ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 2 EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Arizona Department of Water Resources DRAFT JUNE 2006 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 2 CONTENTS PREFACE _________________________________________________________________1 SECTION 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA _____________1 2.0.1. Geography ..............................................................................................................4 2.0.2 Hydrogeology..........................................................................................................4 2.0.3 Climate ....................................................................................................................6 2.0.4 Environmental Conditions ..................................................................................10 2.0.5 Population.............................................................................................................13 2.0.6 Water Supply........................................................................................................15 Surface Water -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Groundwater --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Effluent --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Contamination Sites ------------------------------------------------------------- 16 2.0.7 Cultural Water Demand......................................................................................18 Municipal Demand -------------------------------------------------------------- 18 Agricultural Demand ------------------------------------------------------------ 20 Industrial Demand --------------------------------------------------------------- 23 SECTION 2.1 WATER RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU BASIN ________________________________________25 2.1.1 Geography of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ...................................25 2.1.2 Land Ownership in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin .........................27 2.1.3 Climate of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin .........................................30 2.1.4 Surface Water Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin..........34 2.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin..............................................................................................40 2.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin............43 2.1.7 Water Quality of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin..............................49 2.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ...........52 2.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin57 SECTION 2.2 WATER RESOURCE ISSUES IN THE EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA __________________________________________________________60 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING ___________________________________________64 Draft i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS________________________________________________77 APPENDICES Draft ________________________________________________________________79 APPENDIX A: ARIZONA WATER PROTECTION FUND PROJECTS IN THE EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA THROUGH 2005 ------- 80 APPENDIX B: WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPS IN THE EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (2005) --------------------------------------------------- 82 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Arizona Planning Areas ...................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-2 Eastern Plateau Planning Area............................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-3 Water Bearing Formations of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ............................. 5 Figure 2-4 Average Temperature And Total Precipitation In The Eastern Plateau Planning Area From 1930-2002.................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-5 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature In The Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 1930-2002. .......................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2- 6 Mt. Baldy Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE) for 1983-2006................................................. 9 Figure 2-7 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 2 (Northeastern Arizona; Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties) winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 10001988, reconstructed from tree rings. ................................................................................. 10 Figure 2-8 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Instream Flow Applications ............................................ 12 Figure 2-9 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Contamination Sites ........................................................ 17 Figure 2-10 Eastern Plateau Planning Area average 2001-2003 cultural water demand (acre-feet).... 18 Figure 2-11 Groundwater withdrawals for irrigation and non-irrigation uses in the Joseph City INA, 1991- 2003. ....................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2-12 Water demand by electrical generating stations in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area in 2003................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2-13 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Geographic Features ............................................... 26 Figure 2-14 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Land Ownership ..................................................... 29 Figure 2-15 Relationship of elevation to highest monthly average snowpack in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin........................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2-16 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Precipitation and Meteorological Stations.............. 33 Figure 2-17 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions....................................... 39 Figure 2-18 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs. ............................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 2-19 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions......................................... 46 Figure 2-20 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells ................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 2-21 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Well Yields ............................................................. 48 Figure 2-22 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions....................................... 51 Figure 2-23 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand.......................................... 55 Figure 2-24 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations ...................................... 59 Draft iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Instream flow claims in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area ............................................. 11 Table 2- 2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area ............ 13 Table 2-3 Communities In The Eastern Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000.............................................................................................................. 14 Table 2-4 2003 municipal water demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area .............................. 19 Table 2-5 Water providers serving 500 acre-feet or more of water per year, excluding effluent, in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (Source: USGS, ADWR)........................................... 20 Table 2-6 Agricultural demand in selected years in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area .................. 21 Table 2-7 Industrial demand in selected years in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area ...................... 23 Table 2-8 Climate Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ............................................... 32 Table 2-9 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ......................................... 36 Table 2-10 Flood Alert Equipment in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ................................. 37 Table 2-11 Reservoirs and Stock Ponds in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ......................... 38 Table 2-12 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin .......................................................... 41 Table 2-13 Groundwater Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ....................................... 45 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedences in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin.......................... 50 Table 2-15 Cultural Water Demands in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin .............................. 54 Table 2-16 Effluent Generation in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ...................................... 56 Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ............................ 58 Table 2-18 Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (39 water providers) ................................................................................................. 62 Table 2-19 Water resource issues ranked by 2003 survey respondents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (17 water providers and 6 jurisdictions)................................................................... 62 Draft iv ARIZONA WATER ATLAS PREFACE Volume 2, the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, is the second in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 2-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an introductory volume composed of background information, and an executive summary 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. 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’ Statewide Conservation and Strategic Planning Division. SECTION 2.0 Overview of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area The Eastern Plateau Planning Area is unique in that it is composed of one groundwater basin, the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin. The planning area is relatively high in elevation and is geographically diverse with the highest peaks in the state as well as deep sandstone canyons and large mesas. Parts of three counties are contained within the Eastern Plateau Planning Area: Apache, Coconino and Navajo counties. Flagstaff is the largest metropolitan area and is growing rapidly, as are a number of communities in the White Mountains and on the Navajo Reservation. The planning area has a large industrial water use sector due to several electrical generating stations, large coal mining operations and a paper mill. Agricultural irrigation is relatively small-scale in terms of acreage but is a large water use sector. The Joseph City Irrigation Non-expansion Area (INA), an area designated as having insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation, is located in the Planning Area. Twothirds of the land area is under tribal ownership. For this reason, tribal water resource and other characteristics are discussed separately in a number of cases in this volume. Major cities and towns, counties and the boundaries of the INA are shown on Figure 2-2. