligations at Main, Spring Room and Tunnel. Main Spring Lees Ferry under the terms of the 1922 Coloraand Spring Room have man-made discharge do River Compact. As a result, the river’s low points constructed by Mormon pioneers and are and the ecosystem it supports have been funbelieved to represent the low of the original nat- damentally altered. The Colorado River was a ural spring known as Pipe Spring. Since 1976, warm, sediment-laden river that historically carNPS staff has measured spring discharge on a ried a daily average of 275,000 tons of sediment monthly basis due to concerns about declines in through the Grand Canyon. Water temperature discharge rates (Truini and others, 2004). varied through the year and large spring loods 32 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 and varying low patterns deposited sediment along the riverbanks and provided habitat, including calm spawning pools, for a number of native ish species. Operation of the dam for electrical generation requires large water releases during historically low low seasons with daily and weekly luctuations. The low regime is governed by the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam EIS and the Glen Canyon Operating Criteria (see section 6.0.2). The water released from the bottom of the reservoir is now consistently cold year round and considerably less sediment is now carried downstream, impacting beach building along the riverbank. Vegetative communities, wildlife and native ish have been affected by the modiied river low (Tellman and others, 1997). The Colorado pike minnow and bonytail chub no longer occur in the Grand Canyon, and the humpback chub and razorback sucker are listed as endangered species. In 1997, Secretary of Interior (Secretary), Bruce Babbitt, established an Adaptive Management Program (AMP) to “provide an organization and process for cooperative integration of dam operations, downstream resource protection and management, and monitoring and research information…”. Critical to the program is the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a federal advisory committee. The AMWG incorporates stakeholders into the decision-making process and makes recommendations to the Secretary on how to protect resources. The group completed a draft strategic plan in 2001 and current focus includes recovery of humpback chub, management of sediment resources and experimental releases of water from Glen Canyon Dam (USBOR, 2007a). Before release of the EIS, the Secretary authorized an artiicial lood in the Grand Canyon that would mimic historic spring lows, Beginning in 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation initiated the multi-agency interdisciplinary Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Studies to evaluate the impact of Glen Canyon Dam and how its operation could be modiied to address wildlife and recreational values downstream of the dam. In 1989, work on an EIS began to consider options for the operation of the dam. The EIS was completed in 1995 and indings indicated that there were a number of uncertainties regarding the downstream impact of water releases from the Dam. While the EIS was being developed, Congress passed the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Act) of 1992 (Public Law 102-575), which required operation of the dam in a manner that would protect and mitigate adverse impacts to Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. In compliance with this Act, the EIS proposed an adaptive management process to monitor and assess the effects of dam operations on downstream resources. (USBOR, 2007a) Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 33 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 17,500 residents in the planning area. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections suggest that the planning area population will more than double by 2030, to about 35,000 residents. Historic, current As part of the AMP effort, the Bureau of and projected basin population is shown in the Reclamation completed a scoping report in cultural water demand tables for each basin in March 2007 for the Glen Canyon Dam Long- sections 6.1-6.6. term Experimental Plan EIS. The proposed plan would implement a long-term program The 2000 Census populations for each basin and in the Colorado River below the dam that Indian reservation, from highest to lowest, are could potentially involve dam operations, listed in Table 6.0-4. The most populous basin is modiications to the dam’s intake structures and the Coconino Plateau with about 9,200 residents other management actions such as removal of in 2000. The Shivwits Plateau and Grand Wash basins have very low populations with 12 and non-native ish (USBOR, 2007a). 15 residents in 2000, respectively. Unlike the Colorado River, the Virgin River lows uninterrupted from its headwaters above Table 6.0-5 lists incorporated and unincorpoZion National Park to Lake Mead. Water is rated communities in the planning area with diverted from the Virgin River for municipal and 2000 Census populations greater than 500 and agricultural needs in Utah and for agricultural growth rates for two time periods. Communiuse in Arizona. This river, particularly its upper ties are listed from highest to lowest population reaches, is recognized for its recreational and in 2000. The planning area population grew by scenic values. Segments of the Virgin River 35% between 1990 and 2000. There are only and a number of tributaries totaling 165 miles three incorporated communities in the planwithin Zion National Park were added to ning area, Colorado City, Fredonia and Wilthe Federal Wild and Scenic River System in liams. Relatively rapid growth has occurred March, 2009. It is the only designated system in several areas including Beaver Dam/Littlein Utah. Congress adopted the Wild and Scenic ield, Colorado City, Valle and Cameron. The Rivers Act in October 1968 to preserve selected rivers that possess “outstandingly remarkable Table 6.0-4 2000 Census population in scenic, recreational, geologic, ish and wildlife, the Western Plateau Planning Area historic, cultural or other similar values” in their 2000 Census free-lowing condition for the beneit of present Basin/Reservation Population and future generations. Under the Act the river 9,164 area must be managed in a manner that protects Coconino Plateau Havasupai 650 and enhances its “outstandingly remarkable Navajo 3,068 values” (NWSR, 2007). in order to help build beaches and habitat. The lood temporarily restored beaches and improved backwater habitat, but pre-lood conditions quickly returned. 6.0.5 Population The Western Plateau Planning Area is the most sparsely populated planning area in the state although there are some rapidly growing areas. Census data for 2000 show almost 34 Kanab Plateau Kaibab-Paiute Virgin River Paria Grand Wash Shivwits Plateau Total 6,233 196 1,532 528 15 12 17,484 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-5 Communities in the Western Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 500 Basin 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Percent Change 1990-2000 2006 Pop. Estimate Percent Change 2000-2006 Projected 2030 Pop. Kanab Plateau 2,426 3,334 37% 4,150 24% 7,302 City of Williams* Coconino Plateau 2,532 2,842 12% 3,170 12% 4,068 Grand Canyon Village CDP Coconino Plateau 1,499 1,460 -3% 1,460 0% 1,460 Cameron CDP1 Coconino Plateau 1,011 1,231 22% 1,339 9% 2,236 Virgin River 762 1,053 38% NA -- NA Kanab Plateau 1,207 1,036 -14% 1,120 8% 1,335 Tusayan CDP Coconino Plateau NA 562 NA 605 8% 714 Valle Coconino Plateau 123 534 334% NA -- 1,010 Total >500 9,560 12,052 26% NA -- NA Other 3,382 5,432 61% NA -- NA Total 12,942 17,484 35% 22,894 -- 35,266 Communities Colorado City* Beaver Dam/Littlefield Town of Fredonia* Source: DES 2006, U.S. Census Bureau 2006, USBOR 2006 NA = not available CDP = census designated place * = incorporated communities 1 = part of population may reside in Eastern Plateau Planning Area unincorporated areas of Beaver Dam/Littleield and nearby Scenic, Arizona, are experiencing growth in large part due to their proximity to growth in Mesquite, Nevada. Mesquite experienced an annual growth rate of almost 12% between 2000 and 2008 (Hardcastle, 2008), fueled by development of retirement communities and its growing popularity as a resort destination. 2000 (Act) which requires that counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) include planning for water resources in their comprehensive plans. Of the two counties in the planning area, only Mohave County it the size criteria in 2000. The Mohave County water resources element will develop a water budget for each of the groundwater basins in the county and will prioritize this effort based on growth potential, water availability, number of wells Population Growth and Water Use and other factors (Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, Arizona has limited mechanisms to address 2005). However, the County’s key water issues the connections between land use, population and planning efforts are related primarily to that growth and water supply. A legislative at- part of the County south of the Colorado River. tempt to link growth and water management Although not required by law to include a water planning is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of resources element in the county’s comprehen- Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 35 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 sive plan, Coconino County has done so. The County Plan emphasizes conservation in tandem with resource development and recognizes the importance of incorporating climatic variability into water resource planning (Coconino County, 2003). The Act also requires that twenty-three communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. In the Western Plateau Planning Area this requirement applies only to Colorado City. Plans must consider water demand and water resource availability in conjunction with growth, land use and infrastructure. Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state were required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans to the Department. 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 efluent used or received. The System Water Plan must be updated and submitted every ive 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 18 systems including City of Williams, Colorado City, Fredonia, Grand Canyon National Park and HydroResources-Tusayan and were used to prepare this document. Annual water report information and a list of water plans are found in Appendix B. 36 Main Street, Williams. City of Williams is one of 18 systems in the planning area that has submitted a water system plan to the Department. 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 suficient 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 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 a demonstration of adequacy before the inal plat can be approved. As of September 2009, no counties or towns in the planning area have adopted this provision. for their entire service area as of the date of publication of this document. However, an application for a designation of adequate water supply was pending for Beaver Dam Water Company as of September 2009. A service Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water area designation exempts subdivisions from Adequacy Reports), including the reason for demonstrating water adequacy if served by the the inadequate determination, are provided in provider. basin tables and maps and are summarized in Table 6.0-6. As shown, 86 subdivisions with 6.0.6 Water Supply over 5,400 lots were reviewed for an adequacy determination through 2008. All subdivisions Water supplies in the Western Plateau Planning were found to have an inadequate water Area include groundwater, surface water and supply in the Coconino Plateau Basin while all efluent. As shown on Figure 6.0-15, groundsubdivisions were found to have an adequate water is the primary water supply, accounting for about 63% of the demand. Surface water supply in the Paria Basin. is used for agricultural irrigation in the Virgin Shown in the basin sections are approved River and Kanab Plateau basins and for municiapplications for an Analysis of Adequate pal use in the Coconino Plateau and Kanab PlaWater Supply (AAWS). This application is teau basins. It is estimated that about 34% of typically associated with large, master planned the total water demand is met with surface wacommunities. The only AAWS determinations ter. Efluent is utilized for golf course irrigation in the planning area are in the Virgin River and for landscape irrigation, toilet lushing and Basin where two applications totaling 27,700 other uses in the Coconino Plateau Basin, contributing 3% of the planning area’s water suplots have been approved. ply. For purposes of the Atlas, water diverted No water providers in the planning area are from a watercourse or spring is considered surdesignated as having an adequate water supply face water and if it is pumped from wells, it is Table 6.0-6 Water adequacy determinations in the Western Plateau Planning Area as of 12/2008 Number of Subdivisions Number of Lots Lots w/ Adequate Determ. Lots w/ Inadequate Determ. Approx. Percent of Lots w/ Percent Inadequate Determ. 53 2,050 0 2,050 100% none none none none none Kanab Plateau 9 360 201 159 44% Paria 9 1,356 1,356 0 0% none none none none none Virgin River 15 1,643 1,617 26 2% Total 86 5,409 3,174 2,235 41% Basin Coconino Plateau Grand Wash Shivwits Plateau Source: ADWR 2008b Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-15 Average Annual Water Sup- is pumped from the Indian Garden pump station ply Utilized in the Western Plateau Plan- through a directional bore hole to water storage tanks on the South Rim. A small portion of ning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) the water lowing to Indian Gardens is diverted Effluent from the pipeline to Phantom Ranch and Cot293 tonwood Campground. The pipeline has experienced failures an average of 10 to 12 times a year due to washouts during high low events and bends in the pipeline. For this reason, the Park is studying alternatives to provide reliable, long-term water supplies. Potential alternatives that have been identiied include construction Surface Water of wellields, diversion of Colorado River water 3,270 to the South Rim, trucking in water, construcGroundwater tion of an iniltration gallery and pumping plant 6,030 on Bright Angel Creek to supply the South Rim and Phantom Ranch, and other alternatives (USBOR, 2002). There are concerns regarding use of current and future supplies and potential impacts on seeps and springs in the Grand Canyon. Several Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects have funded studies to help research accounted for as groundwater. This is relected these impacts. in the cultural water demand tables in each basin section. In the Coconino Plateau Basin, the City of Williams historically relied on surface water Surface Water stored in ive small reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 893 million gallons (2,740 About 3,300 AFA of surface water diverted from acre-feet). The reservoirs, constructed between streams or springs was used on average in the 1892 and 1952, collect inlow from snowmelt. planning area during 2001-2005. Surface water Evaporation and seepage from the reservoirs is is used primarily for agricultural irrigation but substantial, with losses greater than the city’s also as a municipal and industrial water supply. annual demand. Two dry years in a row can Surface water availability is subject to drought result in signiicant stress to the supply system. and legal access to supplies. When surface water supplies were seriously impacted in 1996 the City began a well drilling Surface water from Roaring Springs, located program to supplement its surface water supplies 3,000 feet below the North Rim of the Grand during periods of shortage (Pinkham and Davis, Canyon, is the primary water supply for both 2002). As a result and due to ongoing drought, the North and South Rims. Spring water is the community utilized primarily groundwater pumped to the North Rim from the Roaring in recent years. Springs pump station and delivered via the Trans-Canyon Pipeline. The Trans-Canyon Havasu Creek, which lows from springs Pipeline delivers water by gravity low to Indian emanating from the Redwall-Muav Formations, Gardens, located below the South Rim, where it is a water supply for the Havasupai Tribe at 38 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Kaibab-Paiute Indian Tribe (Truini and others, 2004). In the Virgin River Basin, a small amount of surface water is diverted from Beaver Dam Wash for golf course irrigation. In 2000, about 1,700 acres in the Littleield area were in cultivation and surface water from the Virgin River was the primary agricultural water supply. However, due to subsequent lood damage and conversion to domestic uses, agricultural acreage has Agriculture in Havasu Canyon. Surface water is declined signiicantly. A USGS investigation used as both a municipal and agricultural supply on in 2007 showed only 42 acres of irrigated land the Havasupai Reservation. in the basin. Surface water was no longer being Supai. Surface water is used as both a municipal diverted for agricultural use; all remaining lands and agricultural supply on the reservation. were irrigated with groundwater. In the Kanab Plateau Basin surface water is a supply at several location. Surface water from Kanab Creek, diverted between Kanab Dam and Fredonia Dam has been used for irrigation in the Fredonia area (ADWR, 1998). The USGS conducted an investigation in 2008 and found 413 acres irrigated with surface water. The Arizona Strip Partnership (now inactive) identiied the lack of suficient surface water supplies for agriculture as an issue in Fredonia. Part of Fredonia’s municipal water supply may be surface water delivered from Utah. Jacob Lake Lodge on the Kaibab Plateau uses about seven acre-feet of spring water a year from Warm Spring. Surface water from springs has also been a supply for Twin City Water (Colorado City), although current use is not reported, and for Badger Creek Water in the small community of Vermilion Cliffs. In addition, Marble Canyon Company has a Colorado River diversion entitlement of 70 AFA. The springs at Pipe Springs National Monument have historically been used for domestic, ranching and farming purposes. A pipeline from Tunnel Spring conveys water outside the monument to maintain water-use agreements with the local cattleman’s association. In 1971, a well was drilled outside the monument to meet the growing needs of the monument and the Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview In addition to physical availability, the legal availability of a surface water supply is also an important consideration in water management. As described in detail in Appendix C, the legal framework and process under which surface water right applications and claims are administered and determined is complex. Rights to surface water are subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation which is based on the tenet “irst in time, irst in right”. This means that the person who irst put the water to a beneicial use acquires a right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date. Under the Public Water Code, beneicial use is the basis, measure and limit to the use of water. Each type of surface water right iling is assigned a unique number as explained in Appendix C and shown in Table 6.0-7. A Certiicate 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. The act of iling a statement of claim of rights to use public waters (36) does not in itself create a water right. Arizona has two general stream adjudications in progress to determine the nature, extent and priority of water rights across the entire river systems of the Gila River and the Little Colorado River. Pertinent to the Western Plateau 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Planning Area, the Little Colorado River (LCR) Adjudication area extends into the eastern portion of the Coconino Plateau Basin. The LCR Adjudication is being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Apache County. The LCR Adjudication was initiated by a petition iled by Phelps Dodge Corporation in 1978. It now covers 27,000 square miles and includes three watersheds (Lower Little Colorado River, Upper Little Colorado River and Silver Creek), 5 Indian tribes (Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, Fort Apache and San Juan Southern Paiute) and over 3,000 parties. All parties who claim to have a water right within the river system are required to ile a statement of claimant (SOC) (39) or risk loss of their right. This includes reserved water rights for public lands and Indian reservations which for the most part, have not been quantiied or prioritized. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication ilings are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs); none of which include lands in the Western Plateau Planning Area. Table 6.0-7 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication ilings 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 3,947 ilings that specify surface water diversion points and places of use in the planning area, 1,227 CWRs have been issued to date. Figure 6.0-16 shows the general location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points relect 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 6.0-16. Table 6.0-7 Inventory of surface water right and adjudication ilings in the Western Plateau Planning Area1 Type of Filing Basin Total BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Coconino Plateau 0 73 31 209 468 549 324 1,654 Grand Wash 0 16 26 24 97 69 0 232 Kanab Plateau 0 199 90 202 309 425 0 1,225 Paria 0 32 5 1 34 27 0 99 Shivwits Plateau 0 88 33 105 181 172 0 579 Virgin River 0 7 22 13 88 28 0 158 Total 0 415 207 554 1,177 1,270 324 3,947 Notes: Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) 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. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to unsufficient locational information. 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 claimant of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 1 40 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 41 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 As listed in Table 6.0-7, surface water rights may also be determined through judicial action in state or federal court in which the court process establishes or conirms the validity of the rights and claims and ranks them according to priority. Court decreed rights are considered the most certain surface water right. The single major court determination in the planning area is Arizona vs California (1963) which apportioned waters from the mainstem of the Colorado River to the Lower and Upper Basin States and allocated 2.8 maf a year to Arizona. It also reserved water for certain Indian Tribes (none in the planning area) and included provisions for release of water from reservoirs controlled by the United States under normal, surplus and shortage conditions, which includes Lake Powell in the planning area. Each year, the Secretary is required to declare whether the Colorado River water supply is in a normal, surplus or shortage condition for the Lower Division States (Arizona, California, Nevada). Until 2007, Reclamation lacked speciic guidelines to address the operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell during drought. Following multiple years of drought and decreasing water supplies in storage, in May 2005 the Secretary directed that the Bureau of Reclamation develop guidelines for the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead under low reservoir conditions. To address this situation, Reclamation released a Final EIS: Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations of Lakes Powell and Mead (USBOR, 2007b). The Record of Decision was signed in December, 2007. One of the purposes of the guidelines is to provide greater predictability regarding the amount of annual water deliveries to mainstream Colorado River water users in the Lower Division states. Lake Powell, Paria Basin. to identify under what circumstances the Secretary would reduce the annual amount of water available to the Lower Division States from Lake Mead below 7.5 maf/year; deine the coordinated operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell to improve operations under low reservoir conditions; allow for storage and delivery of conserved water in Lake Mead to increase the lexibility of meeting water needs under drought and low storage conditions; and determine those conditions under which the Secretary may declare the availability of surplus water for use within the Lower Division States. (USBOR, 2007b). The location of surface water resources for each basin in the planning area are shown on surface water condition maps, and maps showing perennial and intermittent streams and major springs. Tables with data on streamlow, lood ALERT equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs are also presented in the basin sections (6.1 – 6.6). Groundwater Groundwater is the principal water supply for municipal, industrial and agricultural users in the planning area where it is pumped from Final EIS reservoir management under shortage relatively shallow local aquifers or from deep conditions includes: adoption of guidelines regional aquifers. Groundwater pumpage aver- Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 42 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 aged about 6,000 AFA during the period 2001 to 2005. Aquifer depth is a signiicant factor in groundwater availability in the area since it is both expensive to drill wells and to pump water to the surface. Groundwater is pumped from depths exceeding 2,000 feet bls at Tusayan and Williams. In addition, well yields from sedimentary rocks of the deep regional aquifers are generally low unless fractures or faults are encountered. The median well yield of 16 large diameter (>10 inch) wells in the Coconino Plateau Basin completed in sedimentary rock aquifers is about 45 gpm. Areas of unconsolidated sediments are relatively limited as shown on the groundwater conditions maps for each basin in sections 6.1-6.6. Extensive areas of unconsolidated sediments that comprise basin-ill aquifers are found only in the western portions of the Virgin River and Grand Wash basins. Other basin-ill aquifers in the planning area are generally narrow and bordered by low water yielding consolidated rocks. Areas of relatively high well yield include basin-ill deposits and the Muddy Creek Formation in the Virgin River Basin with a median well yield of 650 gpm based on data from 53 wells (Table 6.6-6). over 42,000 records of wells and over 210,000 groundwater level records statewide. GWSI contains spatial and geographical data, owner information, well construction and geologic data and historic groundwater data including water level, water 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 purposes. Approximately 1,700 wells are designated as Index Wells statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI sites (GWSI sites are primarily wells but include other types of sites such as springs and drains). Typically, Index Wells are visited once each year by the Department’s ield staff to obtain a long-term record of groundwater level luctuations. Approximately 200 of the GWSI sites are designated as Automated Wells. These systems measure water levels four times daily Few hydrologic studies have been conducted in the planning area and as a result, there is uncertainty regarding groundwater resources including recharge rates and groundwater in storage. Estimates of aquifer recharge are only available for the Virgin River Basin and estimates of groundwater in storage are only available for the Coconino Plateau, Paria and Virgin River basins. Well data provide information on local groundwater conditions. The Department’s Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database, the main repository for statewide groundwater well data, is available on the Department’s website (www. azwater.gov). The GWSI database contains 43 Automated Well in the Virgin River Basin Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 and store the data electronically. Automated wells are established to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data are lacking. These devices are located based on areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, proximity to river/stream channels, proximity to water contamination sites or areas affected by drought. of the well drilling attempts have been unsuccessful. As of 2002, Williams had spent about seven million dollars to drill six wells, three of which are producing (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). The City currently has four operational wells but one yields only 40 gpm, and another has poor water quality with elevated concentrations of dissolved oxygen, metals and arsenic. Tusayan relies on two 3,000-foot deep wells in the Redwall-Muav Aquifer as its primary water supply but also maintains a leet of semi-tankers for emergency trucking of water if necessary (HydroResources, 2007). Groundwater is also a supply for two industrial golf courses in the Virgin River Basin. Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of Index Wells and Automated Wells as of January 2009. At that time there were 14 Index Wells in the planning area, primarily in the Virgin River Basin. Of these, one is an Automated Well located west of Littleield. Updated maps showing the location of Index and Automated wells may be viewed at the Department’s Groundwater is an agricultural water supply in the Beaver Dam area in the Virgin River Basin website. and in the Kanab Plateau Basin at Colorado City, Most large communities in the planning area rely Fredonia, and Moccasin/Kaibab. Groundwater on groundwater supplies. Although groundwa- use for agricultural irrigation is declining in the ter may be dificult to access in many parts of planning area. the planning area, it is more reliable than the limited surface water supplies, particularly dur- Information on major aquifers, well yields, ing drought. Since 1999, the City of Williams estimated natural recharge, estimated water in has drilled four wells, three of which have static storage, aquifer low direction and water level water levels greater than 2,700 feet bls, as a changes are found in groundwater data tables, backup to their surface water supplies. Some groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and well yield maps for each basin in the Water Resource Characteristics sections. Efluent Santa Fe Reservoir, City of Williams. City of Williams historically relied on surface water stored in ive small reservoirs. Since 1999, the city has drilled four wells to supplement surface water supplies. Due to the relatively limited groundwater and surface water supplies in the Coconino Plateau Basin, innovative reuse of efluent is occurring at several locations. About 3% of the total water demand was met by efluent during the 20012005 time period for golf course irrigation and municipal uses totaling almost 300 AFA. Efluent supplies the water requirements of the Elephant Rock Golf Course at Williams. Efluent treated at the South Grand Canyon Treatment Plant (SGCTP) is used at Tusayan for toilet lushing in hotels and businesses and for landscape Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 irrigation. At Grand Canyon Village, efluent from the SGCTP is reused for toilet lushing, landscape irrigation and other uses including ire ighting in 2007. Efluent generated and treated at Valle is used for landscape irrigation and ire protection (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). 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), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, state designated sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. Of these various contaminated sites, LUST and VRP sites are found. Table 6.0-8 lists the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of the single VRP site. The location of all contamination sites in the planning area is shown on Figure 6.0-17. Elephant Rock Golf Course in Williams. The active VRP site is a heliport site at Tusayan in the Coconino Plateau Basin where soil and groundwater has been contaminated with hydrocarbons and jet fuel. 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 also 27 active LUST sites in the planning area including 11 sites at Fredonia, six at Jacob Lake, ive at Williams, three at Tusayan, and one each at Cameron and Wahweap. Table 6.0-8 Contamination site in the Western Plateau Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT GROUNDWATER BASIN Voluntary Remediation Sites Heliport Lease Lot #1, Grand Canyon Soil, Groundwater - Jet A Fuel, Hydrocarbons Coconino Plateau Sources: ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b 45 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 46 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Total cultural water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area averaged approximately 9,600 AFA during the period 2001-2005. As shown in Figure 6.0-18, the agricultural demand sector was the largest use sector with approximately 4,600 AFA of demand, 48% of the total. With the exception of small pastures, agricultural demand occurs only in the Kanab Plateau and Virgin River basins. Approximately 57% of agricultural demand was met by groundwater during 2001-2005. Municipal demand represented about 42% of the total planning area demand with an average of approximately 4,000 AFA during the period 2001-2005. Municipal demand was primarily met by groundwater and the municipal sector was the only sector that utilizes efluent. Industrial demand, primarily related to golf course irrigation, accounted for more than 900 AFA, 10% of the total demand during this period. Tribal water demand is included in these totals. Cultural demand volumes varied substantially between planning area basins, ranging from 150 AFA in several basins to over 4,500 AFA in the Virgin River Basin during 2001-2005 (see Figure 6.0-19). Tribal Water Demand The largest Indian reservation in the planning area in terms of size is the western portion of the Navajo Reservation, which is also the largest reservation in Arizona. All of the Havasupai Figure 6.0-18 Average Annual Western Plateau Planning Area Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 293 2,000 effluent 1,050 acre-feet 3,000 surface water groundwater 2,500 2,000 1,500 2,600 2,700 1,000 220 500 730 0 Agricultural 47 Municipal Industrial Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-19 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) maintains its tribal headquarters, a visitor’s center and other services adjacent to Pipe Springs National Monument near the village of Kaibab. Grand Wash Shivwits The tribal economy is centered on livestock and Paria 150 Plateau tourism as well as agriculture. The Tribe owns 150 150 a 1,300 tree fruit orchard and may expand agricultural activities (ITCA, 2003). Water demand in 2000 is estimated at approximately 56 AFA (ADWR, 2007). The nearby community of Moccasin is not located on reservation land and Coconino Plateau has been the site of the Mohave County Con1,700 solidated Court for over 50 years, serving all of Mohave County north of the Colorado River. Virgin River The Havasupai use surface water from Havasu 4,670 Creek and wells completed in shallow stream alluvium along the creek to support the comKanab Plateau munity of Supai and tourism activities. There 2,780 is also a small amount of farming on the reservation and stock watering. Tourism is the economic base for the tribe with more than 12,000 annual visitors to nearby Havasu Falls (ITCA, 2003). Water demand in 2000 was likely less and Kaibab-Paiute reservations and the eastern than 50 AFA (ADWR, 2007). portion of the Hualapai Reservation are also within the planning area. The portion of the Municipal Water Demand Hualapai Reservation within the planning area is sparsely populated and its water demand is Municipal water demand is summarized by groundwater basin and water supply in Table not known. 6.0-10. Average annual demand during 2001Total tribal water demand in the planning area 2005 was approximately 4,000 acre-feet. Sixtyin 2000 was estimated to be approximately 360 seven percent of the municipal demand is met AFA with individual tribal estimates listed in by groundwater. Surface water is used in the Table 6.0-9. More recent demand estimates are not available to the Department. Water demand on the portion of the Navajo Reservation within the planning area is associated with domestic and tourism-related uses at several communities, primarily Cameron but also Gray Mountain, Cedar Ridge and Bodeway (The Gap). Stockwatering is also a likely use. Approximately 250 acre-feet has been used annually in this area (USBOR, 2006). Table 6.0-9 Tribal Water Demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area in 2000 (in acre-feet) The Kaibab-Paiute Reservation contains ive villages, the largest of which is Kaibab. This Tribe UNK= Unknown Source: ADWR 2007a Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Agricultural Municipal Kaibab-Paiute 46 10 Navajo 0 250 Havasupai UNK 50 Hualapai UNK UNK 48 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Coconino Plateau Basin by Williams and Grand Canyon National Park-South Rim, and in the Kanab Plateau Basin by Grand Canyon National Park-North Rim, Jacob Lake and in the vicinity of Marble Canyon. Efluent is used for golf course irrigation in Williams, toilet lushing and irrigation at Tusayan and Grand Canyon Village and irrigation and ire protection at Valle. Primary municipal demand centers are Beaver Dam/Littleield, Colorado City, Fredonia, Grand Canyon National Park, Tusayan and Williams. Five water providers in the planning area served 100 acre-feet or more of water in 2006. These providers and their demand in 1992, 2000 and 2006 are listed in Table 6.0-11. Although Fredonia used about 440 acre-feet of water in 2003, its water supply is from Utah, thus it is not included in the table. It is estimated that about 65% of the planning area population is served by a water provider. In 2006, municipal utilities served the communities of Fredonia and Williams. Municipally-owned systems have more lexible water rate-setting 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 6.0.8. City of Williams Until recently, the City of Williams was completely reliant on surface water. Due to drought conditions that impacted surface water supplies, Williams has developed a groundwater system to use during periods when reservoir levels are low or to blend with surface water to aid in water treatment. Annual water demand and supply luctuates from year to year. In 2006, Williams diverted 155 acre-feet of surface water and withdrew 389 acre-feet of groundwater. In 2007, just 85 acre-feet of surface water was diverted and 512 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped. Municipal uses include residential, commercial and the only municipal golf course in the planning area. In 2006 Williams delivered 184 acre-feet to residential customers and 305 acrefeet to non-residential customers. The Elephant Rock Golf course used 153 acre-feet of efluent Table 6.0-10 Average annual municipal water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Groundwater Surface Water1 Effluent2 Total Coconino Plateau Grand Wash Kanab Plateau Paria Shivwits Plateau Virgin River 500 <300 1,600 <300 <300 <300 900 293 1,693 <300 1,750 <300 <300 <300 Total Municipal 2,700 293 4,043 Basin <300 1,050 Sources: USGS 2007, ADWR 2008c Notes: Volumes <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes 1 Reflects water utilized within the basin. The Cultural Demand Tables for the Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau basins in Sections 6.1.8 and 6.3.8 reflect water withdrawn in the basins. Includes golf course, turf irrigation and municipal reuse in Tusayan, Grand Canyon Village and Williams in 2006. 2 49 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-11 Water providers serving 100 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2006, excluding efluent, in the Western Plateau Planning Area Basin/Water Provider 1992 (acre-feet) 2000 (acre-feet) 2006 (acre-feet) 450 NA NA NA 135 6201 528 465 3 63 125 543 5742 510 64 153 NA NA NA NA 3464 976 5 39 1604 Coconino Plateau Basin City of Williams Grand Canyon National Park Water Utility South Rim System North Rim System HydroResources-Town of Tusayan Kanab Plateau Basin Centennial Park DWID - Colorado City Twin City Water Company - Colorado City5 Virgin River Basin Beaver Dam Water Company Sources: CWS annual reports for 2006 & 2007, City of Williams 2007, Coconino County 1997, Pinkham and Davis 2002 1 Williams began using groundwater in 2000. Grand Canyon National Park System Water Plan, 2006; from average daily demand for North and South Rim systems. Diversion from Roaring Springs, in the Kanab Plateau Basin was 883 acre-feet. 3 Based on potable water production, Pinkham and Davis, 2002 4 2007 data from CWS annual report 5 Twin City Water Company may include water from wells in Utah. NA = Not Available 2 for irrigation in 2006, its only water supply that Grand Canyon National Park year. Grand Canyon National Park, with about ive million visitors a year and a year round populaAs the “Gateway to the Grand Canyon”, tour- tion of almost 1,500 at Grand Canyon Village on ism is an important part of the local economy the South Rim, is one of the largest municipal with hotels, restaurants, gas stations and other users in the planning area. Seasonal employees services. Williams maintains a metered stand- at Grand Canyon Village increase the summer pipe for water haulers, restricted to households population by about 40%. The Village includes built as of June 2000. In 2000, Williams had a school, medical clinic, ire station, adminis495 registered non-commercial water haul- trative ofices and other services in addition ing customers. Some of the water used in the to hotels, restaurants and campgrounds. The unincorporated residential community of Red South Rim receives most of the Park’s visitors Lake, located north of Williams, is hauled from and uses almost 90% of the water. By contrast, Williams. Use of the standpipe service by com- the North Rim is closed from mid-October to mercial haulers is restricted during drought mid-May, has limited services compared to the (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). Expansion of both South Rim and receives one-tenth the number its water and wastewater treatment plants may of visitors. (Pinkham and Davis, 2002) be needed in the near future. Because much of the area surrounding Williams relies on hauled Grand Canyon National Park Water Utility water and delivers septic tank waste to the city services all the developed areas within the wastewater treatment plant, the City is in the Park boundaries using water transported from position of providing these services outside of Roaring Springs located below the North Rim in its service area. the Kanab Plateau Basin. The utility serves the Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 50 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 down portions of a kennel, for the railroad steam engine, dust control, revegetation efforts and on a small amount of turf at the El Tovar Lodge. While the reclaimed water distribution system is relatively extensive, on-site plumbing is incomplete (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). In 2006, 37 acre-feet of efluent was used for ireighting and 140 acre-feet was used for landscaping, toilet lushing and construction. Tusayan The small, unincorporated community of Tusayan is located about a mile south of the Grand Canyon Village. Photo courtesy of the Naentrance to the South Rim of Grand Canyon tional Park Service National Park. It is surrounded by public land South Rim, Desert View, North Rim, Roaring and has a population of about 600. Tusayan’s Springs, Phantom Ranch and Indian Gardens economy is based on tourism including hotels, (NPS, 2006). It also provides a relatively small restaurants, an airport and visitor service volume of hauled water to the U.S. Forest establishments (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). Service-Tusayan. In 2006, 883 acre-feet of water was diverted at Roaring Springs, however HydroResources-Tusayan serves approximately this was not all delivered. Excess water three-quarters of the water demand at Tusayan diverted at Roaring Springs and transported to utilizing two 3,000-foot deep wells that produce the South Rim by the Trans-Canyon Pipeline 65 to 80 gpm. Other water systems are ADOT, overlows at Indian Gardens and returns to the which serves the Grand Canyon Airport, and Colorado River. Of the water diverted, almost Anasazi Water (HydroResources, 2007). How600 acre-feet entered the North and South Rim ever, both systems received water from Hysystems in 2006. Of this, 432 acre-feet was droResources in 2006 and 2007. The comreported delivered to customers on both Rims; munity relied on small local wells and hauled 105 acre-feet to residential and 327 acre-feet to water prior to 1995 when the deep wells and commercial customers. In addition, 3 acre-feet reclaimed water began to be used (Pinkham and was delivered to the U.S. Forest Service-Tusayan Davis, 2002). For example, in 1992 Tusayan Ranger Station. The utility does not separately water was provided by the Canyon Squire Inn report North and South Rim water deliveries well (64 acre-feet), and water hauled from Wilon its Community Water System annual report. liams and Bellemont (40 acre-feet) and Grand The estimated demand for each system shown in Canyon National Park (30 acre-feet) (USDA, Table 6.0-10 is based on average daily demands 1999). reported by the Park in its System Water Plan Anasazi Water has one well, and in addition to (NPS, 2006). receiving water from HydroResources, it may use The South Rim Wastewater Treatment Plant a relatively small amount of hauled water from generated about 463 acre-feet of efluent in Williams or Valle. Both HydroResources and 2006. Water is treated to ADEQ A+ standards Anasazi Water wholesale water to the Tusayan and has been reused for toilet lushing at the Water Development Association, which bills visitor center and employee rest rooms, to wash water customers, but does not operate the water 51 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 systems. The two systems are interconnected to ensure uninterrupted service to the community and HydroResources owns a well in Valle from which water may be trucked to Tusayan in an emergency. Colorado City is the largest community and municipal demand center in the planning area with a 2006 population of more than 3,300 and water demand of over 1,300 acre-feet served by two systems; Centennial Park Domestic Water Improvement District (DWID) and Twin City WaHydroResources withdrew 153 acre-feet of wa- ter Works (TCWW). The wastewater treatment ter in 2006 and delivered 19 acre-feet to Ana- plant in Colorado City was closed in 2002 and sazi Water and 6 acre-feet to ADOT. Within its wastewater is now treated at a plant in Hildale. service area, it served 10 acre-feet to residential customers and 116 acre-feet to non-residential Most of Colorado City is served water pumped customers. All water used indoors in Tusayan is from wells owned by TCWW, which also treated at the South Rim Wastewater Treatment serves Hildale Utah. TCWW owns ive wells Plant. Efluent is used extensively for toilet in Arizona and additional system wells may lushing and irrigation. In 2001, almost 70 acre- be located in Utah. The City buys water feet of efluent was used at Tusayan (Pinkham wholesale from TCWW, treats it to drinking and Davis, 2002). Although annual efluent use water standards, and delivers it to customers volumes are not reported by HydroResources through its water delivery infrastructure. on its Community Water System annual report, Based on verbal communication with system the utility reported that 30-40% of its former representatives, about two-thirds of the water groundwater withdrawals have been replaced delivered by TCWW is used in Colorado City, by efluent (HydroResources, 2007). totaling approximately 976 acre-feet in 2006. Municipal uses include residential, commercial ADOT-Grand Canyon Airport operates a and light manufacturing but Colorado City does rainwater collection system consisting of 5 acres not separately report these deliveries. of Hypalon plastic, which provides potable water to the terminal, ofice, hangar facilities The southeastern part of Colorado City is served and a dozen homes. However, ongoing drought by Centennial Park DWID, which operates three conditions have required the purchase of water wells and serves domestic customers. Centennial from HydroResources-Tusayan (GCNP Airport, Park DWID does not have an interconnection to 2008). The airport has also used reclaimed water another system and is not completely metered. for irrigation (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). In 2007 it reported withdrawals of 346 acrefeet. Colorado City Colorado City is located in the Kanab Plateau Beaver Dam/Littleield Basin in Mohave County on the northern border The communities of Beaver Dam, Littleield, of Arizona, adjacent to Hildale, Utah. The two Scenic and the surrounding area in the Virgin communities have close cultural and economic River Basin are experiencing development ties, with nearly half of the population employed due primarily to the nearby rapidly growing in Hildale. The community was initially settled community of Mesquite, Nevada. These by ranchers in the early 1900’s but around 1930 communities provide housing for much of a religious group from Utah settled in the area Mesquite’s workforce and for retirees (USDOI, and played a major part in shaping the present- 2007). The area is served by private water day community (USDOI, 2007). systems or domestic wells. The largest system is Beaver Dam Water Company, which reported Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 52 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Beaver Dam, Virgin River Basin withdrawals of 160 acre-feet from three wells in 2007. (Withdrawals in 2006 were from engineering estimates and are much greater than metered 2007 and 2008 data). It delivered almost 139 acre-feet to residential customers and 21 acre-feet to non-residential customers in 2007. Beaver Dam East DWID withdrew 13 acre-feet of groundwater from one well in 2006 and served residential customers only. The area is anticipated to experience population growth with associated increases in municipal demand. Valle, located between Williams and Tusayan, is a small but rapidly growing community that grew by 334% between 1990 and 2000. It is served by two water systems with wells over 3,000 feet deep. One of these systems is owned by the Grand Canyon Inn, which also operates a wastewater treatment plant and a standpipe for water haulers. The Inn uses wastewater to irrigate landscaping at the hotel and for ire protection. Water demand data are not available for this system. The other system, HydroResources-Valle, serves the Grand Canyon Valle Airport, a mobile home park and operates two standpipes for water haulers. In 2006 it withdrew 35 acre-feet from one well. This system is not interconnected to any other system and emergency water is hauled from Tusayan. A small wastewater treatment plant serves users on this system and efluent is used to irrigate a ballpark. The area surrounding Valle is primarily composed of large lot development without sewer Other Communities or water service. Most residents must haul waFredonia, in the Kanab Plateau Basin, is ter and use septic systems for wastewater disthe largest town in Coconino County on the posal. Despite the lack of services, there has Arizona Strip. It was founded in 1885 with been signiicant subdivision activity in the area an economy based on agriculture, timber and (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). mining. A sawmill operation at Fredonia closed in 1995 and tourism, government activities and Agricultural Demand agriculture are the primary current economic activities. The population of Fredonia declined Agricultural demand in the planning area avbetween 1990 and 2000 by about 14% but is eraged about 4,600 AFA during 2001-2005, now slowly increasing. primarily for pasture irrigation (Table 6.0-12). Aside from small domestic pastures and garIn 2007 Fredonia reported that all water used dens, agricultural irrigation is found only in the was transported by pipeline from Utah and did Kanab Plateau and Virgin River basins. Note that not report the volume or type of water supply the data source for the cultural demand maps in delivered. In 2003, about 440 acre-feet of water the groundwater basin sections is from satellite was served by the Town of which about half was imagery collected between 1999 and 2001 and reported delivered from Utah. Approximately may not accurately represent more recent agri160 acre-feet of efluent is produced at Fredonia cultural demands in the planning area. but not reused. 53 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 There is considerably less irrigation in the Kanab Plateau Basin now than historic levels. From 1976 through 1990 approximately 2,000 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped annually (Table 6.3-8) and between 1,400 to 1,850 acres of alfalfa, pasture and a minor amount of grain and corn were historically irrigated with surface water from Kanab Creek. (ADWR, 1998) By 2007, the USGS estimated approximately 1,400 acre-feet of water was used for irrigation. Table 6.0-12 Agricultural water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area 1991-1995 (acre-feet) 1996-2000 (acre-feet) 2001-2005 (acre-feet) 1,500 <1,000 2,000 1,500 <1,000 2,000 <1,000 <1,000 1,000 7,800 5,800 13,600 8,300 6,200 14,500 2,100 1,500 3,600 Kanab Plateau Groundwater Surface Water Total Virgin River Groundwater Surface Water Total Source: USGS 2007, ADWR 2005a Note: Volumes <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acrefeet for computational purposes In the Fredonia area, surface water from Kanab Creek was historically diverted between Kanab Dam and Fredonia Dam, primarily within the boundaries of the Fredonia Consolidated Irrigation and Manufacturing Company District. The District owns and operates the Fredonia Dam, constructed in 1918, and a concrete-lined distribution ditch. District lands are located mainly east of Kanab Creek south of the town (ADWR, 1998). The USGS conducted a ield survey of the area in 2007 and found 413 acres lood irrigated with surface water and 65 acres sprinkler irrigated with groundwater with a total demand of 676 AFA (Table 6.0-13). The USGS observed 72 acres of irrigation at Colorado City in 2007 with an associated demand of 262 acre-feet (Table 6.0-13). Large fallow areas, previously irrigated with center pivot systems, were observed in the Colorado City area in summer 2007. At Moccasin, the USGS found about 129 acres of irrigation, primarily alfalfa in 2007. There is a small amount of agricultural activity, including a 1,300-tree fruit orchard, on the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation with an estimated groundwater demand of about 50 AFA. Table 6.0-13 Active agricultural acres in the Kanab Plateau (2008) and Virgin River (2007) basins Region Basin Crop Type Acres Colorado City Kanab Plateau Rye Grass Corn Fredonia Kanab Plateau 60 12 413 24 41 114 8 5 2 0.16 0.09 38 4 Moccasin Beaver Dam/Littlefield Kanab Plateau Virgin River Rye Grass Alfalfa Alfalfa Rye Grass Oats/Grass Mix Corn Orchard Vegetables Alfalfa Pistachio Irrigation System Water Type Sprinkler Groundwater Flooded Surface Water Sprinkler Groundwater Center Pivot Sprinkler Groundwater Flooded Sprinkler Drip Groundwater Water Withdrawal (Acre-Feet) 232 30 425 95 156 442 31 19 4 1 1 147 10 Source: USGS 2009 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 54 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 In the Virgin River Basin, irrigation demand Table 6.0-14 Industrial demand in the Western declined from an annual average of 14,500 Plateau Planning Area acre-feet during the period 1996-2000 to 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 an annual average of 3,600 acre-feet durType Water Use (acre-feet) ing 2001-2005. This decline occurred due 920 920 920 to lood damage along the Virgin River and Golf Course Total Virgin River Beaver Dam Wash and to urbanization. By Groundwater 700 700 700 2005, it was estimated that about 525 acres Surface Water 220 220 220 were still in production in the Littleield/ Dairy/Feedlot Total 30 30 30 Beaver Dam area (Kyle Spencer, NRCS, Kanab Plateau personal communication 3/25/05). Howev30 30 30 Groundwater er, when the USGS conducted a ield inves- Source: ADEQ 2005b, ADWR 2008c, USGS 2007 tigation of the area in 2006, it found just 42 acres in active production, primarily alfalfa, all but 8 holes. Irrigation of the existing course with an associated demand of 157 acre-feet. uses about 220 AFA of groundwater and surface water diverted from Beaver Dam Wash. The othIndustrial Demand er industrial golf course, The Palms, located in Scenic adjacent to the Nevada state line, is an 18Industrial demand in the planning area was rela- hole course that uses about 440 AFA of groundtively low, averaging about 950 AFA during the water. The only other golf course in the planperiod 2001-2005. As summarized in Table 6.0- ning area is Elephant Rock, a municipally-served 14, quantiied industrial demand in the planning golf course at Williams with an annual demand of area consists of golf courses served by facility about 150 acre-feet of efluent. water systems and a small dairy. There are two industrial golf courses in the Virgin River Basin. There is additional industrial demand in the The Meadowayne Dairy, located on the north side planning area not relected in Table 6.0-14, of Colorado City in the Kanab Plateau Basin is primarily sand and gravel operations in the estimated to have an annual demand of about 30 Virgin River Basin and elsewhere. Some of the acre-feet. operations are identiied on the cultural demand maps. Water is used for aggregate washing, dust Golf course demand is listed in Table 6.0-15. Ham- control, vehicle washing and equipment cooling. ilton Ranch Golf Course is located in the commu- Typically, relatively little water is consumed at nity of Beaver Dam. Flooding in 2006 washed out these sites. Table 6.0-15 Golf course demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area (c 2006) Facility Elephant Rock Golf Club Hamilton Ranch* Basin # of Demand Holes (acre-feet) Coconino Plateau 18 150 Virgin River 8 220 Water Supply Effluent Groundwater/ Surface Water Groundwater The Palms Golf Course* Virgin River 18 441 Source: ADWR 2008c Notes: * These golf courses are served by their own wells and, therefore, considered to be industrial users Flooding in 2006 washed out all but eight holes at the Hamilton Ranch Golf Course 55 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 The three mines shown on the Kanab Plateau Basin cultural demand map (Figure 6.3-11) are currently (2009) inactive uranium mines owned by Denison Mines that have received aquifer protection permits from ADEQ. The Arizona One Mine, about 35 miles south of Fredonia received its inal permit in 2009, allowing mining to resume. The two other mines, Canyon and Pinenut, require additional permits before work can commence. (McKinnon, 2009) A number of mining companies are currently exploring the Arizona Strip and claiming breccia pipes for uranium mining. The highest grade uranium deposits in the United States occur in brecciapipe environments in northwest Arizona.4 It is anticipated that if developed, these mining operations would involve minimal water use. Water is used primarily in ore processing, which would occur elsewhere. The minor amount of water needed for mining on site would come from stormwater collection and/or shallow groundwater encountered in perched aquifers on site (Nyals Neimuth, ADMMR, personal communication, 6/07). resource studies, by community watershed groups, through surveys, and from other sources. Studies, planning, conservation activities, watershed groups and results from water provider surveys are discussed in this section. The Colorado River is a signiicant political, social and planning barrier, as well as a physical barrier, and the area south of the River has different water resource concerns compared to areas north of the river. North of the River, the Arizona Strip is sparsely populated with few population centers. Colorado City, the largest community, has not identiied any signiicant water resource issues. The Virgin River Basin is somewhat physically isolated from the rest of the Arizona Strip, and while experiencing rapid population growth, contains no incorporated communities. As a result, most of the water resource planning activities have occurred south of the Colorado River in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Studies, Planning and Conservation A number of water resource studies have been conducted in the planning area south of the Colorado River. Studies have been conducted in response to environmental concerns, growth and limited water supplies. A primary objective has been to better understand the water supply, water demand and hydrology of the area in order to develop a regional approach to water resource planning. A major effort has been the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study, which was completed in 2006 and involved the cooperation of the Bureau of Reclamation, Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, 6.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the the Grand Canyon Trust, City of Williams, the Western Plateau Planning Area City of Flagstaff, the City of Page, Coconino Water resource issues in the Western Plateau County, the Department of Water Resources, Planning Area have been identiied in water the USGS and USFWS. The next step for There are concerns about uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River due to potential impacts to air and water quality (McKinnon, 2009). In July, 2009 Interior Secretary Salazar enacted a two-year moratorium on new mining claims on almost 1 million acres of federal lands north of the Grand Canyon. The moratorium was imposed to further study the risks associated with mining and evaluate whether to withdraw the lands from new mining claims for an additional 20 years (USDOI, 2009). 4 A breccia pipe is a vertical pipe-like column of broken rock. On the Colorado Plateau in northwestern Arizona, these pipes formed when sedimentary rocks collapsed into solution cavities in the underlying Redwall limestone. Mineralizing luids passing through the pipes deposited metallic minerals, sometimes including uranium. A typical pipe is about 300 feet in diameter and can extend as much as 3,000 feet. (Wenrick, 2007) Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 56 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 this group is to secure funding to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate water supply alternatives. Other notable studies provide detailed information on cultural water supplies and demand in the Coconino Plateau Basin. These include: North Central Arizona Water Demand Study, (Pinkham and Davis, 2002), Grand Canyon National Park Water Supply Appraisal Study (USBOR, 2002) and the EIS for Tusayan Growth (USDA, 1999). On the Arizona Strip, an EIS for the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs national monuments and for other BLM lands (BLM, 2007) provides a comprehensive study of much of the area north of the Colorado River. While the focus of the EIS is on land management to preserve the objectives of the monuments and other areas, water resources and demands are included as a component of the cooperative management of the area. The National Park Service has conducted numerous studies and management activities in Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The water resources of the Park have been of particular concern given development on the South Rim and nearby areas and the potential impact of associated water development activities on seeps and springs in the Grand Canyon. Development and implementation of new management strategies through the Adaptive Management Program will affect the environmental conditions downstream of Glen Canyon Dam throughout much of the planning area. (USBOR, 2007a) There is signiicant interplay between resource development and environmental needs in the planning area given the amount of federally protected lands as parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness areas. Shivwits Plateau Basin. Most of the planning area is sparsely populated and as a result, most of the water resource planning activities have occurred south of the Colorado River in the Coconino Plateau Basin. mentioned previously, Grand Canyon Village and the community of Tusayan have taken extreme measures to conserve existing resources and reuse efluent for multiple purposes, including widespread use of efluent for toilet lushing. The rainwater harvesting system at the Tusayan airport is unprecedented in Arizona. The City of Williams and Tusayan’s well drilling programs are excellent examples of local efforts to improve supply reliability and better utilize available resources. The City of Williams water conservation program includes incentives to retroit Because of relatively scarce water supplies, old plumbing ixtures and install drought tolercommunities have made extraordinary efforts to ant landscaping and several other water systems develop new water supplies and reuse existing in the planning area provide water conservation resources such as efluent and graywater. As information to customers. 57 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 As mentioned in Section 6.0.5, by January 2008, all large (>1,850 customers) community water systems were required to submit System Water Plans. Small systems were required to submit plans by January 2008. The 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. Within the planning area plans have been submitted by 18 systems including the City of Williams, Colorado City, Town of Fredonia, Grand Canyon National Park, HydroResources-Tusayan and Beaver Dam Water Company. Area Plans including three in the planning area: Tusayan, Valle and Red Lake (located north of Williams) which include a discussion of water and wastewater infrastructure. However, these area plans all date from the 1990s. An application from Wind River Resources L.L.C. to transport groundwater from the Virgin River Basin to Mesquite Nevada in 2005 was recently an important issue for the area. The application proposed to transport water from Beaver Dam Wash pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-291 et seq. The statute allows for transportation of groundwater out of state, conditional on several criteria. The proposal included construction As part of implementation of the State Drought of three wells in the Mormon Wells area along Plan, Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) Beaver Dam Wash. The proposal was to initially are being formed, as necessary, at the county withdraw 800 AFA and up to 14,000 AFA level and a Mohave County group has been by 2045, and transport it to the Virgin Valley established. LDIGs are voluntary groups that Water District in Mesquite. The Director of the will coordinate drought public awareness, Department denied the application in November provide impact assessment information to 2007. local and state leaders, and implement and initiate local drought mitigation and response Another issue involving the Virgin River is actions. These groups are coordinated by related to Colorado River shortage sharing as local representatives of Arizona Cooperative discussed previously in Section 6.0-6. The Extension and County Emergency Management Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower and supported by ADWR’s Statewide Drought Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for program. Information on LDIGs may be found Lakes Powell and Mead (Guidelines), provide for the conservation of Colorado River water at the Department’s website. by creating the Intentionally Created Surplus The Mohave County Comprehensive Plan wa- (ICS) program. The ICS program provides ter resources element includes development of a lexibility in the delivery of Colorado River water budget for each of the groundwater basins water by allowing Colorado River contractors in the county and will prioritize this effort based to add water to the system through conservation, on growth potential, water availability, number system eficiency improvements, or importation of wells and other factors (Freilich, Leitner & to be released in the future by the Secretary of Carlisle, 2005). However, the County’s key wa- Interior to the State (Arizona, California or ter issues and planning efforts are focused on the Nevada) that added the water (ADWR, 2009). part of the County south of the Colorado River. The Coconino Comprehensive Plan emphasizes One of the categories of ICS is Tributary conservation in tandem with resource develop- Conservation ICS. This category allows a ment and recognizes the importance of incor- water user to fallow water rights in tributaries porating climatic variability into water resource of the Colorado River that were in use prior to planning (Coconino County, 2003). In addi- the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project tion, Coconino County has adopted individual Act (BCPA) (1929) and transport this water to Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 58 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 into Lake Mead through the Virgin River or its tributaries where the water will be withdrawn directly from the lake, without building a new pipeline (SNWA, 2008). Five percent of the water conserved under the Tributary Conservation ICS program is left in Lake Mead to increase the water supplies for the system. Flow in the Virgin River will not be impacted through Arizona under the SNWA agreement (Gelt, 2004). Watershed Groups Virgin River through Virgin River Gorge. Several watershed groups afiliated with the Department’s Rural Watershed Initiative Program have formed to address water resource issues. The two active groups, the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council and the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, include not only part of the Western Plateau but also part of the Eastern Plateau and Central Highlands planning areas. A watershed group previously existed in the Fredonia area, (the Arizona Strip Partnership), but is no longer active. A list of participants, activities and issues for all watershed groups in the planning area is found in Appendix D. the Colorado River for credit. This allows an entity to develop some water resources that were formerly identiied as “in-state water” Primary issues identiied by the Arizona Rural by conveying them to the Colorado River for Watershed Initiative groups that pertain to the current or future use (SNWA, 2008). planning area are summarized as follows: Regarding the Virgin River, an agreement to Growth: the Guidelines, the “Southern Nevada Water • Unregulated lot splits Authority Virgin and Muddy Rivers Tributary • Signiicant projected growth Conservation, Intentional Created Surplus (ICS) Water Supplies and Demand: Project”, allows the Southern Nevada Water • Limited and deep groundwater supplies Authority to temporarily forego development • Access to water development on public of Virgin River water rights received after lands the BCPA was enacted while it pursues long• Limited groundwater data term Colorado River augmentation. Under the • Limited supplies to meet current and proagreement, irrigation rights granted to Nevada jected demands prior to the BCPA will be used. SNWA, which • Numerous water haulers with few hauling has purchased many of these rights, will fallow stations that are sometimes cut-off during the land and let the amount not consumed low drought 59 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 • • • Brackish groundwater (Arizona Strip) Interstate stream issues (Arizona Strip) Inadequate surface water supplies for agriculture (Arizona Strip) Legal: • Unresolved Indian water rights claims Funding: • Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies • High cost of water augmentation projects • Costs associated with hauling water • Infrastructure needs for private water companies Drought: • Drought sensitive surface water supplies Environmental: • Potential for groundwater development to impact springs in Grand Canyon and Havasupai and Hualapai Indian Reservation water supplies Other: • Unsafe dams (Williams and Fredonia) tion for the public and help identify the needs of growing communities. This survey was also intended to gather information on drought impacts to incorporate into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes, and a report of the indings from the survey was subsequently completed (ADWR, 2004). Only one water provider in the planning area responded to the 2003 survey. 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, ten water providers in the Western Plateau Planning Area, with a total of approximately 2,400 service connections, participated and provided information on water supply, demand, and infrastructure and ranked a list of seven issues. There were ive respondents from Issue Surveys the Virgin River Basin, three from the Kanab The Department conducted a rural water re- Plateau Basin and two from the Coconino sources survey in 2003 to compile informa- Plateau Basin. Table 6.0-16 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Western Plateau Planning Area Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Percent of 2004 respondents reporting issue was a moderate or major concern 43% Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand 14 Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand 43 Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand 43 Infrastructure in need of replacement 29 Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements 71 Drought related water supply problems 29 Source: ADWR, 2005b Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 60 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Water providers were asked in the 2004 survey to rank seven issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. All water providers responded, but two reported no concerns. Results are summarized in Table 6.0-16 for the eight providers that ranked issues of concern. The most highly ranked issue, inadequate capital for infrastructure improvements, was identiied primarily by respondents located in the Virgin River Basin. Inadequate storage was primarily an issue in the Kanab Plateau Basin. 6.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics Sections 6.1 through 6.6 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the six groundwater basins in the Western Plateau Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Appendix A of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briely 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 6.1 through 6.6. State Enabling Act of 1910 and the Act that established the Territory of Arizona in 1863 set aside sections 2, 16, 32 and 36 in each township to be held in trust by the state for speciied purposes, which are identiied for each basin (ASLD, 2006). Climate Climate data including temperature, rainfall, evaporation rates and snowfall are critical components of water resource planning and management. Averages and year to year variability, seasonality of precipitation and longterm climate trends are all important factors in demand and supply planning. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be a potential supply in a basin. Stream gage, lood gage, reservoir, stockpond and runoff contour data provide information on physical availability of this supply. Seasonal low information is relevant to seasonal supply availability. Annual low volumes provide an indication of potential volumetric availability. Surface water maps display runoff contours and the location of reservoirs and gages. Also shown are 1st and 2nd order streams, and 3rd Geographic Features Geographic features maps are included to order streams with gages. The stream order used present a general orientation to principal land is the Cartographic order, similar to ‘stream features, roads, counties and cities, towns and level’ used by the USGS to categorize streams in its National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). places in the groundwater basin. This method assigns Level 1 to the principal stream in a drainage area, major tributaries are Land Ownership The distribution and type of land ownership in assigned Level 2, minor tributaries are assigned a basin has implications for land and water use. Level 3, etc. Large amounts of private land typically translate into opportunities for land development and Criteria for including stream gage stations in associated water demand, whereas federal lands the basin tables are that there is at least one year are typically maintained for a purpose with little of record, and annual streamlow statistics are associated water use. State owned land may be included only if there are at least three years of sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing record. There are different types of stations and and farming. The extent of state owned lands those that only serve repeater functions were is due to a number of legislative actions. The not included. 61 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Flood gage information is presented to direct the reader to sources of additional precipitation and low information that can be used in water resource planning. Large reservoir storage information provides data on the amount of water stored in the basin, its uses, and ownership. Because of the large number of small reservoirs, and less reliable data, individual small reservoir data is not provided. The number of stockponds is a general indicator of small scale surface water capture and livestock demand. Runoff contours relect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication of the amount of runoff that can be expected at a particular geographic location. size and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity and speciic information is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major Springs A map of perennial and intermittent streams is provided for each basin. For some basins, more than one source of information was used. Stream designations may not accurately relect current conditions in some cases. Spring data was compiled from a number of sources in an effort to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. Spring data is important to many researchers and to the environmental community due to their importance in maintaining habitat, even from small discharges. Water level data is from measured wells, usually collected during the period when the wells were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown on mapped wells if there was a measurement taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs show water-level trends for selected wells over the 30-year period from January 1975 to January 2005. Not all basins have a suficient number of representative hydrographs. Groundwater Conditions Several indicators of groundwater conditions are presented for each basin. Aquifer type can be a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, water quality and aquifer lux. Well yield information for large diameter wells is provided and is generally measured when the well is drilled and reported on completion reports. It was assumed that large diameter wells were drilled to produce a maximum amount of water and, therefore, their reported pump capacities are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield water to a well. However, many factors can affect well yields including well design, pump Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Natural recharge is typically the least well known component of a water budget. Many of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from studies of larger geographic areas and all deserve further study. Similarly, estimates of storage are based on rough estimates and considerably more studies are needed in most basins. Components of storage include aquifer depth and speciic yield. The low directions that are shown generally relect long-term, regional aquifer low in the basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. However, low directions in some basins indicate how localized pumping has altered regional low patterns. Water Quality Water quality conditions impact the availability of water supplies. Water quality data were compiled from a variety of sources as described in Volume 1 Appendix A. The data indicate areas where water quality exceedences have previously occurred, however additional areas of concern may currently exist where water quality samples have not been collected or sample results were not reviewed by the Department (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the 62 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Briely, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is suficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand is an important compo- be disclosed in promotional materials and in nent of a water budget. However, without man- sales documents. datory metering and reporting of water uses, accurate demand data is dificult to acquire. In addition to these subdivision determinations Municipal demand includes water company and for which a water adequacy report is issued, domestic (self-supplied) demand estimates. Ba- water providers may apply for adequacy sin demand information is from several sources designations for their entire service area. If a in order to prepare as accurate an estimate as subdivision is to be served water from one of possible. Annual demand estimates have been these water providers, then a separate adequacy averaged over a speciic time period. This pro- determination is not required. (See Section vides general trend information without focus- 6.0-5). ing on potentially inaccurate annual demand Developers of large, master-planned communiestimates due to incomplete data. ties outside of AMAs may apply for an Analysis Locations of major cultural water uses are of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This type primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study of application is generally used to prove that wausing older satellite imagery that may not ter will be physically available for the masterrepresent recent changes. The cultural demand planned community. AAWS are issued based maps provide only general information about on the development plan or plat. If an AAWS is issued for groundwater, it reserves a speciic the location of water users. volume of water for 10 years (for purposes of Efluent generation data was compiled from further adequacy reviews) only for the speciic several sources to provide an estimate of how property that is the subject of the AAWS. much of this renewable resource might be available for use. However, efluent reuse is often dificult both logistically and economically since a potential user may be far from the wastewater treatment plant. ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It is important to note also that the exceedences presented may or may not relect current aquifer or surface water conditions. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identiies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the necessary information to the Department. 63 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 REFERENCES Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2006, Workforce Informer: Accessed August 2006. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.html. _____, 2005a, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005b, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data ile, received October 2005. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2009, Shortage Criteria; accessed September, 2009 at http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/CRM/WaterShortagePlanning.htm _____, 2008a, Instream low applications, 08/2008 _____, 2008b, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project iles, ADWR Water Management Division _____, 2008c, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2008d, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008e, Water Protection Fund database: ADWR Ofice of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning _____, 2007a, Tribal Water Demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2007b, Cultural Water Demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Agricultural surface water use estimates: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning _____, 2005b, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 64 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 1998, Water Service Organizations in Arizona. _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. 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 _____, 2006, California Condor Recovery: Accessed August 2007 at http://www.gf.state.az.us/ w_c/california_condor.shtml _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Land Ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2007 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneiciaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Bales, J.T. and R.L. Laney, 1992, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation Area-Virgin River, Nevada, to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4185 Billingsley, G.H., J.L. Wellmeyer, 2003, Geologic Map of Mt. Trumbell 30x60 Quadrangle, Mohave and Coconino Counties, Northwestern Arizona: USGS Geologic Investigation Series I-2766. Bills, D.J., M.E. Flynn, S.A. Monroe, 2007, Hydrogeology of the Coconino Plateau and Adjacent Areas Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2005-5222. Bills, D.J. and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Hydrologic Data for the Coconino Plateau and Adjacent Areas, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 02-265. Black, K.R. and S.J. Rascona, 1991, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Virgin River Basin Mohave County, Arizona, Lincoln and Clark Counties, Nevada—1991. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 22 Brown, D. and C. Lowe, 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS Cover digitized by Arizona Game and Fish Department: Accessed in 2007 at http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/gis/maps/ mapguide Brown, D., ed., 1982, Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4. Numbers 1-4, Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. 65 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Bush, A. L. and M.E. Lane, 1980, Preliminary Report on the Mineral Resource Potential of the Vermilion Cliffs-Paria Canyon Instant Study Area, Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, Utah. USGS Open-File Report 80-1056 City of Williams, 2007, City of Williams System Water Plan submitted to ADWR Coconino County, 2003, Coconino County Comprehensive Plan, adopted September 23, 2003. Coconino County, 1997, Tusayan Area Plan and Design Review Overlay, Area Plan Approved by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors April 7, 1995 & Amended May 5, 1997. Cole, E. and T. Katzer, 2000, Analysis of Gains and Losses in Virgin River Flow between Bloomington, Utah, and Littleield, Arizona: Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, 57 pp. Dixon, G.L. and T. Katzer, 2002, Geology and Hydrology of the Lower Virgin River Valley in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, Prepared for the Virgin Valley Water District. Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Fenneman, N.M. and D.W. Johnson, 1946, Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U.S.:GIS cover. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gelt, J., 2004, Water Management Issues Surface as Virgin River Wends its Way to the Colorado; Arizona Water Resource Newsletter March-April, 2004, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Grahame, J.D. and Sisk, T.D., ed. 2002. Canyons, cultures and environmental change: An introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau. Accessed July, 2007 at http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/ Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Airport, 2008. System Water plan: submitted to ADWR. Hannon, S., 2003, The 1983 Flood at Glen Canyon: Accessed August 2007 at www.glencanyon.org Hardcastle, J., ACIP (NV State Demographer), 2008, Nevada County Population Estimates July 1, 1986 to July 1, 2008; Prepared for the NV Department of Taxation in Conjunction with the NV Small Business Development Center. Hart, R.J., J.J. Ward, D.J. Bills and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Generalized Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Budget for the C Aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin and Parts of the Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and New Mexico: Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4026. HydroResources, 2007, Tusayan System Water Plan: Submitted to the ADWR. Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 66 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, Hualapai Indian Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Indian Tribe: Accessed July, 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Leake, S.A., J.P. Hoffman and J.E Dickinson, 2005, Numerical Ground-Water Change Model of the C Aquifer and Effects of Ground-Water Withdrawals on Stream Depletion in Selected Reaches of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River, Northeastern Arizona, USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2005-5277. McKinnon, S., 2009, Uranium mining could resume north of Canyon; Arizona Republic, September 2, 2009 Meko D. M., C.A. Woodhouse, C.H. Baisan, T. Knight, J.J. Lukas, M.K. Hughes and M.W. Salzer, 2007, Medieval drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34(10, L10705). Montgomery, E.L., R.H. DeWitt, W.R. Victor and E.H. McGavock, 2000, Groundwater Beneath Coconino and San Francisco Plateaus; Presented at the First Coconino Plateau Hydrology Workshop, October 27-28, 2000, NAU, Flagstaff, Arizona National Atlas of the United States, 2005, Federal Lands: GIS cover accessed October 2008 at http:// nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html National Park Service (NPS), 2007, Grand Canyon - Nature and Science: Accessed July 2007 at http:// www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/index.htm ______, 2006 Grand Canyon National Park System Water Plan. Submitted to ADWR ______, 2005, The Geologic Story at Grand Canyon: Accessed July 2007 at http://www.nps.gov/archive/ grca/grandcanyon/quicklook/Geologicstory.htm 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-Wildire Watershed Flood Responses, Proceedings of the 2nd International Fire Ecology Conference, American Meteorological Society, Orlando FL, Paper 65982, 8p. 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 Pinkham, R. and B. Davis B., 2002, North Central Arizona Water Demand Study Phase 1 Report, submitted to the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. 67 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Seaber, P.R., E.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp, 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), 2008, Virgin and Muddy Rivers Tributary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus: accessed September, 2009 at http://www.snwa.com/html/wr_ olrvr_surplus_ics_virgin.html. Stevens, B., 2009, Aspen fading fast; Arizona Daily Sun, September 19, 2009. 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 Trudeau, D.A, 1997, Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Littleield Springs: University of Nevada, Reno, unpublished M.S. Thesis, 136 p. Trudeau, D.A, J.W. Hess and R.L. Jacobson, 1983, Hydrogeology of the Littleield Springs, Arizona. Truini, M., J.B. Fleming and H.A. Pierce, 2004, Preliminary Investigation of Structural Controls of Ground-Water Movement in Pipe Spring National Monument, Arizona, USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2004-5082 U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2007, Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan Revision, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Management Plan (jointly managed with the National Park Service), and Vermilion Cliffs National Monument Management Plan: Accessed August, 2007 at http://www.blm.gov/az/lup/strip/strip_plan.htm ______, 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/wildarea.htm U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2009, Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell-Current Status: Accessed August 2009 at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html ______, 2008, Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs 2009, December 3, 2008. ______, 2007a, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Accessed August 2007 at http:// www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/index.html ______, 2007b, Final EIS - Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead ______, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings, 91pp. ______, 2005, Glen Canyon Powerplant: Accessed August 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/ sites/glencany/glencany.html ______, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park Water Supply Appraisal Study, Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, Prepared for National Park Service Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview 68 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data iles: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2008, Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2007. ______, 2006, Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2006 ______, 1999, Executive Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Tusayan Growth Coconino County, Arizona. U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), 2009, News Release: Salazar Calls Two-Year ‘Time-Out’ from New Mining Claims on Arizona Strip Watershed near Grand Canyon National Park, July 20, 2009. ______, 2007, Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final EIS for the Arizona Strip Field Ofice, the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the BLM Portion of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, and a Proposed General Management Plan/Final EIS for the NPS Portion of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, Volumes 1&3 U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007a, Wildland ire perimeters (Southwest Region): GIS Datasets accessed in 2007 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis/datasets.shtml. ______, 2007b, Warm Fire Assessment Post-Fire Conditions and Management Considerations North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest Coconino County, Arizona. ______, 2007c, Wilderness Areas: Accessed March, 2007 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 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. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2009, Preliminary Data from 2008 Agricultural Ground Truthing in Select Basins: GIS data cover. ______, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data ile, received December 2007. ______, 2005, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http:// nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater 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. Wenrick, K.J., 2007, Projects: Uranium Mining in Arizona – High Grade and Safe. Accessed July 2007 at http://www.libertystaruranium.com. 69 Section 6.0 Western Plateau Planning Area Overview Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.1 Geography of the Coconino Plateau Basin The Coconino Plateau Basin, located in the southeastern part of the planning area is 5,812 square miles in area and the largest basin in the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.1-1. The basin is characterized by high-elevation mountain ranges, plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include Mohave and Great Basin desertscrub, Plains and Great Basin grasslands, Great Basin conifer woodland and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. There are small areas of subalpine conifer forest and alpine tundra in the San Francisco Mountains in the southeast corner of the basin. (See Figure 6.0-11) • 71 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.1-1 are: o The Colorado River and Grand Canyon forming the northern basin boundary o Numerous streams that low into the Colorado River including Diamond Creek, Havasu Creek and the Little Colorado River o Coconino Plateau in the center of the basin o Aubrey Cliffs in the western portion of the basin o San Francisco Peaks in the southeastern portion of the basin, including the highest peak in the basin and planning area, Mt. Humphries at 12,633 feet. o The lowest point at approximately 2,100 feet where the Colorado River exits the basin. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 72 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.2 Land Ownership in the Coconino Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Coconino Plateau Basin is shown in Figure 6.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large blocks of tribal lands and the checkerboard pattern of state trust and 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 6.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservation • 37.3% of the land is under tribal ownership. • The basin includes all of the Havasupai Indian Reservation and parts of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and the Navajo Indian Reservation. • This basin contains the largest percentage of tribal lands in the planning area. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, recreation and ranching. Private • 22.0% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the center of the basin and is interspersed with state trust lands. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. National Forest • 17.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. • The basin contains approximately 25,000 acres in two wilderness areas, Kendrick Mountain in the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests and Kachina Peaks in the Coconino National Forest. (see Figure 6.0-14) • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. State Trust Land • 15.4% of the land is held in trust for the public schools and seven other beneiciaries under the State Trust Land system. • Most state land is located in the center of the basin interspersed in a checkerboard pattern with private land. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 7.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Grand Canyon National Park. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Hassayampa Field Ofice of the Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 73 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 • • 74 Bureau of Land Management. The small portion of BLM land is southwest of Grand Canyon Village. Primary land use is grazing. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 75 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.3 Climate of the Coconino Plateau Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 6.1-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.1-3. Figure 6.1-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Coconino Plateau Basin does not contain AZMET stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 6.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 6.1-1A • There are ive NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges between 83.0°F at Supai and 67.2°F at Grand Canyon #2. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January and ranges between 40.7°F at Supai and 29.3°F at Grand Canyon National Park. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs at all stations in the summer (July-September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 21.37 inches at Williams and the lowest is 8.76 inches at Supai. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 6.1-1B • There is one evaporation pan station in the basin, Grand Canyon National Park 2. This pan is at 6,790 feet and has an annual evaporation rate of 44.04 inches. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 6.1-1D • There are four SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations in the basin, one at the Grand Canyon and the others located in the San Francisco Peaks area. • The highest average monthly snowpack at most stations is in April. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 40 inches at the southeastern tip of the basin and as low as four inches along the Colorado River and in the vicinity of Cameron. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 76 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-1 Climate Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Grand Canyon N.P. 6,890 1971-2000 69.2/Jul 29.3/Jan 4.38 1.92 5.73 3.65 15.68 Grand Canyon N.P. 2 6,970 1971-2000 67.0/Jul 30.4/Jan 5.20 2.17 5.40 3.73 16.50 Grand Canyon N.P. 3 6,960 1957-1977 1 69.0/Jul 30.5/Jan 2.92 1.84 3.89 3.87 12.51 1 Average Temperature Range (in °F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Supai 3,200 1956-1987 83.0/Jul 40.7/Jan 2.36 1.20 3.02 2.18 8.76 Williams 6,750 1971-2000 68.3/Jul 33.4/Jan 6.77 2.28 7.28 5.04 21.37 Source: WRCC, 2005b Notes: N.P. = National Park 1 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Period of Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in inches) for Averages Station Name Elevation (in feet) Grand Canyon N P. 2 6,790 1976 - 2002 Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 44.04 Source: WRCC, 2005a C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Bear Paw 10,100 1968 - current Average Snowpack, as Snow Water Content, at the Beginning of the Month, in Inches (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 9.8 (16) 11.6 (27) 17.7 (36) 20.5 (37) 18.1 (20) 7.1 (11) Grand Canyon 7,500 1947 - current 1.2 (24) 2.3 (58) 2.0 (59) 0.7 (56) 0 (0) 0 (0) Snowslide Canyon 9,750 1968 - current 6.7 (16) 9.0 (27) 13.4 (36) 15.2 (37) 9.1 (20) 0.7 (10) Snowslide Canyon (SNOTEL) 9,730 1998 - current 6.8 (9) 9.9 (9) 14.16 (9) 16.4 (9) 10.8 (9) 0.7 (9) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006a and 2006b 77 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 78 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Coconino Plateau Basin Streamlow data, including average seasonal low, average annual low and other information are shown in Table 6.1-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 6.1-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.1-4. The location of streamlow gages identiied by USGS number, lood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.1-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamlow Data • Refer to Table 6.1-2. • Data from 12 stations located at eight watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 6.1-5. Six of the 12 stations have been discontinued and ive of the six remaining stations are real-time stations. • Average seasonal low is relatively similar in all seasons at more than half of the stations due to regulated low on the Colorado River or proximity to springs. Exceptions are, Moenkopi Wash near Cameron and Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon. • The largest annual low recorded in the basin is 15.97 million acre feet (maf) in 1997 at the Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs station with a contributing drainage area of more than 149,000 square miles. • Most streams in this basin have a mean and median annual low of over 10,000 acrefeet. The Colorado River and the Little Colorado River have a mean annual low of over 100,000 acre-feet. • The main tributary to the Colorado River, the Little Colorado River has a mean annual low of more than 162,000 acre-feet near Cameron. As shown on Figure 6.1-4, there is signiicant variability in year to year low at this station. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 6.1-3. • As of October 2005 there were two stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.1-4. • The basin contains 12 large reservoirs. The largest is Dogtown with a maximum storage capacity of 1,390 acre-feet. • The most common use of the large reservoirs is for ire protection or as a stock or farm pond. Dogtown, Kaibab and Cataract Reservoirs provide water supply for the City of Williams. • Half of the large reservoirs in this basin are either dry or intermittent lakes. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 45 small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 757 registered stockponds in this basin. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 79 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.1-5. • Average annual runoff is highest, two inches per year or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the southeastern portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, along most of the Colorado River. Figure 6.1-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Little Colorado River near Cameron, water years 1948-2006 (Station #9402000) 900,000 800,000 700,000 acre-feet 600,000 500,000 Average Annual Flow 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1948 80 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Moenkopi Wash near Cameron 2,662 4,161 9402000 Little Colorado River near Cameron 26,459 9402300 Little Colorado River above the mouth near Desert View 9402450 Station Number USGS Station Name 9401500 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 10/1953-1/1965 (discontinued) 6 3 78 13 3,671 (1960) 6,936 9,981 19,909 (1963) 11 3,979 6/1947-current (real time) 34 26 27 14 10,215 (2000) 138,315 162,519 816,449 (1973) 55 NA 2,760 5/1990-current (real time) 31 34 18 7 No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 2 Cottonwood Spring above confluence with Cottonwood Creek near Grand Canyon NA 3,920 10/1994-1/2003 (discontinued) 40 16 9 35 No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 2 9403000 Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon 101 2,495 10/1923-4/1993 (discontinued) 18 50 16 16 9403043 Hermit Creek above Tonto Trail near Grand Canyon NA 2,920 10/1994-1/2003 (discontinued) 26 26 25 24 9404110 Havasu Creek at Supai 2,809 3,240 9/1995-current (real time) 25 25 26 24 46,985 (1996) 47,421 47,514 47,930 (1998) 7 9404112 Havasu Creek above Havasu Falls near Supai 2,898 2,900 9/1995-6/2000 (discontinued) 25 24 27 25 39,022 (1996) 39,964 40,090 41,412 (1998) 4 9404115 Havasu Creek above the mouth near Supai NA 1,800 11/1990-current 25 24 27 24 50,474 (2002) 52,176 52,574 55,471 (1992) 4 147,931 1,760 7/1983-4/1996 (discontinued) 24 22 32 22 8,246,104 (1990) 8,542,935 8,526,042 8,789,087 (1991) 3 149,316 1,340 8/1983-current (real time) 25 25 28 23 8,450,947 (2002) 9,254,765 10,426,177 15,974,970 (1997) 13 280 1,440 5/1993-current (real time) 29 18 31 22 2,209 (2002) 2,629 2,967 5,026 (1999) 9 9404120 9404200 9404208 Colorado River above National Canyon near Supai Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs Diamond Creek near Peach Springs 11,366 (1972) 21,502 25,165 65,737 (1941) No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 51 1 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 year of 12 month records 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 statisitics current through 12/2004 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Coconino Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 3920 City Dam in Williams Precipitation/Stage 9/23/2005 ADWR 7540 Manzanita Repeater Repeater/Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available at this time 82 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Coconino Plateau 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 Dogtown City of Williams 1,390 F,R,S State 2 Kaibab City of Williams 967 F,R,S State 3 Long Point AZ Land Dept/ Babbitt Ranches 946 2 P State 4 Cataract (West Cataract Creek) City of Williams 860 2 R,S State Private 776 O Landowner 5 3,5 Gonzales B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)4 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 6 Davenport Kaibab NF 252 P Federal 7 Red Lake Tank Private 200 P Landowner 8 Dog Knob Private 178 P Landowner 9 Stone AZ Land Dept. 153 P State 10 Tule Private 108 P Landowner 11 Laguna Hualapai Tribe 89 P Tribal 12 Smoot Private 50 P Landowner 5 6 5 6 5 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 8 Total maximum storage: 892 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)4 Total number: 37 Total surface area: 521 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 757 1 F=fish & wildlife pond; O=Other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond; R=recreation; S=water supply Normal capacity < 500acre-feet 3 The height of this dam is less than 6 feet. It is not regulated by State or Federal government. 4 Capacity data not available to ADWR 5 Intermittent lake 6 Dry 2 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 83 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 84 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 85 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.1-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 6.1-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Most of the perennial streams are located along and in the vicinity of the northern basin boundary. All perennial reaches, aside from the Colorado River, are short, spring fed and low into the Colorado River. Intermittent streams are found along the Colorado River and in the vicinity of Williams. The Little Colorado River is intermittent for most of its length in the basin. There are 30 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 101,600 gpm at the Blue springs area which supports perennial low in the Little Colorado River. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.1-5B. There are 27 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 1995. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identiied by the USGS varies from 71 to 80, depending on the database reference. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 86 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-5 Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): 87 Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Map Key Name 1 Blue-springs area2 360700 1114137 101,600 1950-1993 2 Havasu 361303 1124112 28,500 8/23/1994 3 Artesian at River Mile 182 361025 1130711 2,230 5/28/1995 4 Hawaii 360414 1121305 398 4/11/2001 5 Warm (multiple) 361148 1130459 390 5/28/1995 6 Hermit Creek 360417 1121307 328 11/21/2002 7 Diamond 354248 1131538 251 5/19/1993 8 Diamond Creek 354311 1131352 244 6/9/1994 9 Unnamed3,4 361627 1124331 200 5/20/1950 10 Hance at campground3 360106 1115732 179 4/8/2001 11 Three Springs3 355308 1131829 170 3/24/2004 12 Blue Mountain Canyon3 354302 1131747 100 6/9/1994 13 Unnamed3,4 361535 1124226 100 5/20/1950 14 Big Canyon 361048 1114218 100 3/15/1967 15 Beecher 360957 1130802 90 5/28/1995 16 West Elk 352248 1115917 70 6/6/1979 17 Granite Spring Canyon3 354855 1131833 575 5/19/1993 18 Matkatamiba 362032 1124017 54 11/10/2003 19 Salt Trail Canyon 361119 1114221 50 3/15/1967 20 East Elk 352236 1115912 47 6/6/1979 21 Garden Creek below Tonto Trail 360440 1120740 45 11/9/2000 22 National Canyon (total flow) 361518 1125239 33 10/21/1997 23 Colorado River Mile 1403 362338 1123516 256 6/22/1950 24 Newman 352418 1115149 20 6/5/1979 25 Monument3 360356 1121032 18 11/21/2002 26 Unnamed 362837 1115042 15 4/29/1976 27 Granite Park3 355750 1131836 14 10/13/1993 28 Monument Creek3 360455 1121110 13 8/23/2003 29 Pipe Creek 360409 1120557 125 12/7/2000 30 Unnamed2,3 361627 1124226 10 5/20/1950 Date Discharge Measured Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-5 Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Fern 361524 1124204 8 8/24/1994 Boucher east Tappen 360609 355129 1121414 1112633 8 8 4/12/2001 9/26/2001 3/23/2002 Royal Arch 361119 1122715 7 Mohawk Canyon 361246 1125815 5 5/19/2002 Cottonwood 360128 1115912 5 11/29/2000 Miner's 360059 1115817 57 11/20/1981 Burro 360436 361237 1120604 1130257 4 Honga above mouth 47 4/8/2001 10/10/1993 Pipe 360415 1120606 4 5/22/2000 Raspberry 352030 1113852 4 8/30/1978 222 Mile Canyon 354815 1131920 3 5/31/1995 Big Unnamed 355959 355502 1131227 1131959 3 2 5/20/1993 10/13/1993 Unnamed 355502 1131959 2 5/31/1995 Red Canyon 360020 1115604 2 6/3/2002 360440 360232 1120731 1120042 7 27 11/19/2001 11/29/2000 Forester Canyon 2 360039 361403 1120009 1123142 1 1 11/15/2001 1/20/2002 National Canyon 361346 1125215 1 11/6/2002 Salt Creek Clover 360436 351351 1120940 1121211 1 1 4/1/2001 8/5/1976 Sapphire 360711 1121846 1 10/23/2003 Horn 360450 1120836 1 11/22/2002 Hockey Puck 355602 1131032 1 6/9/1994 Unnamed3,4 351509 113524 1 11/1950 Pumphouse Grapevine East Grapevine Main 2 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006b): 71 to 80 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge is average for all springs in the lower 13 mile reach of the Little Colorado River, date measured varies by spring 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 Average discharge 7 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 88 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 89 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 90 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Coconino Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.1-6. Figure 6.1-7 shows aquifer low direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.1-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.1-7. Figure 6.1-9 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 6.1-6 and Figure 6.1-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include volcanic rocks, basin ill and sedimentary rocks (C- and R-aquifers and Moenkopi and Chinle Formations). • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Flow direction is toward the Little Colorado River in the eastern portion of the basin and generally toward the west and north in the western portion of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.1-6 and Figure 6.1-9. • As shown on Figure 6.1-9, well yields in this basin are generally less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm). However, there are several relatively high yield wells owned by the City of Flagstaff in the southeast part of the basin. • One source of well yield information, based on 16 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 45.5 gpm. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.1-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures three index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two of these wells (B and C) and one other well are shown in Figure 6.1-8. • All water level information is from the southern portion of the basin. Although not shown on the map, there are three wells with a depth to water of over 2,700 feet in the vicinity of Williams. The shallowest water level shown on the map is ive feet in a perched aquifer south of Williams. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 5,812 Name and/or Geologic Units Volcanic Rock Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Moenkopi and Chinle Formations) Sedimentary Rock (C Aquifer) Sedimentary Rock (R Aquifer) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: 44 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 4-1,500 Median 45.5 (16 reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-100 ADWR (1990) Range 0-10 Anning and Duet (1994) N/A 3,000,000* Montgomery et al, 2000 Current Number of Index Wells: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1964 (5 wells measured) * Estimated by ADWR based on the assumptions by Montgomery et al (2000) of an average specific yield (drainage porosity) of 0.1%. Montgomery et al's study area extended beyond and did not include all of the Coconino Plateau Basin. N/A = Not Available 92 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 93 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.1-8 Coconino Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 1025 A C-aquifer 03 098-13.94X15.20 WELL DEPTH: 1292 ft USE: DOMESTIC Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1075 1125 1975 50 B 1985 1995 2005 volcanic rocks A-25-06 20ACC WELL DEPTH: 320 ft USE: UNUSED 100 1975 250 C 1985 1995 volcanic rocks A-24-05 11CDB WELL DEPTH: 292 ft USE: STOCK 300 1975 2005 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 94 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 95 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 96 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.7 Water Quality of the Coconino Plateau 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 6.1-7A. 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 6.1-7B. Figure 6.1-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.1-7. 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 6.1-7A. • Twenty-two wells or springs have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include total dissolved solids, radionuclides, thallium, nitrates, mercury and lead. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 6.1-7B and Figure 6.1-10 • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 28-mile stream reach, the Colorado River from Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek. This impaired reach is located along part of the border with the Shivwits Plateau Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Efluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 6.1-10 • There is one efluent dependent reach in this basin, which receives discharged efluent from the South Rim Wastewater Treatment Plant. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 97 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 1 Table 6.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Coconino Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 33 North 32 North 31 North 31 North 30 North 29 North 25 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 32 North 30 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 5 East 7 East 2 East 9 East 4 East 9 East 2 East 4 West 4 West 4 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 10 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 6 West 9 West 10 West NA 31 15 33 4 15 27 11 22 35 31 36 36 22 25 19 14 14 25 12 15 24 TDS TDS Rad Tl As NO3 TDS Pb As As, Pb As As, Hg As, Hg As As As As, TDS As As Pb As As 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 Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Well Spring Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key a Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Stream Colorado River (Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) 28 4 Area of Designated Impaired Lake Use Standard3 (in acres) NA A&W Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Se, suspended sediment concentration Source: ADEQ 2005e Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1951 and 1994. As = Arsenic Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Se = Selenium Tl = Thallium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = aquatic and wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. This reach is located along part of the border with the Shivwits Plateau Basin. NA = Not Applicable 2 98 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 99 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Coconino Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.1-8. Efluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 6.1-9. Figure 6.111 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 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 6.1-8 and Figure 6.1-11. • Population in this basin increased from 6,977 in 1980 to 9,164 in 2000 and is projected to reach 17,500 by 2030. This is the most populous basin in the planning area. • All cultural water use in this basin is for municipal demand. Municipal demand centers include Williams, Tusayan, Grand Canyon Village, Valle, Supai and Cameron. • Groundwater demand is small and has remained relatively constant from 1971-2005. In 2000 the City of Williams started using groundwater because surface water supplies were unavailable due to drought. Groundwater use in Williams increased to 389 acre-feet in 2006. • Data on municipal surface water use prior to 1991 is not available. From 1991-2005 municipal surface water use decreased from 500 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 300 AFA due to surface water shortages in Williams. • As of 2005 there were 172 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 38 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Efluent Generation • Refer to Table 6.1-9. • There are eight wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for two facilities and information on efluent generation was available for ive facilities. These facilities serve over 4,200 people and generate over 1,700 acre-feet of efluent per year. • Four facilities discharge to watercourses, one discharges to an evaporation pond, one discharges for irrigation, four discharge to golf course or landscape irrigation, two discharge for municipal uses such as toilet lushing and two discharge to an unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 100 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Coconino Plateau 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 Number of Registered and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 932 6,977 7,051 7,126 7,200 7,275 7,349 7,424 7,498 7,573 7,647 7,722 7,866 8,010 8,155 8,299 8,443 8,587 8,731 8,876 9,020 9,164 9,636 10,109 10,581 11,053 11,525 13,886 16,081 17,500 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial <500 NR <500 NR Agricultural Data Source 182 ADWR (1994a) 7 0 <500 NR 18 7 <500 NR 14 6 370 NR NR 500 NR NR 19 7 400 NR NR 600 NR NR 21 0 500 NR NR 300 NR NR 172 38 1 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported Note: Surface water diverted in the Kanab Plateau Basin is delivered to the Coconino Plateau Basin for use at the Grand Canyon South Rim. This diversion is not included in the table. 2 101 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Coconino Plateau Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Methods Watercourse Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Cameron WWTP Navajo Tribe Cameron 190 11 Desert View WWTP National Park Service Campground NA 11 Grand Canyon Inn Private Hotel Varies NA Valle Airport WRF Private Valle 400 7 Unnamed Wash X South Rim WWTP National Park Service Park NA 448 Bright Angel Wash X Supai Village Sewer System Havasupai Tribe Supai 1,000 56 Tusayan WWTP South Grand Canyon Sanitary District Tusayan NA 68 Coconino Wash Williams WWTP Williams Williams 2,690 1,138 Mohawk Canyon 4,280 1,739 Total Municipal Reuse Wildlife Area Discharged Infiltration to Another Basins Facility Other X Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary 380 2000 NA X X X X X NA X X Secondary 250 2008 Tertiary NA 2004 Secondary NA 2001 NA X Elephant Rock 2004 Secondary 2004 NA 2000 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WRF: Water Reclamation Facility Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 102 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 103 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 104 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 6.1-10. Figure 6.1-12 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 the vicinity of Williams and Valle. Fifty-three water adequacy determinations for 2,050 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008; all were determinations of inadequacy. The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insuficient to make a determination. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin1 Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Section ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application Dry Lot Subdivision 1 Bally Mountain Coconino 23 North 2 East 35 19 53-500306 Inadequate A3 1/14/1993 2 Canyon Vista Ranch Coconino 23 North 2 East 21 11 53-400438 Inadequate A1,A2 12/5/2000 Water Hauler 3 Cataract Creek Estates Coconino 22 North 2 East 21 82 53-700394 Inadequate A1 2/25/2008 City of Williams 4 Chaparral Heights Coconino 23 North 2 East 16 44 53-500440 Inadequate A2,A3 12/1/1986 Dry Lot Subdivision 5 Escalante at Williams Mountain Coconino 21 North 22 North 2 East 2 East 6 31 52 53-402197 Inadequate A1 6/14/2006 City of Williams 6 Escalante at Williams Mountain Phase 2a & 2b Coconino 21 North 2 East 6 53 53-700309 Inadequate A1 6/18/2007 City of Williams 7 Forest Canyon Estates Coconino 22 North 2 East 32 70 53-700510 Inadequate A1 5/7/2008 City of Williams Coconino 26 North 2 East 11 41 53-700502 Inadequate A1 4/2/2008 Valle Domestic Water District Coconino 26 North 3 East 18 29 53-402219 Inadequate A1 7/10/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Coconino 26 North 26 North 2 East 3 East 24 19 64 53-402216 Inadequate A1 A1 7/10/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Coconino 26 North 3 East 19 24 53-401972 Inadequate A1 1/26/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Coconino 26 North 3 East 22 9 53-700254 Inadequate A1 4/17/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Coconino 26 North 3 East 9 7 53-402239 Inadequate A1 8/21/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 8 9 10 11 12 13 Grand Canyon Airpark Subdivision Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 11 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 12 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 12 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 16 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 17 14 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 3 Coconino 26 North 3 East 28 5 53-402221 Inadequate A1 7/10/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 15 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 6 Coconino 26 North 3 East 20 5 53-700255 Inadequate A1 4/4/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 16 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 7 Coconino 26 North 3 East 21 8 53-402217 Inadequate A1 7/10/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 17 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 8 Coconino 26 North 3 East 17 7 53-700228 Inadequate A1 3/14/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 18 Grand Canyon Subdivision Unit 9 Coconino 26 North 3 East 7 9 53-402218 Inadequate A1 7/10/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Highland Meadows North Coconino 22 North 2 East 30 105 53-401783 Inadequate A1 7/22/2005 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 16 53-401318 Inadequate A1 1/18/2005 City of Williams 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 106 Range No. of Lots Highland Meadows Place, Phase 2 Highland Meadows Place, Phase 3 Highland Meadows West Highland Meadows at Williams #1 Highland Meadows at Williams #2 Highland Meadows at Williams Phase 4 Highland Meadows at Williams, Phase 3, Unit 1 Highland Meadows at Williams, Phase 3, Unit 2 Howard Mesa Ranch, Phase 2 Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 37 53-401833 Inadequate A1 8/15/2005 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 1 East 36 20 53-402279 Inadequate A1 8/31/2006 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 29 53-300384 Inadequate A1 12/19/1997 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 125 53-400042 Inadequate A1 4/14/1999 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 1 East 36 66 53-401786 Inadequate A1 7/7/2005 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 1 East 31, 36 38 53-401256 Inadequate D 4/26/2004 City of Williams Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 39 53-401476 Inadequate D 11/24/2004 City of Williams Coconino 25 North 2 East 33 63 53-300584 Inadequate A2 12/22/1998 Dry Lot Subdivision Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 1 Table 6.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin (Cont) Location Map Key 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 Time of Application 29 Howard Mesa Subdivision, Units 2&3 Coconino 25 North 2 East 27, 35 75 53-400073 Inadequate A2 5/14/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision 30 Junipine Estates #2,3 Coconino 23 North 2 East 20 238 53-500831 Inadequate A2,A3 9/25/1973 Dry Lot Subdivision 31 Kiabab Estates West Coconino 22 North 2 East 11 9 NA Inadequate A2,A3 2/3/1992 Dry Lot Subdivision 32 Lake Kaibab Park Coconino 23 North 2 East 15, 22, 23 4 53-500877 Inadequate A3 4/8/1991 D&D Water Company 33 Lake Kaibab Park #1 Coconino 23 North 2 East 27, 35 14 53-500878 Inadequate A3 4/27/1990 City of Williams 34 Lake Kaibab Park #2 Coconino 23 North 2 East 35 7 53-500879 Inadequate A3 4/6/1994 A-1 Water Service 35 Lake Kaibab Park Unit One Coconino 23 North 2 East 27, 35 4 53-401801 Inadequate A1 7/14/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision 36 Lake Kaibab Park Unit Two Coconino 23 North 2 East 27, 35 10 53-401836 Inadequate A1 8/11/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision Coconino 23 North 2 East 27, 35 3 53-402250 Inadequate A1 9/29/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Coconino 23 North 2 East 15, 22, 23, 26, 35 8 53-700204 Inadequate A1 1/16/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 37 38 Lake Kaibab Park Unit Two, Lots 380, 562 & 573 Lake Kaibab Park and Lake Kaibab Park Unit Two 39 Lazy "E" Coconino 22 North 2 East 30 20 53-500901 Inadequate D 11/23/1981 Dry Lot Subdivision 40 Lazy "E" #2 Coconino 22 North 2 East 30, 31 18 53-500902 Inadequate A2,A3 7/3/1986 Dry Lot Subdivision 41 Lazy "E" #3 Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 39 53-500903 Inadequate A2,A3 6/18/1993 Dry Lot Subdivision 42 Mason Commercial Center #01 Coconino 22 North 2 East 28 4 53-500938 Inadequate A1,A2 8/26/1993 City of Williams 43 Mi Casa Coconino 22 North 2 East 31 5 53-500973 Inadequate A1 1/16/1987 City of Williams 44 Mountain Shadows Coconino 22 North 2 East 15, 22 14 53-400126 Inadequate A2,A3 7/21/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision 45 Pinecrest Estates Coconino 22 North 2 East 29 51 53-300067 Inadequate A1 11/20/1995 City of Williams 46 Pinecrest Estates II Coconino 22 North 2 East 29 84 53-400737 Inadequate A1,A2 7/1/2002 City of Williams 47 Red Lake Estates Unit 1 Coconino 23 North 2 East 1 120 53-400401 Inadequate A2,A3 10/30/2000 A-1 Water Service 48 Red Lake Estates, Unit II Coconino 23 North 2 East 1 23 53-400932 Inadequate A2,A3 5/5/2003 A-1 Water Service 49 Red Lake Mountain Ranch Coconino 23 North 2 East 3 54 53-501287 Inadequate A1 3/21/1989 Dry Lot Subdivision 50 Spring Flower Ranch Coconino 23 North 2 East 24 64 53-402038 Inadequate A1 3/16/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 51 Sycamore Point Estates Coconino 22 North 2 East 27 40 53-401830 Inadequate A1 8/15/2005 City of Williams 52 Timber Canyon Coconino 23 North 2 East 33 24 53-300249 Inadequate A3 2/4/1997 A-1 Water Service 53 Williams Pine Meadows Estates Coconino 21 North 2 East 3, 4 41 53-501688 Inadequate A1 1/9/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not available to ADWR at this time Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 108 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Coconino Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater low in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data ile, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data ile, received September 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data ile, received August 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data ile, received September 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Efluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit iles: Miscellaneous working iles, received July 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project iles, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Ofice of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2005c, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Ofice of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Ofice of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Ofice of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Wells55: Database. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data ile, ADWR Ofice of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Table/Map) Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 110 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin proiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data ile, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index.html. B Bills, D.J. and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona: USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2005-5222 (Springs Table/Map) _____, 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona: USGS Open- File Report 02-265 (Springs Table/ Map) Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Efluent Generation Table) 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) Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Ponds: Inventory, Assessment and Development of Recovery Priorities: AZ Water Protection Fund 99-074. (Springs Table/Map) K Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon Springs and the Redwall-Muav aquifer: Comparison of Geologic Framework and Groundwater Flow Models: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 122 p. (Springs Table/Map) M Montgomery, E.L. et al, 2000, Groundwater Beneath Coconino and San Francisco Plateaus: Presented at the First Coconino Plateau Hydrology Workshop, October 2000, Flagstaff, Arizona. 111 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 N National Park Service (NPS), 2004, Grand Canyon springs: Electronic data ile, sent November 2004 (Springs Table/Map) _____, 1999, Protection of spring and seep resources of the South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park by measuring water quality, low and associated biota: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-071. (Springs Table/Map) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006a, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data ile, accessed December 2006 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov /nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2006b, Snow Course stations: Data ile, accessed December 2006 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. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas, and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamlow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamlow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. T Taylor, H.E., D.B. Peart, R.C. Antweiler, and others, 1996, Data from synoptic water quality studies on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, November 1990 to June 1991: USGS Open File Report 96-614. (Water Quality Table/Map) 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 ile, 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 ofice in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004a, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic ile, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 2004b, Assessment of spring chemistry on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: USGS Fact sheet 096-02. (Water Quality Map/Table) Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 112 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Valencia, R.A., J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, S. Woods, L. Riley, E. Swanson, and S. Olson, 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) W Wenrich, K.J., S.Q. Boundt and others, 1993, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes- data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, northwestern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 93-619. (Water Quality Map/Table) Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005a, Pan evaporation stations: Data ile accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005b, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data ile, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Adams, E., 2004, Spring low and timing of the south rim springs of the Grand Canyon, Arizona using modiied electrical resistance sensors: in The Value of Water; Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Amentt, M., A.E. Springer and L. DeWald, 2000, Restoration of perched aquifer system through manipulation of transpiration at the watershed scale: Geology Society of America: Abstracts with Programs, vol. 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. Appel, C.L. and D.L. Bills, 1981, Maps showing ground-water conditions in the San Francisco Peaks Area, Coconino County, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 81-914. Bennett, J.B., R.A. Parnell, W.A. Meyer, C.R. Black, C.R. Petrouson, K.T. William and K.T. Webb, 1994, Impacts of low regulation of the Colorado River on biogeochemical cycling in riparian environments, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: in Abstracts with Programs: Geological Society of America, vol. 26, no. 7, p A. 99. Bennett, J. B. and R.A. Parnell, Jr., 1995, Nutrient Cycling in the Colorado, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, USA: 3rd Biennial Conference on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ. Bennett, J.B., 1997, A Biogeochemical Characterization of Reattachment Bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, 113 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 M.S. thesis, 148 p. Black, K., B. Prudhom and M. Miller, 2006, C aquifer water supply study: Bureau of Reclamation, Report of Findings. Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. _____, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report. Carpenter, M.C., R.L. Carruth, J.B. Fink, J.K. Boling and B.L. Cluer, 1995, Hydrology and deformation of sand bars in response to luctuations of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4010, 16 p. City of Williams, 2006, Water System Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 2002, Coconino plateau regional water study: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99093 Coconino County, 1997, Tusayan Area Plan and Design Review Overlay, Area Plan Approved by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors April 7, 1995 & Amended May 5, 1997. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleolood evidence for a natural upper bound to lood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Farrar, C.D., 1979, Map showing ground-water conditions in the Bodaway Mesa area, Coconino County, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 79-1488. Flynn, M.E., and D.J. Bills, 2002, Investigation of the geology and hydrology of the Coconino Plateau of Northern Arizona: A project of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative: USGS Fact Sheet 113-02, 4 p. Flynn, M. and N. Hornewer, 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999:USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Garrett, W.B., E.K. Van De Vanter and J.B. Graf, 1993, Stream low and sediment-transport data, Colorado River and three tributaries in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1983 and 19851986: USGS Open–File Report 93-174, 624 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 114 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Gavin, A.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and Numerical Simulation of a Spring-Dominated HighElevation Riparian Community, Hart Prairie, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 177 p. 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. Gilbert, B.A., 1997, Hydrogeologic parameters necessary to conserve backwater habitats of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 29, p. 177. Harms, R. 2005, Grand Canyon National Park springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hart, R.J., J. Rihs, H.E. Taylor and S.A. Monroe, 2002, Assessment of spring chemistry along the south rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet FS 096-02, 4 p. Hazel, J. Jr., M.A. Kaplinski, R.A. Parnell, Jr., M. Manone and A. Dale, 1999, Effects of the 1996 beach/habitat-building low on Colorado River sand bars and sediment storage along the Colorado River Corridor; in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Heffernon, R. and M. Muro, 2001, Growth on the Coconino Plateau-potential impacts of a water pipeline for the region: Morrison Institute for Public Policy report. Hereford, R., G. Webb and S. Graham, 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Huntoon, P.W., 1996, Large basin groundwater circulation in paleo-reconstruction of circulation leading to uranium mineralization in Grand Canyon breccia pipes, Arizona: The Mountain Geologist, vol.33, no. 3, 71-84 p. HydroResources (Town of Tusayan), 2007, Water System Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Kaplinski, M.A., J. Bennett, J. Hazel Jr., M. Manone, R.A. Parnell Jr., and J. Cain, 1998, Fluvial 115 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 habitats developed on sand bars, Colorado River, Grand Canyon: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 49. Kaplinski, M.A., J. Hazel Jr., R.A. Parnell Jr., M. Manone, A. Dale and D. Topping, 1998, Sediment storage changes following short-duration high magnitude low releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Grand Canyon National Park: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 30, p 12. Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon Springs and the Redwall - Muav Aquifer: Comparison of geologic framework and groundwater low models: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 122 p. Kessler, J.A. and A.E. Springer, 2000, Comparison of digital geologic framework models of the Redwall - Muav Aquifer, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 32; 7, p. 141. Kobor, J.S., 2004, Simulating water availability in a spring fed aquifer with surface/groundwater low models, Grand Canyon Arizona: Northern Arizona University M.S. thesis. Kobor, J.S. and A.E. Springer, 2003, Predicting riparian vegetation response to groundwater withdrawals; an interdisciplinary modeling approach to a regional spring system, Grand Canyon, AZ: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35, 6, p. 374 . Manone, M., J. Hazel Jr., M.A. Kaplinski, R.A. Parnell Jr. and L. Dexter, 1996, Monitoring the effects of low regulation from Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River sand bars: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 47, p. 273. Melis, T.S., W.M. Phillips, R.H. Webb and D.J. Bills, 1996, When blue-green waters turn red, historical looding in Havasu Creek, Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations 964059. Mondry, Z., 2002, Drought, storms, and stream low and temperature observations from the Coconino and Prescott National Forests: on Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona Monroe, S.A., R.C. Antweiler, R.J. Hart, H.E. Taylor, M. Truini, J.R. Ruhs and T.J. Felger, 2005, Chemical characteristics of groundwater discharge along the south rim of the Grand Canyon, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2000-2001: USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2004-5146, 71 pp. Montgomery, E.L., 2003, R-Aquifer in northern Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 116 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 1997, Hydrology of the Missippian-Cambrian Redwall - Muav Carbonate Aquifer (R Aquifer system) and the potential impact of development along the Grand Canyon south rim: in Arizona’s Water: Looking for the Next Waterhole: Proceedings from the 10th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1997, Carefree, Arizona, p. 24. _____, 1993, Projections for decrease in spring low resulting from proposed groundwater withdrawal near Tusayan, Arizona: Canyon Forest Village Report. National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, 2006, Water System Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. O’Day, C. M. and S.A. Leake, 1995, Ground water availability in the Flagstaff area of the Colorado Plateau, Arizona: in Water Use in Arizona: Cooperation or Conlict?: Proceedings from the 8th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1995, Tucson, Arizona, p. 2-3. Parnell, R.A. Jr., A.E. Springer, L. Stevens, J. Bennett, T. Hoffnagle, T. Melis and D. Staniski-Martin, 1997, Flood-induced backwater rejuvenation along the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon, AZ.: in Symposium on the Glen Canyon Dam Beach/ Habitat-Building Flow, Patten, D. and Garrett, L. (eds.): U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/ GCMRC, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 41-51. Parnell, R.A. Jr., J. Bennett and L. Stevens, 1999, Floods bury riparian vegetation: Impacts of the 1996 controlled lood of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon on nutrient concentrations in bar/eddy complexes; in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Petroutson, W.D., 1997, Interpretive simulations of advective lowpaths across a reattachment bar during different Colorado River low alternatives: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 159 p. Petroutson, W. D. and A.E. Springer, 1995, Characterizing stage-dependent measurements of hydraulic conductivity of reattachment bars in the Colorado River: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 27; p. 34. Petroutson, W. D., A.E. Springer, R.A. Parnell Jr., and J. Bennett, 1995, Hydrogeology of reattachment bars on the Colorado River: 3rd Biennial Conf. on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ. Petroutson, W. D., J. Bennett, R.A. Parnell Jr. and A.E. Springer, 1995, Hydraulicconductivity measurements of reattachment bars on the Colorado River: Proceedings of the 1995 meeting of the Arizona Section, American Water Resource Association and the Hydrology Section, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, vol. 22-25, p.7-10. 117 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990 -1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Ross, L.E., 2003, Roaring Springs, Grand Canyon, Arizona: New data sets provide tools for improved recharge area delineation: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Ross, L.E. and A.E. Springer, 2002, Interactive three-dimensional visualization for digital hydrogeologic framework models: GeoWall presentation of the Grand Canyon, 2002 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. S. S. Papadopulas & Associates, 2005, Groundwater low model for the C-aquifer in Arizona and New Mexico: Report for Southern CA Edison, SRP, and Nevada Power Co. Semmens, B.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic characterization and numerical transport simulations of a reattachment-bar aquifer in the Colorado River: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 188 p. Springer, A.E., 1999, Threats to the values of springs and riparian ecosystems of the Grand Canyon by ground-water mining: Geological Society of America, 1999 annual meeting, Denver, CO, United States, Oct. 25-28, 1999: Abstracts with Programs 31; 7, p.23 Springer, A.E., and J.A. Kessler, 2003, Groundwater model of the Redwall-Muav aquifer of the Coconino Plateau incorporating impacts of pumping and water conservation on small springs of the Grand Canyon: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35. Springer, A.E. and D. Bills, 1998, Exploration for and ecological importance of shallow and deep ground-water around San Francisco Mountain: in Geologic Excursions in Northern and Central Arizona, Duebendorfer, E.M., (ed.), p. 27-33. Stevens, L.E., J.P. Shannon and D.W. Blinn, 1997, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon Arizona, USA: dam, tributary and geomorphological inluences: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13:129-149. Stevens, L.E., J.C. Schmidt, T.J. Ayers and B.T. Brown, 1995, Flow regulation, geomorphology and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Ecological Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 118 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Applications 5:1025-1039. Smith, J.D. and S. Wiele, 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt and L.E. Vierra Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. United States Forest Service, 1999, Final environmental impact statement for Tusayan growth, Coconino County, Arizona: USDA report. United States Geologic Survey, Calculated hydrographs for the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam during the experimental release, March 22-April 8, 1996: USGS Fact Sheet 083-96. Victor, W.R., J.C. Lindquist and E.L. Montgomery, 1999, Groundwater resources and potential impacts from the development, Tusayan Growth EIS: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Ward, J., 2002, Groundwater on the Plateau: Southwest Hydrology, Vol.1, No. 4. Wilson, E., 2000, Geologic framework and numerical groundwater models of the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 72 p. Wilson, E.S., A.E. Springer, C.L. Winter, 1999, Delineating spring capture zones for the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, using framework and numerical models: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 31, 7, p. 347. 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 CreekEast Verde River -Tonto Creek: on Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p. 97. 119 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 120 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.1 Geography of the Grand Wash Basin The Grand Wash Basin, located in the western part of the planning area is 959 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.2-1. The basin is characterized by cliffs and washes. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland with small areas of Great Basin desertscrub, interior chaparral and Plains and Great Basin grassland. (See Figure 6.0-11) • 121 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.2-1 are: o Lake Mead forming the southwestern basin boundary and the lowest point in the basin at 1,100 feet o Grand Wash in the western portion of the basin o Grand Wash and Upper Grand Wash Cliffs running north-south through the basin o Mud Mountain in the northern portion of the basin o The highest point in the basin, Last Chance Knoll in the east central part of the basin at 6,758 feet Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 122 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.2 Land Ownership in the Grand Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Grand Wash Basin is shown in Figure 6.2-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large portion of land, 96% of the total basin area, within the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 6.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 86.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Ofice of the Bureau of Land Management. • Most of the BLM lands in this basin are part of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, which also includes two wilderness areas, Grand Wash Cliffs (37,030 acres, entire) and Paiute (87,900 acres, portion). • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 11.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 1.8% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • All state land is interspersed with BLM land and is included within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. • Primary land use is grazing. 123 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 124 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.3 Climate of the Grand Wash Basin The Grand Wash Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 6.2-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 6.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.2-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 16 inches in the northern portion of the basin and four inches or less near Lake Mead. 125 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 126 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Grand Wash Basin There are no streamlow data or lood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data are shown on Table 6.2-1. USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 6.2-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.2-1 • The basin borders one large reservoir, Lake Mead, with a maximum capacity of 29,755,000 acre-feet. The dam that creates Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, is in the Lake Mohave Basin in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. • There are 109 registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.2-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in the northern portion of the basin near Mud Mountain Road and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in most of the southern portion of the basin. 127 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Grand Wash Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY None RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR (Name of dam, if different) 2 Mead (Hoover Dam) Bureau of Reclamation MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) 3 29,755,000 1 USE JURISDICTION C,H,I,RR,S,R Federal USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY MAXIMUM RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (Name of dam, if different) (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 109 Notes: C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; R=recreation; RR=river regulation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in Lake Mohave Basin and lake storage is located in Lake Mohave, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and Meadview Basins. 3 Includes 2,378,000 acre-feet of dead storage. 1 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 128 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 129 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Grand Wash 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 6.2-2. The locations of major springs and one perennial stream are shown on Figure 6.2-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There are no intermittent streams and the only perennial stream is the Colorado River, which is impounded at Hoover Dam, and forms Lake Mead in this basin. There are six major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 75 gpm at Tassi spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.2-2B. There are nine minor springs in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identiied by the USGS varies from 47 to 52, depending on the database reference. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 130 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-2 Springs in the Grand Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 1 Tassi 361523 1135728 75 5/9/2000 2 Pakoon 362457 1135726 58 5/11/2000 3 Whiskey 361848 1135851 40 2/6/1980 4 Chill Heal 361301 1135917 25 3/12/1980 5 Unnamed 361817 1135855 20 2/6/1980 6 Unnamed 361314 1135944 13 3/12/1980 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Middle 363205 1140230 9 5/11/2000 Burro 361700 1140013 3 5/9/2000 Unnamed 361752 1135906 4 9/22/1976 Cane -south 363916 1134705 2 5/14/2000 Hidden 362812 1133741 2 5/15/2000 Mud 364145 1134644 2 5/13/2000 Unnamed 361544 1135614 2 3/12/1980 Red Rock 363303 1140124 2 5/12/2000 #106 364100 1134526 2 5/13/2000 Date Discharge Measured Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006b): 47 to 52 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 131 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 132 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Grand Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.2-3. Figure 6.2-6 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.2-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.2-6. Figure 6.2-8 shows well yield for one well. 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 6.2-3 and Figure 6.2-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, basin-ill and sedimentary rock (Cottonwood Wash and Muddy Creek formations). • Most of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on natural recharge, groundwater in storage and groundwater low direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.2-3 and Figure 6.2-8. • As shown on Figure 6.2-8 well yield data are only available for one well, which yields less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm). Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.2-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures two index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for these two wells are shown in Figure 6.2-7. • The water level in one well was at a depth of 21 feet and rose by more than 30 feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Water level in the other well is at a depth of 508 feet and was generally stable between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. 133 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-3 Groundwater Data for the Grand Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 959 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill with Interbedded Volcanic Rock Sedimentary Rock (Cottonwood Wash Formation) Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) Well Yields, in gal/min: 10 (1 well reported ) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) 300 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: N/A Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Current Number of Index Wells: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (6 wells measured) N/A = Not Available Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 134 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 135 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 6.2-7 Grand Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 A WELL DEPTH: 153 ft USE: UNUSED sedimentary rocks B-37-15 18DBC 50 100 1975 500 B 1985 1995 WELLDEPTH: 548 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-36-15 25DCD 550 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 136 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 137 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.7 Water Quality of the Grand Wash 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 6.2-4A. There are no impaired lakes and streams in this basin. Figure 6.2-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.2-4. 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 6.2-4A. • All seven springs have parameter concentrations of total dissolved solids that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. Table 6.2-4 Water Quality Exceedences in the Grand Wash Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Township Range Section 38 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 14 8 9 9 18 3 4 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Reach (in miles) (in acres) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1980 and 2000. TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 2 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 138 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 139 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Grand Wash Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.2-5. There is no recorded efluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 6.2-5 • Population in this basin is very small, with 15 residents in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water uses in this basin. All groundwater use is for municipal demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2005 there were 11 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute (gpm) and one well with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 140 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Grand Wash Basin1 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Estimated Number of Registered and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 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 32 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 WELL TOTALS: <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 02 ADWR (1994a) 5 0 <500 NR 0 1 <500 NR 2 0 <300 NR NR NR 1 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 11 1 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 141 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Grand Wash Basin There are no water adequacy applications on ile with the Department as of December 2008 for the Grand Wash Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 142 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Grand Wash 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-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data ile, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. (Groundwater Conditions Table) ______, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Ofice of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005c, Wells55: Database. (Groundwater Conditions Table) ______, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data ile, ADWR Ofice of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map/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 proiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game & 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. B Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1999, National Monuments: GIS cover. 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. Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Ponds: Inventory, Assessment and Development of Recovery Priorities: AZ Water Protection Fund 99-074. (Spring Map/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. 143 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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 ile, 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 ofice in Tucson, AZ. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. 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. Bales, J.T., and R.L. Laney, 1992, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation area: Virgin River, Nevada to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4185, 29 p. Billingsley, G.H., S.B. Beard, S.S. Priest, J.L. Wellmeyer, D.L. Block, 2004, Geologic Map of the Lower Grand Wash Cliffs and Vicinity, Mohave County, Northwestern Arizona. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2427 Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Draft resource management plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Ofice and NPS joint report, 2005. Dettiger, M., J. Harrill and D. Schmidt, 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 100 p. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleolood evidence for a natural upper bound to lood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 144 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open – File Report 96-626, 20 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hereford, R., G. Webb and S. Graham, 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Smith J.D. and S. Wiele, 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. 145 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 146 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.1 Geography of the Kanab Plateau Basin The Kanab Plateau Basin, located in the north central part of the planning area is 4,247 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.3-1. The basin is characterized by plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include Mohave and Great Basin desertscrub, Plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin subalpine conifer forest and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. There are small areas of subalpine grassland on the Kaibab Plateau south of Jacob Lake. (See Figure 6.0-11) • 147 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.3-1 are: o The Colorado River and Grand Canyon forming the southern basin boundary and the lowest point at 1,600 feet where the river exits the basin. o A series of plateaus running north-south; the Kaibab, Kanab and Uinkaret plateaus o Vermillion Cliffs in the northeast portion of the basin, Hurricane Cliffs on the northwestern basin boundary and Marble Canyon on the eastern basin boundary. o Granite Gorge on the southeastern basin boundary o Antelope Valley between the Uinkaret and Kanab Plateaus o Point Imperial, the highest point in the basin at 8,803 feet, located northeast of the North Rim Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 148 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.2 Land Ownership in the Kanab Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Kanab Plateau Basin is shown in Figure 6.3-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large parcels of U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forest Service and National Park Service (NPS) lands. Three percent is managed as the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument by the BLM and 2% is managed as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument by the BLM and NPS. 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 6.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 41.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Ofice of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in the basin includes portions of the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monuments as well as the 7,880 acre Mt. Trumbull Wilderness, 6,860 acre Cottonwood Point Wilderness and a portion of the 79,000 acre Paria Canyon Wilderness. (see Figure 6.0-14) • Land uses include grazing, recreation and resource conservation. National Forest • 24.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest lands are part of the Kaibab National Forest and include the 40,610-acre Saddle Mountain Wilderness and the 68,340 acre Kanab Creek Wilderness. (see Figure 6.0-14) • Land uses include recreation, resource conservation, grazing and timber production. National Park Service (NPS) • 22.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service. • This basin includes portions of Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. Indian Reservation • 4.4% of the land is under tribal ownership of the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Tribe. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, agricultural and ranching. State Trust Land • 4.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout the basin interspersed with BLM and private land. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 3.4% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the northern portion of the basin in the vicinity of 149 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 • Colorado City and Fredonia. Land uses include domestic, commercial, agriculture and ranching. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 150 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 151 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.3 Climate of the Kanab Plateau Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 6.3-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.3-3. Figure 6.3-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Kanab Plateau Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or AZMET stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 6.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 6.3-1A • There are nine NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges between 91.5°F at Inner Canyon USGS and 61.8°F at Bright Angel Ranger Station. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 23.2°F at Colorado City and 47.0°F at Phantom Ranch. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July-September) or winter (January-March). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 25.70 inches at Bright Angel Ranger Station and the lowest is 6.55 inches at Lees Ferry SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 6.3-1D • There is one SNOTEL/Snowcourse station (Bright Angel) in the basin located at the north rim of the Grand Canyon. • The highest average monthly snowpack is in March with an average of 9.9 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 30 inches north of the North Rim and as low as four inches along the Colorado River. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 152 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-1 Climate Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Bright Angel Ranger Station Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 8,400 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 61.8/Jul 27.2/Jan 10.79 2.80 5.76 6.35 25.70 76.8/Jul 23.2/Jan, Dec 4.41 2.70 4.04 3.02 14.17 10.32 Colorado City 5,010 1971-2000 Fredonia 4,680 1948-2005 1 74.2/Jul 32.4/Jan 2.79 1.40 2.79 3.34 45.8/Jan 2.13 1.23 3.21 1.82 8.38 5.71 3.64 7.08 6.67 23.10 Inner Canyon USGS 2,570 1948-1966 91.5/Jul Jacob Lake 7,830 1 1950-1987 64.9/Jul 27.9/Jan Lees Ferry 3,210 1971-2000 87.3/Jul 37.8/Jan, Dec 1.64 0.91 2.33 1.67 6.55 47.0/Jan 3.12 1.09 3.13 2.43 9.77 Phantom Ranch 2,570 1971-2000 91.4/Jul Pipe Springs National Monument 4,920 1971-2000 76.7/Jul 34.8/Jan 3.81 1.59 3.30 2.56 11.26 1 79.6/Jul 38.5/Jan 3.93 1.46 3.97 2.98 12.34 Tuweep 4,780 1948-1985 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) Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) Period of Record None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Bright Angel Elevation (in feet) 8,400 Period of Record 1947 - current Average Snowpack, as Snow Water Content, at the Beginning of the Month, in Inches (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 3.3 (28) 7.0 (50) 9.9 (49) 9.1 (44) 16.2 (1) 0 (0) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006 153 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 154 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Kanab Plateau Basin Streamlow data, including average seasonal low, average annual low and other information are shown in Table 6.3-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 6.3-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.3-4. The location of streamlow gages identiied by USGS number, lood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.3-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamlow Data • Refer to Table 6.3-2. • Data from six stations located at three watercourses are shown in the table and their location is shown on Figure 6.3-5. Three stations have been discontinued and two stations are realtime stations. • The Colorado River near Grand Canyon station receives highest seasonal low in the spring (April-June). Unlike the other two stations on the Colorado River in this basin, the period of record for this station predates Glen Canyon Dam upstream on the Colorado River, and therefore more closely relects the river’s unaltered average seasonal low. • The largest annual low recorded in the basin is 20.6 million acre feet (maf) in 1984 at the Colorado River near Grand Canyon station with a contributing drainage area of 141,600 square miles. • The Colorado River in the basin has a mean and median annual low of over eight maf at all three gages. The Paria River is a major tributary to the Colorado River, with a median annual low of over 18,000 acre-feet. • Figure 6.3-4 shows the annual low in the Colorado River near Grand Canyon station. Flood events/Glen Canyon Dam releases are shown in 1983-84 and in 1998. Otherwise, the data show below average low, and less variability in year-to-year low after construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1964. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 6.3-3. • As of October 2005 there was one station in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.3-4. • The basin contains three large reservoirs. Two of the three large reservoirs are dry or intermittent lakes. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in ten small reservoirs. • There are 705 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.3-5. • Average annual runoff is highest, two inches per year or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile, below the Kaibab Plateau in the western portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, east and west of the Kaibab Plateau. 155 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.3-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) Colorado River near Grand Canyon 19232005 (Station # 9402500) 25,000,000 acre-feet 20,000,000 Average Annual Flow 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1923 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 156 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-2 Streamflow Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Gage Drainage Area Elevation 2 (in mi ) (in feet) Station Number USGS Station Name 9382000 Paria River at Lees Ferry 1,410 3,124 Colorado River at Compact Point near Lees Ferry 112,000 9383100 Colorado River above Little Colorado River near Desert View 9402500 Period of Record 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 10/1923-current (real time) 29 11 38 22 9,052 (1977) 18,104 20,606 47,867 (1980) 79 NA 10/1980-9/2007 24 25 28 22 7,833,437 (1988) 8,383,659 9,876,067 18,699,615 (1986) 20 114,272 2,687 9/1989-1/2002 (discontinued) 25 25 27 23 8,188,186 (1990) 10,357,150 15,420,721 (1997) 10 Colorado River near Grand Canyon 141,600 2,419 10/1922-current (real time) 17 43 24 16 1,629,360 (1963) 20,551,661 (1984) 79 9402501 Colorado River near Grand Canyon (Stonehouse) NA 2,419 11/2001- 1/2006 (discontinued) 27 25 28 20 9403780 Kanab Creek near Fredonia 1,085 4,500 10/1963-9/1980 (discontinued) 40 27 20 14 9383000 1 9,610,439 9,884,422 11,234,437 No statistics run; less than 3 years data 608 (1964) 3,743 4,603 11,728 (1979) 2 16 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: This gage is not an actual gage but a compilation of data from the Paria River gage 09392000 and the Lees Ferry gage 09380000 in the Little Colorado River Basin and is used for accounting purposes. NA = Not available Average seasonal flow and annual flow/year data are current as of water year 2003 Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 1 157 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Kanab Plateau Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 7580 Colorado City Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available at this time Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 158 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Kanab Plateau 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 Fredonia2 Fredonia 2,710 C State Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 2 Lakes of Short Creek Short Creek Southside Irrigation Co. 200 I State 3 Toroweap National Park Service 83 P Federal 4 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: 104 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 9 Total surface area: 112 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 705 1 C=flood control; I=irrigation, P=fire protection, stock or farm pond Intermittent lake 3 Capacity data not available to ADWR 4 Dry lake 2 159 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 160 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.3-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 6.3-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • 161 The basin contains numerous perennial streams; most are located along and in the vicinity of the southern basin boundary. Signiicant perennial streams include the Colorado River, the Paria River and Kanab Creek. Intermittent streams are found south of Jacob Lake and in the vicinity of the Colorado River. Most of Kanab Creek is also intermittent in the basin. There are 39 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.3-5B. There are 23 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 1996. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identiied by the USGS varies from 181 to 190, depending on the database reference. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-5 Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 1122546 18,763 11/9/2003 362346 1122728 9,741 11/9/2003 Angel 361317 1120040 7,810 10/14/92 4 Shinumo 361808 1121808 4,058 4/27/2002 5 Deer Creek 362322 1123027 3,542 5/31/2000 6 Roaring 361143 1120207 1,952 7/13/2003 7 Kanab Creek 362335 1123745 1,619 10/5/1993 8 Clear Creek 360454 1120208 772 4/24/2002 9 Dragon 361043 1121055 627 7/30/1969 10 Haunted 360935 1120636 430 8/15/1969 11 Abyss River 361721 1121528 403 7/13/1969 12 Fence Fault North 363139 1115044 300 3/26/2001 13 Stone Creek (below falls) 362050 1122708 265 3/1/2002 14 At Last 361716 1115745 260 7/29/1969 15 Crystal 361153 1121215 247 3/18/2004 16 Emmett2 361257 1120135 215 7/22/1969 17 Nankoweap Creek 361809 1115205 193 4/22/2002 18 Big 363608 1122054 185 7/2/2000 19 Ribbon2 361012 1120435 184 8/16/1969 20 Clear Water 364606 1123712 155 1/25/1997 21 Kwagunt Creek near Colorado R. 361542 1114948 137 10/14/1995 22 Vasey's Paradise 362957 1115126 119 3/14/2004 23 North Canyon (multiple) 362354 1120500 108 6/28/2000 24 Chuar Creek 2 361000 1115147 100 10/12/1997 25 Long Res 365438 1124535 90 9/9/1976 26 Sand 365424 1124429 81 6/18/1997 27 Butte Fault-Upper 361658 1115318 76 3/27/2001 28 Phantom 360906 1120749 72 8/15/1969 3 Location Latitude Longitude Map Key Name 1 Tapeats (above Thunder) 362425 2 Thunder at Tapeats 3 7/7/1998 29 Robber's Roost 361650 1120516 56 30 Noble2 361740 1121755 54 7/13/1969 31 Transcept2 361125 1120340 54 8/17/1969 3 7/27/1976 32 Pipe 365149 1124422 35 33 Cottonwood 365829 1123601 25 11/15/1996 34 Mangum 363720 1122022 25 8/8/1976 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 162 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-5 Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin (Cont) Location Latitude Longitude Map Key Name 35 Two Mile Seep 36 Mocassin 2 365047 1123942 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 21 11/14/1996 365437 1124546 20 During or Prior to 1997 364645 1114613 18 8/4/1976 37 Soap Creek 38 Tunnel 365147 1124420 11 8/8/2000 39 Kanabownits 361714 1121246 10 6/1/1976 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 06/1975 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Name South Big 361906 1121537 9 Sprayfield 361302 1120405 8 06/1975 Warm 364141 1121842 6 7/3/2000 Unnamed 362044 1124015 5 4/4/2001 Castle 363509 1122027 4 7/2/2000 Sowats 363139 1122718 4 7/1/2000 Cliff Dweller 361221 1120340 3 07/1976 Unnamed2,4 361257 1120403 3 6/1/1976 Riggs 365655 1123729 2 11/15/1996 Little 362038 1130901 2 8/16/1950 Quaking Aspen 362243 1121654 2 6/29/2000 Milk Creek 361616 1120835 2 8/5/2000 2 361543 1125503 2 5/8/1976 Fern Glen Nixon 362408 1130846 1 6/20/2000 Sowats B 363127 1122718 1 7/1/2000 Timp 362316 1121743 1 8/8/2000 Coyote 365707 1120203 1 8/6/1976 Watts 362247 1121631 1 6/29/2000 Wolf 365853 1123809 1 11/15/1996 Saddle Horse 361345 1130317 1 8/9/1976 Unnamed 362047 1124329 1 5/7/1976 Yellowstone 364352 1125633 1 8/15/1951 Point 365516 1124322 1 11/15/1996 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006b): 181 to 190 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 10 gpm 4 Location approximated by ADWR 1 163 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 164 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Kanab Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.3-6. Figure 6.3-7 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.3-8 contains hydrographs for the wells shown on Figure 6.3-7. Figure 6.3-9 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 6.3-6 and Figure 6.3-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium and sedimentary rock. • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on natural recharge, groundwater in storage and groundwater low direction are not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.3-6 and Figure 6.3-9. • As shown on Figure 6.3-9, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 10 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 70 gpm. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.3-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures three index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two of these wells are shown in Figure 6.3-8. • For the two wells shown on Figure 6.3-7 depth to water was 87 feet at one well and 611 feet at the other. Water level change was minimal between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. 165 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-6 Groundwater Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 4,247 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Sedimentary Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: Range 236-480 Median 358 (2 wells measured) Range 3-500 Median 70 (10 wells reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-200 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: N/A Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Current Number of Index Wells: 3 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (62 wells measured) N/A = Not Available Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 166 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 167 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 6.3-8 Kanab Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 A WELL DEPTH: 202 ft USE: UNUSED 100 1975 600 650 B Kayenta Formation B-40-04 06AAC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1975 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 2005 sedimentary rocks B-39-02 20CDD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 168 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 169 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.7 Water Quality of the Kanab Plateau 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 6.3-7A. 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 6.3-7B. Figure 6.3-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.3-7. 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 6.3-7A. • Eight wells or springs have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was total dissolved solids. Other parameters equaled or exceeded are lead and nitrates. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 6.3-7B and Figure 6.3-9 • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 29mile stream reach, the Paria River from the Utah border to the Colorado River. A portion of this impaired reach is located in the Paria Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Efluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 6.3-9 • There is one efluent dependent reach in this basin, Transect Canyon. This reach receives efluent from the North Rim Wastewater Treatment Plant. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 170 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 1 Table 6.3-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Kanab Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 37 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 39 North 5 East 1 West 4 West 7 West 4 West 7 West 8 West 4 West 4 15 31 23 17 4 17 24 TDS TDS Pb NO3 Pb TDS TDS TDS Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated Use 3 Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard NA A&W suspended sediment concentration Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) a Stream Paria River (Utah border to Colorado River) 29 4 Source: ADEQ 2005e Notes: NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. 2 Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. A portion of this reach is in the Paria Basin. 1 171 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 172 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Kanab Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.3-8. Efluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 6.3-9. Figure 6.311 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 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 6.3-8 and Figure 6.3-11. • Population in this basin increased from 2,815 in 1980 to 6,233 in 2000 and is projected to reach 14,688 by 2030. • Groundwater demand has decreased in this basin and was less than 2,600 acre-feet in 20012005. • Groundwater is used for both municipal and agricultural demand. Municipal and agricultural demand centers are located in the vicinity of Fredonia, Colorado City, Moccasin and Kaibab. • Data on surface water use prior to 1991 is not available. The table includes approximately 600 acre-feet of surface water diverted from Roaring Spring in this basin for use at the Grand Canyon South Rim in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Less than 1,000 acre-feet of water is diverted from Kanab Creek for agriculture in the Fredonia area. • As of 2009 there were no active mines in the basin, however, exploration for uranium is on going. • As of 2005 there were 220 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 119 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Efluent Generation • Refer to Table 6.3-9. • There are ive wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for two facilities and information on efluent generation was available for four facilities. These facilities serve almost 2,900 people and generate over 400 acre-feet of efluent per year. At one time Colorado City operated a wastewater treatment facility that served over 5,000 people and generated 403 acre-feet per year. The plant closed in 2002 and Colorado City now sends sewage to Hildale, Utah for treatment. • Of the four facilities with information on the efluent disposal method: one discharges to evaporation ponds; two discharge for irrigation; and one discharges to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. 173 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Kanab Plateau Basin 1 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 1 Q > 35 gpm 1493 2,815 2,985 3,155 3,324 3,494 3,664 3,834 4,004 4,174 4,343 4,513 4,655 4,797 4,938 5,080 5,222 5,364 5,505 5,647 5,789 6,233 6,602 6,971 7,339 7,708 8,077 9,921 12,552 14,688 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial <500 NR4 2,000 NR Data Agricultural Source 663 ADWR (1994a) 3 4 2,000 NR 10 17 2,000 NR 9 6 900 <300 1,500 700 NR <1,000 20 19 1,200 <300 1,500 700 NR <1,000 29 7 1,600 <300 <1,000 700 NR <1,000 220 119 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Surface water diverted in the Kanab Plateau Basin is delivered to the Coconino Plateau Basin for use at the Grand Canyon South Rim. 3 Includes all wells through 1980. 4 Surface water diversions for irrigation occurred in the Fredonia area prior to 1990 however data on the volume of recent surface water diversions is not available. NR - Not reported Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 174 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-9 Effluent Generation in the Kanab Plateau Basin Facility Name Ownership Volume Treated/ City/Location Population Generated (acreServed Served feet/year) Fredonia WWTF Fredonia Fredonia Jacob Lake Private Jacob Lake Kaibab Lagoons NA NA 1,500 168 North Rim-Grand Cayon WWTP National Park Service Park NA 112 Phantom Ranch National Park Service Park NA 10 2,895 447 Total 1,395 Disposal Method Watercourse 157 Evaporation Irrigation Pond Wildlife Area Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Municipal Reuse Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins X Other Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary w/ Nutrient Removal 1,025 1998 Secondary NA 2000 NA X Trancept Canyon X NA 2002 X NA 2002 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated 175 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 176 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 6.3-10. Figure 6.3-12 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. • • • 177 Nine water adequacy determinations for 360 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Six determinations of inadequacy have been made; the most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data were insuficient to make a determination. 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 Coconino County 229 70 31% Mohave County 131 131 100% Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin1 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 18 66 53-300320 Adequate 6 East 28, 33 6 75/722695 Inadequate 41 North 2 West 5, 8 13 75/72275; Inadequate Mohave 41 North 2 West 17, 21 65 75/722923 Adequate Gateway Mobile Park Coconino 41 North 2 West 17 70 75/722924 Inadequate 6 Heaton Subdivision Coconino 41 North 2 West 16 28 75/72299; 7 Lewis Estates Subdivision Coconino 41 North 2 West 16, 21 16 8 Roadrunner Estates Coconino 41 North 2 West 20 9 Shiprock Estates Coconino 41 North 2 West 17, 21 Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section 1 Centennial Park Unit 1 Mohave 41 North 6 West 2 Cliff Dweller's Homelands Coconino 39 North 3 Cowboy Butte Estates Coconino 4 Gateway Mobile Home Park 5 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application 08/16/99 Centennial Park Utilities A1 07/11/88 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 06/23/88 Town of Fredonia 03/17/78 Town of Fredonia A1, B 4/24/1986 Town of Fredonia Inadequate A1 03/18/85 Town of Fredonia 75/622835 Inadequate C 10/29/01 Town of Fredonia 26 75/72355; Inadequate A1 03/26/84 Town of Fredonia 70 75/7235:; Adequate 03/17/78 Town of Fredonia 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 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 178 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 179 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Kanab Plateau 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-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data ile, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data ile, received September 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data ile, received August 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data ile, received September 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Efluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit iles: Miscellaneous working iles, received July 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project iles, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Ofice of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Ofice of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2005d, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Ofice of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Ofice of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Wells55: Database. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data ile, ADWR Ofice of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map/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 proiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data ile, received April 2005. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 180 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 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. B Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1999, National Monuments: GIS cover. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Efluent Generation Table) 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) Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Ponds: Inventory, Assessment and Development of Recovery Priorities: AZ Water Protection Fund 99-074. (Springs Map/Table) N National Park Service, 2004, Grand Canyon springs: Electronic data ile, sent November 2004. (Springs Map/Table) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data ile, accessed December 2006 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov /nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2006, Snow Course stations: Data ile, accessed December 2006 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. R Reber, S. J., 1997, Hydrogeological Report, Centennial Park, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. T 181 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Truini, M., 1999, Geohydrology of Pipe Spring National Monument Arizona: USGS Open File Report 98-4263. (Springs Map/Table) 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 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 ile, 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 ofice in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic ile, 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 Wenrich, K.J., S.Q. Boundt and others, 1994, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes- data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Northwestern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 93-619. (Water Quality Map/Table) Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data ile, 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. Bennett, J.B., 1997, A Biogeochemical characterization of reattachment bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 148 pp. Bennett, J. B. and R.A. Parnell, Jr., 1995, Nutrient cycling in the Colorado, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, USA: 3rd Biennial Conference on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ. Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 182 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report. Carpenter, M., R. Carruth, J. Fink, J. Boling and B. Cluer, 1995, Hydrogeology and deformation of sandbars in response to luctuations in low of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4010. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleolood evidence for a natural upper bound to lood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Flynn, M. and N. Hornewer, 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999:USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Garrett, W.B., E.K. Van De Vanter and J.B. Graf, 1993, Stream low and sediment-transport data, Colorado River and three tributaries in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1983 and 19851986: USGS Open–File Report 93-174, 624 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 pp. Gilbert, B.A., 1997, Hydrogeologic parameters necessary to conserve backwater habitats of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 29, p. 177. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 th annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hazel, J. Jr., M.A. Kaplinski, R.A. Parnell, Jr., M. Manone and A. Dale, 1999, Effects of the 1996 beach/habitat-building low on Colorado River sand bars and sediment storage along the Colorado River Corridor; in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Hereford, R., G. Webb and S. Graham, 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Inglis, R., 1997, Monitoring and analysis of spring lows at Pipe Springs NM, Arizona: NPS Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97125, 35 pp. 183 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 1997, Water resource data of the Pipe Springs National Monument area, Arizona: US Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-90/02. Kaplinski, M.A., J. Bennett, J. Hazel Jr., M. Manone, R.A. Parnell Jr., and J. Cain, 1998, Fluvial habitats developed on sand bars, Colorado River, Grand Canyon: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 49. Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon Springs and the Redwall - Muav Aquifer: Comparison of geologic framework and groundwater low models: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 122 p. Kobor, J.S. and A.E. Springer, 2003, Predicting riparian vegetation response to groundwater withdrawals; an interdisciplinary modeling approach to a regional spring system, Grand Canyon, AZ: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35, 6, p. 374. Levings, G.W. and C.D. Farrar, 1979, Map showing ground-water conditions in the Kanab area, Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 79-1070. _____, 1978, Map showing ground-water conditions in the House Rock area, Coconino County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 78-15 Miller, J.L., 2004, The relationship of seasonal rainfall and recharge with in Grand Canyon’s north rim Redwall-Muav aquifer using d18O and H: in The Value of Water; Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. National Park Service, 1999, Baseline water quality data, inventory, and analysis, Pipe Springs National Monument: US Park Service Report NPS/NRWD/NRTR-99/220. _____, 1998, Hydrologic investigation and conservation planning, Pipe Springs, Arizona: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 96-0004. Parnell, R.A. Jr., A.E. Springer, L. Stevens, J. Bennett, T. Hoffnagle, T. Melis and D. Staniski-Martin, 1997, Flood-induced backwater rejuvenation along the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon, AZ.: in Symposium on the Glen Canyon Dam Beach/ Habitat-Building Flow, Patten, D. and Garrett, L. (eds.): U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/ GCMRC, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 41-51. Parnell, R.A. Jr., J. Bennett and L. Stevens, 1999, Floods bury riparian vegetation: Impacts of the 1996 controlled lood of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon on nutrient concentrations in bar/eddy complexes; in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 184 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Petroutson, W.D., 1997, Interpretive simulations of advective lowpaths across a reattachment bar during different Colorado River low alternatives: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 159 pp. Petroutson, W. D. and A.E. Springer, 1995, Characterizing stage-dependent measurements of hydraulic conductivity of reattachment bars in the Colorado River: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 27, p. 34. Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002, North central Arizona water demand study: Phase 1, draft report. Ross, L.E. and A.E. Springer, 2003, Three-dimensional groundwater modeling of the Redwall - Muav Aquifer on the Kaibab Plateau, north rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, based on newly collected data sets: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35; 6, p. 373. _____, 2003, Roaring Springs, Grand Canyon, Arizona: New data sets provide tools for improved recharge area delineation: 16th Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 18-19, 2003, Mesa, AZ. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990 -1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Rust Engineering Co., 1970, Preliminary study development of water resources, Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation, Arizona: US Dept. of Commerce, Economic Development Administration Report, 23 pp. Sabol, T.A., A.E. Springer and P.J. Umhoefer, 2002, Affect of the Sevier-Toroweap fault on ground-water modeling of the Kaibab Paiute Reservation, northern Arizona: Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section: Abstracts with Programs, vol. 34, 4, p. 15. Sabol, T. A. and A.E. Springer, 2003, Delineation of source water protection areas for tribal water supplies, Kaibab Paiute reservation, Arizona: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35. Semmens, B.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic characterization and numerical transport simulations of a reattachment-bar aquifer in the Colorado River: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 188 pp. Springer, A.E., W.D. Petroutsen and B.A. Semmens, 1999, Spatial and temporal variability of hydraulic conductivity in active reattachment bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Ground Water, vol. 37, p. 338-344. 185 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Springer, A.E., W.D. Petroutson and J.C. Blakely, 1996, Hydraulic conductivity variability of a Colorado River reattachment bar induced by a controlled lood: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 77, 46, p. 272-273. Stevens, L.E., J.P. Shannon and D.W. Blinn, 1997, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon Arizona, USA: dam, tributary and geomorphological inluences: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13:129-149. Stevens, L.E., J.C. Schmidt, T.J. Ayers and B.T. Brown, 1995, Flow regulation, geomorphology and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Ecological Applications 5:1025-1039. Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt and L.E. Vierra Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. Truini, M., 2004, Preliminary Investigation of Structural Controls of Ground-Water in Pipe Spring National Monument, Arizona: USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2004-5082. _____, 2002, Movement and age of groundwater in the Navajo Sandstone and Kayenta Formation in the area of Pipe Spring National Monument, northern Arizona: in Abstracts with Programs: Geological Society of America 54th Annual Meeting, May 2002, Cedar City, Utah, vol. 34, no. 4, p. A17. Ward, J., 2002, Groundwater on the Plateau: Southwest Hydrology, Vol.1, No. 4. Webb, R.H., S.S. Smith and A.S. McCord, 1991, Historic channel change of Kanab Creek, southern Utah and northern Arizona: Grand Canyon Natural History Association, Monograph no. 9, 91 pp. Wilson, E., 2000, Geologic framework and numerical groundwater models of the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 72 pp. Wilson, E.S., A.E. Springer, C.L. Winter, 1999, Delineating spring capture zones for the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, using framework and numerical models: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 31, 7, p. 347. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 186 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 187 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin Section 6.4 Paria Basin 188 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.1 Geography of the Paria Basin The Paria Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area is 408 square miles in area, the smallest basin in the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.4-1. The basin is characterized by a plateau and canyons. Vegetation types include Great Basin desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland. (See Figure 6.0-11) • 189 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.4-1 are: o The Paria Plateau o The Colorado River and Lake Powell on the eastern basin boundary and the lowest point at 3,100 feet where the River exits the basin. o Paria River in the north central portion of the basin o Vermilion Cliffs, which form the southern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin at 7,326 feet. Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 190 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.2 Land Ownership in the Paria Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Paria Basin is shown in Figure 6.4-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large portion of land, 86% of the total basin area, in the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. 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 6.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 83.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Ofice of the Bureau of Land Management. • Most of the BLM land in the basin is within the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument and includes a portion of the 79,000 acre Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. (see Figure 6.0-14) • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 10.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. • Primary land use is recreation. State Trust Land • 5.2% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout the basin interspersed with BLM land. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.2% of the land is private, consisting of two small parcels. • Private land is located in the vicinity of Wahweap and a small parcel is surrounded by state trust land in the central portion of the basin. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. 191 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 192 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.3 Climate of the Paria Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and Evaporation Pan stations are complied in Table 6.4-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.4-3. Figure 6.4-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Paria Basin does not contain AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 6.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 6.4-1A • Temperatures at the one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station range from an average annual high of 84.5°F in July to an average annual low of 37.5°F in January. • The highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer season (July-September) when 30% of the annual rainfall occurs. Average annual rainfall is 6.78 inches. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 6.4-1B • There is one evaporation pan station in the basin. This pan is at 3,720 feet and has an average annual evaporation rate of 100.18 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.4-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 16 inches in the southern portion of the basin and as low as four inches along the Colorado River. 193 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-1 Climate Data for the Paria Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Wahweap Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 3,730 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 84.5/Jul 37.5/Jan 1.70 1.09 2.02 1.97 6.78 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) Wahweap 3,720 1961 - 2000 100.18 Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Source: WRCC, 2005 C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Section 6.4 Paria Basin 194 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 195 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Paria Basin There are no streamlow data or lood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.4-2. The USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.4-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.4-2. • The only large reservoir in the basin is Lake Powell with a maximum storage capacity of 20.3 million acre-feet (maf). Most of the storage is in Utah. • Lake Powell is used for hydroelectric, irrigation, recreation and other uses. • There are 57 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.4-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwestern portion and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the eastern portion of the basin. Section 6.4 Paria Basin 196 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-2 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Paria 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 Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) Bureau of Reclamation 20,325,000 H,I,O,R 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: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 57 1 H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; O=other; R=recreation 197 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 198 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Paria Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.4-3. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 6.4-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There are no intermittent streams and the only perennial streams are the Colorado River and the Paria River. There are no major or minor springs. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identiied by the USGS varies from two to three, depending on the database reference. Table 6.4-3 Springs in the Paria Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Discharge Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Discharge Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006b): 2 to 3 199 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 200 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Paria Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.4-4. Figure 6.4-6 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.4-7 contains the hydrograph for the selected well shown on Figure 6.4-6. Figure 6.4-8 shows well yields in two 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 6.4-4 and Figure 6.4-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is sedimentary rock (N Aquifer). • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on natural recharge and groundwater low direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.4-4 and Figure 6.4-8. • As shown on Figure 6.4-8, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. All well yield data is from the northeastern portion of the basin near Wahweap. • One source of well yield information, based on three reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 520 gpm in the vicinity of Wahweap. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 6.4-4. • The storage estimate for this basin is 1.5 maf of water to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.4-6. Water levels are shown for a well measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin. A hydrograph for this well is shown in Figure 6.4-7. 201 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-4 Groundwater Data for the Paria Basin Basin Area (in square miles): 408 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (N Aquifer) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 30-600 Median 520 (3 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-1,400 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) N/A 1,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (34 wells measured) N/A = Not Available Section 6.4 Paria Basin 202 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 203 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 6.4-7 Paria Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 450 A WELL DEPTH: 1200 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY N-aquifer A-41-08 14BCA 500 550 1975 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 204 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 205 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.7 Water Quality of the Paria 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 6.4-5A. 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 6.4-5B. Figure 6.4-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.4-5. 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 6.4-5A. • Seven wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded the drinking water standard for arsenic. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 6.4-5B. • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 29mile stream reach, the Paria River from the Utah border to the Colorado River. A portion of this impaired reach is located in the Kanab Plateau Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Section 6.4 Paria Basin 206 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 1 Table 6.4-5 Water Quality Exceedences in the Paria Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 42 North 42 North 42 North 42 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 32 35 35 36 4 14 14 As As As As As As As Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Paria River (Utah border to Colorado River) Length of Impaired Area of Parameter(s) Designated Use Stream Reach (in Impaired Lake Exceeding Use 3 Standard miles) (in acres) Standard 4 29 NA A&W suspended sediment concentration Source: ADEQ 2005 Notes: NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1977 and 2001. 2 As = Arsenic 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. A portion of this reach is in the Kanab Plateau Basin. 1 207 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 208 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Paria 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 6.4-6. There is no recorded efluent generation in this basin. Figure 6.4-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 6.4-6 and Figure 6.4-10. • Population in this basin increased from 237 in 1980 to 528 in 2000 and is projected to increase to 695 in 2030. • All water use is for municipal demand in the vicinity of Wahweap. • There is no reported surface water use in this basin. Groundwater demand was reported as 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) on average from 1971-1990 and less than 300 AFA from 1991-2005. • As of 2005 there were 12 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and four wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 209 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-6 Cultural Water Demand in the Paria 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 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Data Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 92 237 262 287 312 337 362 387 412 437 462 487 494 500 507 514 521 528 535 541 548 528 532 536 539 543 547 566 637 695 WELLS TOTALS: 1,000 NR 1,000 NR 22 ADWR (1994a) 0 1 1,000 NR 0 0 1,000 NR 3 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 1 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 12 4 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 210 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 211 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Paria 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 6.4-7. Figure 6.4-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • All subdivisions reviewed for an adequacy determination are in the vicinity of Wahweap. Nine water adequacy determinations for 1,356 lots total have been made in this basin through December 2008; all were determined to be adequate. Section 6.4 Paria Basin 212 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-7 Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin Location Map Key Subdivision Name Township Range Section No. of Lots 32 770 County ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 53-500757 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Greenehaven Coconino 42 North 8 East 2 Greenehaven #4 Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 12 53-500758 Adequate 6/3/1988 Greenehaven Development Corp. Greenehaven Water Company 3 Greenehaven Unit #6 Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 83 53-400505 Adequate 3/16/2001 Greenehaven Water Company 4 Greenehaven # 5 Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 86 53-400507 Adequate 7/3/2001 Greenehaven Water Company Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 151 53-500759 Adequate 7/8/1981 Greenehaven Water Company Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 58 53-402001 Adequate 6/22/2006 Greenehaven Water Company Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 81 53-402002 Adequate 6/22/2006 Greenehaven Water Company Coconino 42 North 8 East 32 75 53-402000 Adequate 6/22/2006 Greenehaven Water Company Patio Homes @ Lake Powell View Properties- Coconino One 42 North 8 East 32 40 53-400698 Adequate 4/2/2002 Greenehaven Water Company 1 Greenehaven Mobile Home Estates Greenehaven Unit VII Phase 1 Greenehaven Unit VII Phase 1 5 6 7 8 Greenehaven Unit VIII 9 12/28/1977 Source: ADWR 2008 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 to ADWR at this time 213 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 214 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Paria 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-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data ile, 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/Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data ile, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map/Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project iles, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Ofice of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Wells55: Database. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data ile, ADWR Ofice of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map/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 proiles 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. B Bureau of Land Management, 1999, National Monuments, GIS Cover. 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/Table) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual 215 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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), 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data ile, 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 ofice in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic ile, 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), 2006, Pan evaporation stations: Data ile accessed December 2006 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data ile, 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. Berghoff, K., L. Boobar and J. Ritenour, 1998, The effects of land use on water quality at the beaches of Lake Powell: in Water at the Conluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p.11. Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Draft resource management plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Ofice and NPS joint report, 2005. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleolood evidence for a natural upper bound to lood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Section 6.4 Paria Basin 216 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Flynn, M. and N. Hornewer, 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999:USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Hart, H.E. and others, 2004, Physical and chemical characteristics of Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui canyons and the effects of recreational use on water quality, Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2004-5120, 40 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hart, R.J. and K.M. Sherman, 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the forebay and outlows of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p. Hereford, R., G. Webb and S. Graham, 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Mondry, Z., 2002, Drought, storms, and stream low and temperature observations from the Coconino and Prescott National Forests: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Mullen, G., A. Springer, T. Kolb and A. Ament, 2002, Restoration of wet meadows: Inluence of burning herbaceous communities on groundwater recharge: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings of the 15th annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990 -1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Smith J.D. and S. Wiele, 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt and L.E. Vierra Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. 217 Section 6.4 Paria Basin Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 218 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.1 Geography of the Shivwits Plateau Basin The Shivwits Plateau Basin, located in the western part of the planning area is 1,821 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.5-1. The basin is characterized by plateaus, canyons and cliffs. Vegetation is primarily Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin and Mohave desertscrub and Plains and Great Basin grassland with small areas of Rocky Mountain and madrean montane forest and interior chaparral. (See Figure 6.0-11) • 219 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.5-1 are: o The Colorado River and Lower Granite Gorge of the Grand Canyon forming the southern basin boundary o Shivwits Plateau running north south throughout most of the basin and the Sanup Plateau in the southwest o Hurricane Cliffs on the northeastern basin boundary o Mt. Dellenbaugh, located south of Oak Grove, the highest point in the basin at 7,072 feet o The lowest point at approximately 1,200 feet where the Colorado River exits the basin. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 220 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.2 Land Ownership in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Shivwits Plateau Basin is shown in Figure 6.5-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large parcels of land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (NPS). Thirty-four percent of the basin is managed jointly by the BLM and NPS as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. 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 6.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 53.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Ofice of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in the basin includes a portion of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and the 14,650 acre Mt. Logan Wilderness, located south of Mount Trumbull. (see Figure 6.0-14) • Land use includes grazing, recreation and resource conservation. National Park Service (NPS) • 38.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Grand Canyon National Park and the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. • Land use includes resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 4.9% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout most of the basin and is interspersed with BLM and private lands. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 3.3% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the vicinity of Mt. Trumbull and north of Oak Grove. • Land uses include domestic and ranching. 221 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 222 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.3 Climate of the Shivwits Plateau Basin The Shivwits Plateau Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 6.5-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 6.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.5-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 20 inches along the central eastern basin boundary and as low as four inches at the Colorado River on the basin’s western boundary. 223 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 224 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Shivwits Plateau Basin There are no streamlow data or lood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.5-1. The USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.5-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.5-1. • The only large reservoir in the basin is Wolf Hole with a maximum surface area of 58 acres. This reservoir is used for ire protection or as a stock or farm pond. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs. • There are 369 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.5-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the northwestern portion of the basin near Mud Mountain Road and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the southernmost and central portions of the basin. 225 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Shivwits Plateau Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION None Identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)1 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE2 JURISDICTION 1 Wolf Hole Private 58 P NA 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)1 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 10 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 369 1 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR P=fire protection, stock or farm pond Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 226 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 227 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Major springs with discharge rates and date of measurement and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.5-2. The location of a major spring and perennial stream are shown on Figure 6.5-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • There are no intermittent streams. Perennial streams include the Colorado River and Boulder Wash. There is one major spring in the basin, Spring Canyon located at the Colorado River, with a discharge rate of 331 gallons per minute (gpm). Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.5-2B. There are ive minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identiied by the USGS varies from 51 to 56, depending on the database reference. • • • Table 6.5-2 Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Spring Canyon2 Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 360107 1132106 331 Date Discharge Measured 3/20/2004 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Ivanpatch 362340 1132823 3 7/20/1951 Big 362014 1131125 2 8/10/1976 Green 360538 1132825 1 6/18/2000 Poverty 362355 1133251 1 9/8/1976 Russell 363120 1131930 1 7/21/1951 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 51 to 56 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 228 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 229 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Shivwits Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.5-3. Figure 6.5-6 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.5-7 contains the hydrograph for the selected well shown on Figure 6.5-6. 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 6.5-3 and Figure 6.5-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is the recent stream alluvium. • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on natural recharge, groundwater in storage and groundwater low direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.5-3 • One source of well yield information, based on 17 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is ive gallons per minute. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.5-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • There are no index wells in this basin. • Water level information is available for one well, with a depth to water of 960 feet. A hydrograph for this well is shown in Figure 6.5-7. Table 6.5-3 Groundwater Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,821 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Well Yields, in gpm: Range 2-35 Median 5 (17 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for all wells (Wells55) Range 0-45 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-10 Anning and Duet (1994) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: N/A Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Current Number of Index Wells: 0 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (9 wells measured) N/A=Not Available Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 230 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 231 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.5-7 Shivwits Plateau Basin Hydrograph Showing Depth to Water 950 A WELL DEPTH: 2120 USE: UNUSED sedimentary rocks (?) B-34-12 24DDA 1000 1975 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 232 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.7 Water Quality of the Shivwits Plateau 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 6.5-4A. 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 6.5-4B. Figure 6.5-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.5-4. 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 6.5-4A. • One spring has a parameter concentration that has equaled or exceeded the drinking water standard for arsenic. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 6.5-4B. • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 28-mile stream reach, the Colorado River from Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek. This impaired reach is located along part of the border with the Coconino Plateau Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Table 6.5-4 Water Quality Exceedences in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 30 North 13 West 24 As Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 Spring Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Colorado River (Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) 284 NA Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 A&W Se, suspended sediment concentration Source: ADEQ 2005 Notes: NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. 2 As = Arsenic Se = Selenium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. This reach is located along part of the border with the Coconino Plateau Basin. 1 233 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 234 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.5-5. There is no recorded efluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 6.5-5 • Population in this basin is very small, with 12 residents in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water uses in this basin. All groundwater use is for municipal (domestic) demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2005 there were 17 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute (gpm) and two wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 235 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Shivwits Plateau Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 142 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 TOTALS: <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 02 ADWR (1994a) 0 0 <500 NR 0 0 <500 NR 3 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 2 <300 NR NR NR 17 2 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 236 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Shivwits Plateau Basin There are no water adequacy applications on ile with the Department as of December 2008 for the Shivwits Plateau Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. 237 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Shivwits Plateau 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-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data ile, 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. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Ofice of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Wells55: Database. (Groundwater Conditions 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 proiles 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. B Bureau of Land Management, 1999, National Monuments, GIS Cover. 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, 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 ile, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS ofice in Tucson, AZ. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 238 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Wenrich, K.J., S.Q. Boundt, and others, 1993, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes- data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, northwestern Arizona, USGS Open File Report 93-619 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. Blanchard, P.J., 1986, Groundwater conditions in the Kaiparowits Plateau area, Utah and Arizona, with emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone: Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication No. 81, 87 p. Bureau of Land Management, 2007, Final resource management plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Ofice and NPS joint report, 2007. Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleolood evidence for a natural upper bound to lood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip springs, seeps and natural ponds: Inventory, assessment and development of recovery priorities: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-074. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hereford, R., G. Webb and S. Graham, 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. 239 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Moore, K., B. Davis and T. Duck, 2003, Mt. Trumbull Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29 2003. Smith J.D., and S. Wiele, 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990 -1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 240 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 241 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 242 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.1 Geography of the Virgin River Basin The Virgin River Basin, located in the northwestern-most part of the planning area is 434 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.6-1. The basin is characterized by mountains and a broad valley west of the mountains. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub with smaller areas of Great Basin desertscrub, Great Basin conifer woodland, interior chaparral and a small area of Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. (See Figure 6.0-11) Riparian vegetation along the Virgin River is predominantly tamarisk. • 243 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.6-1 are: o The Virgin River running from the northeast to southwest and the lowest point at 1,600 feet where the river exits the basin o Virgin and Beaver Dam Mountains in the center of the basin o Mt. Bangs on the southern basin boundary, the highest point in the basin at 8,012 feet Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 244 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.2 Land Ownership in the Virgin River Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Virgin River Basin is shown in Figure 6.6-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large portion of land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 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 6.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 91.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Ofice of the Bureau of Land Management. • A small portion of BLM land is managed as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. The basin includes the 19,600 acre Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness and a portion of the 87,900 acre Paiute Wilderness, located in the eastern portion of the basin. (see Figure 6.0-14) • Primary land use is recreation, resource conservation and grazing. Private • 5.0% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the vicinity of Beaver Dam/Littleield and west of Elbow Canyon Road in an area known as “Scenic.” • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. State Trust Land • 3.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout the basin and is interspersed with BLM and private lands. • Primary land use is grazing. 245 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 246 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.3 Climate of the Virgin River Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 6.6-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.6-3. Figure 6.6-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Virgin River Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 6.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 6.6-1A • Temperatures at the one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station range from an average annual high of 89.5°F in July to an average annual low of 45.5°F in January. • The highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter season (January-March) when 40% of the annual rainfall occurs. Average annual rainfall is 7.59 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.6-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 16 inches in the southeastern portion of the basin and as low as four inches in the western portion of the basin. 247 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-1 Climate Data for the Virgin River Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Beaver Dam Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages 1,880 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 89.5/Jul 45.5/Jan 3.05 0.89 1.68 1.97 7.59 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2005 C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 248 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 249 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Virgin River Basin Streamlow data, including average seasonal low, average annual low and other information are shown in Table 6.6-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 6.6-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.6-4. The location of streamlow gages identiied by USGS number, lood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.6-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamlow Data • Refer to Table 6.6-2. • Data from three real-time stations located at two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 6.6-5. • In general, average seasonal low is highest in the winter (January-March). • The maximum annual low was 597,522 acre-feet in 2005 at the Virgin River at Littleield station with a contributing drainage area of 5,090 square miles. This annual low is not shown on Table 6.6-2 because the statistics are current as of December 2004. • Figure 6.6-4 shows the periodic lood events in the Virgin River recorded at the Littleield gage from 1930-2006. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 6.6-3. • As of October 2005 there was one station in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.6-4. • There are no large reservoirs and one small reservoir with a total surface area of six acres. • There are 45 registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.6-5. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, at the southeastern tip of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, to the north and west. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 250 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.6-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) Virgin River at Littleield, Arizona, water years 1930-2006 (Station # 9415000) 700,000 600,000 acre-feet 500,000 Average Annual Flow 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1930 251 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-2 Streamflow Data for the Virgin River Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Virgin River above the Narrows near Littlefield 4,415 2,000 9414900 Beaver Dam Wash at Beaver Dam 575 9415000 Virgin River at Littlefield 5,090 Station Number USGS Station Name 9413700 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean 6/1998-current (real time) 31 21 19 29 68,506 (2000) 71,764 92,644 137,663 (2001) 3 1,850 2/1993-current (real time) 42 21 17 20 1,151 (2002) 1,709 1,572 1,947 (1996) 5 1,764 10/1929-current (real time) 32 33 15 20 73,140 (1977) 141,935 174,502 506,912 (1983) 72 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for statisitics current through 12/2004 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 252 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Virgin River Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 7570 Beaver Dam Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005c Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available at this time Table 6.6-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Virgin 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) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) 1 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 6 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 45 1 Capacity data not available to ADWR 253 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 254 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Virgin River Basin Major springs with discharge rates and date of measurement and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.6-5. The locations of major springs and perennial streams are shown on Figure 6.6-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • There are no intermittent streams. Perennial streams are the Virgin River and a short reach of Beaver Dam Wash. There are eight springs along a seven mile reach of the Virgin River near the Narrows. The total discharge for these springsis between 8,980 gpm and 22,400 gpm. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identiied by the USGS varies from 23 to 25, depending on the database reference. • • Table 6.6-5 Springs in the Virgin River Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Map Key Name 1 Littlefield (multiple) 365539 1134950 2 Beaver Dam Wash (multiple) 365411 1135615 Discharge Date Discharge Measured (in gpm)1 8,980 During or prior to 2000 22,4002 During or prior to 3 1,120 1997 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge Date Discharge (in gpm) Measured None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006): 23 to 25 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge of 8 springs in a 7 mile reach from the Narrows to the Littlefield gage 3 Estimation of discharge along Beaver Dam Wash above Littlefield gage 1 255 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 256 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Virgin 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 6.6-6. Figure 6.6-7 shows aquifer low direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.6-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.6-7. Figure 6.6-9 shows well yields in ive 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 6.6-6 and Figure 6.6-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include basin ill and sedimentary rock (Muddy Creek Formation). • Flow direction is generally toward the west following Beaver Dam Wash and the Virgin River drainages. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.6-6 and Figure 6.6-9. • As shown on Figure 6.6-9, 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 53 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 650 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 6.6-6. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is greater than 30,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 6.6-6. • The storage estimate for this basin is is 1.7 million acre-feet (maf) of water in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.6-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures six index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for four of these wells and one other well are shown in Figure 6.6-8. Index well hydrographs are: A, B, D and E. • There is one ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring device located near Littleield. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 380 feet in the northern portion of the basin and the shallowest is 57 feet north of Beaver Dam. 257 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-6 Groundwater Data for the Virgin River Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 434 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 3-5,500 Median 650 (53 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 0-2,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) >30,000 Virgin Valley Water District (2005) 1,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) Current Number of Index Wells: 6 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1991 (65 wells measured) Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 258 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 259 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.6-8 Virgin River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 350 WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: MONITORING Muddy Creek Formation B-41-15 08ADA 400 1975 B Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 25 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 98 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 recent stream alluvium B-41-15 33CAB 75 1975 1985 C WELL DEPTH: 599 ft USE: MONITORING 225 275 1975 D 125 300 350 1995 WELL DEPTH: 274 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1995 WELL DEPTH: 410 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1975 2005 Muddy Creek Formation B-40-16 34CBC 1985 1975 2005 Muddy Creek Formation B-40-15 06CDD 1985 175 E 1995 2005 basin fill B-39-16 15DDD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 260 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 261 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.7 Water Quality of the Virgin 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 6.6-7A. 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 6.6-7B. Figure 6.6-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.6-7. 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 6.6-7A. • Thirteen wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The most common standard equaled or exceeded was arsenic. Other standards equaled or exceeded were radionuclides, nitrates and lead. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 6.6-7B. • Water quality standards for suspended sediment concentration and selenium were exceeded in one 10-mile stream reach, the Virgin River from Beaver Dam Wash to Big Bend Wash. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 262 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Virgin River Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 39 North 39 North 39 North 39 North 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 32 32 3 3 3 4 5 5 33 3 11 11 15 As As As, Rad As As As As As NO3 Pb As As As Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Virgin River (Beaver Dam Wash to Big Bend Wash) Length of Area of Impaired Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Reach (in miles) 10 NA Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 A&W Se, Suspended sediment concentration Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1997 and 2002. 2 As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Se = Selenium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 1 263 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 264 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Virgin 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 6.6-8. Efluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 6.6-9. Figure 6.611 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 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 6.6-8 and Figure 6.6-11. • Population in this basin increased from 99 in 1980 to 1,532 in 2000 and is projected to reach 3,267 by 2030. • Groundwater demand increased from 5,000 AFA on average in 1971-1975 to approximately 9,150 AFA on average from 1996-2000. In 2001-2005 groundwater demand was 2,950 AFA on average. • Surface water demand was 3,000 AFA on average from 1971-1990 and increased to approximately 6,350 acre-feet in 1996-2000. In 2001-2005 surface water use was approximately 1,650 AFA on average due to declining agricultural demand. • Most basin demand for both surface water and groundwater is for irrigation. Agricultural demand centers are found in the vicinity of Beaver Dam/Littleield and Elbow Canyon Road. Flooding in January 2005 destroyed some of the agricultural ields in this basin. • All recorded industrial demand in the basin is for two golf courses. • There are two sand and gravel operations in the vicinity of Scenic and Beaver Dam, their water demand was not available. • As of 2005 there were 248 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute (gpm) and 136 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Efluent Generation • Refer to Table 6.6-9. • There are four wastewater treatment facilities in this basin, but information on population served, efluent generation and disposal method is available only for the Beaver Dam Sewer Company Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant serves 119 people, generates 6.2 acrefeet of efluent and discharges to a watercourse. 265 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Virgin River 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 Q < 35 gpm 212 99 109 119 129 139 150 160 170 180 190 200 333 466 600 733 866 999 1,133 1,266 1,399 1,532 1,598 1,664 1,729 1,795 1,860 2,188 2,783 3,267 WELL TOTALS: Q > 35 gpm Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial 5,000 3,000 6,000 3,000 Data Agricultural Source 372 ADWR (1994a) 11 16 6,000 3,000 43 32 7,000 3,000 71 22 <300 700 7,800 NR <300 5,800 37 15 <300 700 8,300 NR <300 6,200 65 14 <300 700 2,100 NR <300 1,500 268 136 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2005a) 1 Does not include effluent of evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 266 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-9 Effluent Generation in the Virgin River Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Population Served Served Beaver Dam Sewer Co. WWTP Virgin River ID Beaver Dam 119 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) 6.2 Disposal Method Watercourse Discharged Golf Evaporation Municipal Wildlife Irrigation Course/Turf/ to Another Pond Reuse Area Facility Landscape X Biasi WWTP Private Beaver Dam NA Shadow Ridge WWTP NA Littlefield NA Virgin Acres WWTP NA Beaver Dam NA Infiltration Basins Other Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary NA 2002 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 ID: Improvement District 267 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 268 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin 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 6.6-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Figure 6.6-12 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. • • • 269 All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Fifteen water adequacy determinations for 1,643 lots have been made in this basin through December, 2008. One thousand six hundred and seventeen lots in 14 subdivisions, or 99% of lots, were determined to be adequate. The one determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information, and/or the available hydrologic data was insuficient to make a determination. There are two Analysis of Adequate Water Supply applications for a total of 27,700 lots. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 1 Subdivision Name Beaver Dam Estates County Mohave Township Range Section 41 North 15 West 5 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate 5/6/1992 Beaver Dam East Domestic W.I.D. Dry Lot Subdivision No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 48 53-500309 2 Beaver Dam Oasis Mohave 41 North 15 West 33 9 53-500310 Adequate 1/23/1992 4 Beaver Dam Resort, Inc. Mohave 40 North 15 West 4, 5 191 53-500311 Adequate 10/1/1987 5 Beaver Dam Virgin Acres #1 Mohave 41 North 15 West 32 51 53-300115 Adequate 7/10/1996 6 Desert Springs Ranchos Mohave 40 North 15 West 3 21 53-500585 Adequate 1/13/1994 7 Fairview Mobile Home Estates Mohave 40 North 16 West 32 26 53-500629 Inadequate 9 Shadow Ridge Mohave 39 North 16 West 17, 21 478 53-700568 Adequate 12/4/2008 A1 11/30/1987 10 Shadow Ridge, Phase 1 Mohave 39 North 16 West 21 67 53-402211 Adequate 12/6/2006 11 Terra Vista Skies Mohave 40 North 16 West 32 30 53-400852 Adequate 7/21/2006 12 Virgin Acres - B Mohave 41 North 15 West 32 40 53-300568 Adequate 12/4/1998 13 Virgin Acres Mohave 41 North 15 West 29, 32 320 53-501641 Adequate 9/25/1995 14 Virgin Acres Mohave 41 North 15 West 32 65 53-300485 Adequate 7/24/1998 Virgin Acres, aka Biasi Ranch Mohave Estates 41 North 15 West 29 19 53-401814 Adequate 9/8/2005 15 16 Virgin Village I & II Mohave 41 North 15 West 32 93 53-300507 Adequate 10/7/1998 17 Vista Verde Mohave 40 North 16 West 33 185 53-500057 Adequate 3/10/2008 Beaver Dam Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Beaver Dam Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Biasi Water Company, Inc. Beaver Dam Water Company Biasi Water Company, Inc. Biasi Water Company, Inc. Beaver Dam Water Company B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Mohave 40 North 15 West 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 23,420 43-500093 7/9/2008 Mohave 39 North 16 West 11, 14 4,280 43-700506 7/9/2008 Map Key Subdivision Name County 3 Beaver Dam Ranch 8 Michael T. Black Properties Water Provider at the Time of Application Beaver Dam Water Company Virgin Mountain Utilities 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. 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 to ADWR at this time 2 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 270 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 271 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Virgin 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-ile Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data ile, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data ile, received September 2005.(Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data ile, received August 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data ile, received September 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005e, WWTP and permit iles: Miscellaneous working iles, received July 2005. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data ile, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map/Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project iles, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Automated recorder sites: Data iles, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005c, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Ofice of Water Engineering. _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. (Groundwater Conditions Table) _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Ofice of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Wells55: Database. (Groundwater Conditions 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 proiles 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. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 272 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 B Bales, J.T. and R.L. Laney, 1992: Geohydrological reconnaissance of the Lake Mead NRA-Virgin River, Nevada to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4158, 29 p. (Water Quality Map/Table) Bureau of Land Management, 1999, National Monuments, GIS Cover. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Efluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Efluent Generation Table) 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) J Johnson, L., 1996: Beaver Dam Wash surface water quality intensive survey, Nov. 1993- Sept. 1994: ADEQ report, 22 p. (Water Quality Map/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 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 ile, received November 2007. _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS ofice in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic ile, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Virgin Valley Water District, 2005, Geology and hydrology of the Virgin River Valley in Nevada, Arizona and Utah. 273 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data ile, 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. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1993, Water resource study Virgin River Basin: Arizona Department of Water Resources Unpublished Report. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1995, Beaver Dam Wash surface water quality intensive survey, November 1993- September 1994: ADEQ Open File Report 95-4. Bales, J.T., and R.L. Laney, 1992, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation area: Virgin River, Nevada to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4185, 29 p. Beaver Dam Water Company, 2005, Hydrologic Report for Beaver Dam Water Company, Palms Well No. 2 Registration Number 55-551856 on Assured and Adequate Water Supply. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Bio/West Inc, 1995, Virgin River geomorphic and hydrological studies related to channel forming lows: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Report. Black, K.R. and S.J. Rascona, 1991, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Virgin River basin, Mohave County, Arizona, Lincoln and Clark Counties, Nevada –1991: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series #22. Burbey, T.J., and others, 2006. Three-dimensional deformation and strain induced by municipal pumping, part 1: Analysis of ield data. Journal of Hydrology 319 (2006) Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Draft resource management plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Ofice and NPS joint report, 2005. Carlson, D.D. and D.F. Meyer, 1995, Flood on the Virgin River, January 1989, in Utah, Arizona and Nevada, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4159. Dettiger, M., J. Harrill, D. Schmidt, 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 100 p. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 274 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Dixon, G.L. and T.C. Katzer, 2005, Geology and hydrology of the Lower Virgin River Valley in Nevada, Arizona and Utah: Virgin Valley Water District report. Enright, M. 1996. Selected hydrologic data for the Beaver Dam Wash area, Washington County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona, 1991-1995: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-493. Fogg, J.L., 1998, Beaver Dam Wash instream low assessment: Bureau of Land Management, March 1998. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. GEO Consultants, 2001, Hydrologic Study, Assured and Adequate Water Supply, Virgin Mountain Utilities Company, T39N R 16W Portions of Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15, Mohave County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Glancy, P.A. and Van Denburgh, A.S., 1969, Water Resources - Reconnaissance Series Report 51, Water-Resources Appraisal of the Lower Virgin River Valley Area, Nevada, Arizona and Utah, USGS Cooperative Report. GEO Consultants, 2001, Hydrologic Study, Assured and Adequate Water Supply, Virgin Mountain Utilities Company, T39N R 16W Portions of Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15, Mohave County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip springs, seeps and natural ponds: Inventory, assessment and development of recovery priorities: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-074. Hereford, R., G. Webb and S. Graham, 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Holmes, W.F. and others, 1997, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Beaver Dam Wash Area, Washington County, Utah, Lincoln County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 97-4193. JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., SWCA Consultants, and Water Research Center University of Arizona 1998, Preliminary report on the Arizona Stream Navigability Study for the Virgin River in Arizona: Arizona State Land Department Report. Johnson, M., 2002, Hydrology and groundwater conditions of the tertiary muddy creek formation in the Lower Virgin River basin of southeastern Nevada, northwestern Arizona: Proceedings from Geological Society of America- Rocky Mountain Section annual meeting May 2002. 275 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Katzer, T. and K. Brothers, 1995, To capture a river-water supply development of the Virgin River, Clark County, Nevada, in Water in the 21st century; conservation demand and supply: Proceedings from American Water Resources Association, April 1995. Laney, R.L., and J.T. Bales, 1996, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation Area – Las Vegas Wash to Virgin River, Nevada: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4033, 44 p. Langenheim, V.E., J.M. Glen, R.C. Jachens, G.L. Dixon, T.C. Katzer and R.L. Morin, 2000, Geophysical constraints on the Virgin River depression, Nevada, Utah amd Arizona: USGS Open File Report 00-407. Las Vegas Water District, 1991, Distribution of carbonate rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California, Arizona, and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146. Leslie & Associates, 1991, Water Adequacy Report for Beaver Dam Estates. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Metcalf, L., 1995. Ground water – Surface Water Interactions in the Lower Virgin River Area Arizona and Nevada. M.S. Thesis Department of Geoscience – University of Nevada – Las Vegas. National Park Service, 1990, Simulation of groundwater low and water level declines that could be caused by proposed withdrawal, Navajo Sandstone, southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 90-4105. Prudic, D.E., and others, 1995, Conceptual Evaluation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Carbonate-Rock Province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-D Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins in Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 p. Rowley – Leslie Associates, 1987, Water Adequacy Report for Beaver Dam Resort. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2000, Analysis of Gains and Losses in Virgin River Flow Between Bloomington, Utah and Littleield, Arizona. Towne, D., 1997, Ambient groundwater quality of the Virgin River basin: a 1997 baseline study: ADEQ Open - File Report 99-4. Trudeau, D., J. Hess and R. Jacobson, 1983, Hydrogeology of the Littleield Springs, Arizona: Ground Water, Vol. 21, No. 3, May-June 1983 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 276 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 United States Geological Survey, 1997, Hydrology and water quality of the Beaver Dam Wash area, Washington County, Utah, Lincoln County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 97-4193. Warner, S., 2003, Using GPS to Quantify Three Dimensional Storage and Aquifer Deformation in the Virgin Valley River, NV, M.S. Thesis in Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Washington County Water Conservation District, 1993, The Virgin River: the Lifeblood of Progress-Past, Present and Future. Zohdy, A.A.R., and others, 1994, A Direct-Current Resistivity Survey of the Beaver Dam Wash Drainage in Southwest Utah, Southeast Nevada, and Northwest Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 94-676 277 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAWS ADMMR ADWR ADEQ AFA ALERT ALRIS AMA AMP AMWG ASLD AWPF AZGF AZGS AZMET BLM bls C-Aquifer cfs CLIMAS CWR DES DOD DWID EIS ESA FEIS GIS GCNP gpm GWSI HSR HUC ITCA LCR LDIG LUST maf NHD NOAA NPS NRCS NWIS Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Acre-feet per annum (year) Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Adaptive Management Program Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Arizona State Land Department Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Geological Survey Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Land Management Below land surface Coconino Aquifer cubic feet per second Climate Assessment for the Southwest Certiicate of water right Arizona Department of Economic Security United States Department of Defense Domestic water improvement district Environmental Impact Statement Endangered Species Act Final Environmental Impact Statement Geographic Information System Grand Canyon National Park Gallons per minute Groundwater Site Inventory System Hydrographic Survey Report Hydrologic Unit Code Intertribal Council of Arizona Little Colorado River Local Drought Impact Group Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet National Hydrography Dataset National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water Information System Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 278 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 279 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix A Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 280 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Western Plateau Planning Area through 20081 WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Coconino Plateau 96-0019 Response of Bebb Willow to Riparian Restoration Coconino Plateau 99-071 Protection of Spring and Seep Resources of the South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park by Measuring Water Quality, Flow, and Associated Biota Research Coconino Plateau 99-074 Proposal to Inventory, Assess, and Recommend Recovery Priorities for Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps, and Natural Ponds Research Coconino Plateau 99-093 Coconino Plateau Regional Water Study Research Coconino Plateau 05-131 Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs, and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park Exotic Species Control Coconino Plateau 06-138 Management and Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at back County Seeps, Springs, and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park – Second Year Phase II Habitat Restoration Grand Wash 06-137 Pakoon springs Restoration Design and Implementation Project Habitat Restoration Kanab Plateau 96-0004 Hydrologic Investigation & Conservation Planning: Pipe Springs Research Kanab Plateau 98-061 Watershed Enhancement on the Antelope Allotment Upland Water Developments Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Project Title Kanab Plateau 99-075 Glen and Grand Canyon Riparian Restoration Project Paria 08-157 Paria River Exotic Removal Project 1 Project Category Stream Restoration Habitat Restoration A map with all Arizona Water Protection Fund grant locations can be found in Volume 1 281 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix B Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 282 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Reports and Submitted Plans PCC 91-000088 91-000107 91-000085 91-000115 91-000109 91-000114 91-000105 FACILITY ADOT GRAND CANYON AIRPORT BELLEMONT TRUCK CENTER CAMERON TRADING POST GRAND CANYON NP HYDRO RESOURCESTUSAYAN USFS-KNF-TUSAYAN ADMIN VALLE AIRPORT GRAND CANYON 91-000097 WILLIAMS, CITY OF 91-000346 CENTENNIAL PARK DWID 91-000087 FREDONIA, TOWN OF 91-000311 91-000116 91-000348 HILDALE/COLORADO CITY GLEN CANYON NRAWAHWEAP BEAVER DAM EAST DWID Basin Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered to 5 5 10 CUSTOMER 69 69 CUSTOMER 40 40 69 40 Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Kanab Plateau Kanab Plateau Kanab Plateau 2006 Diverted 883 176 153 35 389 153 1480 432/3/177 2007 Total Demand 6 6 80 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 114 88 26 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 3 3 CUSTOMER 37 38 CUSTOMER 597 428 CUSTOMER 1494 1426 CUSTOMER 8 8 8 CUSTOMER 114 35 35 CUSTOMER 37 489/153 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 512 CUSTOMER 3 85 NR NR NR NR 1291 78 522 3 1480 2007 2007 Delivered to Delivered NR 3 CUSTOMER NR Paria 2007 Received CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM/ OTHER CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 126/25 542 2007 Diverted 80 153 3 1494 Virgin River 13 13 13 CUSTOMER 12 12 12 CUSTOMER 296 296 CUSTOMER 161 161 160 CUSTOMER 33 33 CUSTOMER 48 48 48 CUSTOMER 3 3 CUSTOMER 91-000310 BEAVER DAM WC #2 Virgin River 296 91-000352 BIASI WATER COMPANY Virgin River 33 91-000345 CHIEF SLEEP EASY TP Virgin River NR 91-000340 DS WATER COMPANY Virgin River NR VIRGIN MOUNTAIN Virgin River 4 UTILITIES VIRGIN MT ESTATES 91-000353 Virgin River 10 MHP PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) 91-000356 283 1059 2007 Withdrawn 3 NR 4 4 CUSTOMER 2 2 2 CUSTOMER 10 10 CUSTOMER 10 10 10 CUSTOMER Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Community Water Systems that have submitted a System Water Plan to the Department as of 12/2008 PCC NAME Basin Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Coconino Plateau Kanab Plateau Kanab Plateau Kanab Plateau Paria Virgin River Virgin River Virgin River Virgin River Virgin River Virgin River 91-000085 CAMERON TRADING POST 91-000088 ADOT GRAND CANYON AIRPORT 91-000097 WILLIAMS, CITY OF 91-000105 VALLE AIRPORT GRAND CANYON 91-000107 BELLEMONT TRUCK CENTER 91-000109 HYDRO RESOURCES-TUSAYAN 91-000114 USFS-KNF-TUSAYAN ADMIN 91-000115 GRAND CANYON NP 91-000087 FREDONIA, TOWN OF 91-000311 HILDALE/COLORADO CITY 91-000346 CENTENNIAL PARK DWID 91-000116 GLEN CANYON NRA-WAHWEAP 91-000310 BEAVER DAM WC #2 91-000345 CHIEF SLEEP EASY TP 91-000348 BEAVER DAM EAST DWID 91-000352 BIASI WATER COMPANY 91-000353 VIRGIN MT ESTATES MHP 91-000356 VIRGIN MOUNTAIN UTILITIES PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 284 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 285 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix C Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 286 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS Surface water is deined in Arizona as “waters of all sources, lowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in deinite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, loodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface” (A.R.S. § 45-101). In 1864, the irst 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 “irst in time, irst in right” which means that the person who irst puts the water to beneicial 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 speciied by the legislature for iling 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 beneicial use and recording a notice of appropriation at the state and country recorder’s ofice. 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 ile 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 beneicial use shall be the basis, measure and limit to the use of water within the state. Beneicial uses are domestic (which includes the watering of gardens and lawns not exceeding one-half acre), municipal, irrigation, stockwatering, water power, recreation, wildlife including ish, nonrecoverable water storage, and mining uses (A.R.S. § 45-151(A)). The quantity of water that is reasonable for a particular beneicial 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 iled in Arizona since the Public Water Code was enacted. Each iling is assigned a unique number with one of the following preixes ● “3R” – application to construct a reservoir iled before 1972; ● “4A” – application to appropriate surface water iled before 1972; ● “33” – application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir iled after 287 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream low maintenance can applied for and is deined as a surface water right that remains in-situ or “in-stream”, is not physically diverted or consumptively used, and is for maintaining the low of water necessary to preserve wildlife, including ish, 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 certiication iled for stockponds constructed after June 12, 1919 and before August 27, 1977. To ile 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 iled 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 ilings on behalf of the Superior Court of Arizona; and, ● “BB” – decreed water rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These ilings 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 irst 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 beneicial use and not conlict 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 beneicial use. If the terms of the permit are met, the applicant can submit proof of appropriation through an application of certiication and may be issued a Certiicate 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 speciies the extent and purpose of the right and may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture if not beneicially used. There are currently approximately 850 applications to appropriate pending with ADWR, and approximately 420 permits and over 7,000 certiicates 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 iled the claim. If iled prior to March 17, 1996, the priority date is the date of construction. Otherwise, the priority date is the date of iling 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 iled before August 27, 1977. To date, nearly 20,000 stockpond claims have been iled of which over 3,000 stockpond certiicates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. Unlike a CWR, the act of iling a statement of claim (36) does not in itself create a water right, Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 288 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 nor does it constitute a judicial determination of the claim. Statements of claim are subject to challenge, but can be admitted “in evidence as a rebuttal presumption of the truth and accuracy of the information contained in the claim” (A.R.S. § 45-185). To date, nearly 30,000 statements of claim have been iled in Arizona. In addition to the applications and claims described above, ADWR’s registry of surface water right ilings 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 conirms 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 conirming rights, speciies 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 preix “BB”. 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 quantiied or prioritized. To better manage water resources in the state, these diverse rights and claims have been jointed into large, comprehensive determinations. Arizona currently has two general stream Figure C-1 General Stream Adjudicaadjudications – the Gila Adjudication and tions in Arizona 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 conirming existing state-based surface water rights, the adjudications will quantify and prioritize reserved water rights for Indian and non-Indian federal lands. The latter include military bases, national parks and monuments, and national forests. The adjudications will also determine which wells are pumping appropriable underground water (sublow) 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. § 45256. 289 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 The Gila Adjudication was initiated in 1974 when SRP iled 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 iled 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 iled 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 ile an SOC or risk the loss of their right. Well owners are also encouraged to ile an SOC since the adjudication process may include water use from a well depending on the well’s location relative to streams and other factors. However, a person does not obtain a right to use water by iling 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 ile an SOC. In response, the number of SOCs iled in the adjudications continues to increase as new water uses are initiated. To date, nearly 81,000 SOCs have been iled in the Gila Adjudication and over 14,000 SOCs have been iled in the LCR Adjudication. ADWR maintains a separate registry of these adjudication ilings on behalf of the Superior Court and assigns each a unique number with the preix “39”. Table C-1 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication ilings 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 suficient locational information (Township, Range, and Section) to allow a POD and/or POU to be mapped within the planning area. If a ile 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 ilings for the same POD/POU which can result if a landowner or lessee has two or more ilings or if different applicants each have at least one iling. Since many SOCs list surface water right ilings as their basis of claim, multiple ilings are common and account, in part, for the large number of ilings. Sorting through multiple ilings is one of the challenges facing the Department and the adjudication courts. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication ilings 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 relect 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 low ilings are not shown as these ilings do not have points of diversion. Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 290 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. 291 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 292 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 293 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix D Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices 294 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 APPENDIX D Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Western Plateau Planning Area (2008) MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Watershed Partnership 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. Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council Projects & Accomplishments • • • • • • • • • • • • 295 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 completed to address water conservation and management on the Plateau • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues 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 Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Watershed Partnership Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments • Attempting to obtain Congressional Authority to complete a Feasibility Study of the water alternatives identified • • • • Prescott Flagstaff Cottonwood Sedona Chino Valley Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) Prescott Valley Williams Clarkdale Payson • • • 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 • • • • • • • • Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices Issues 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 296 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 297 Western Plateau Planning Area Appendices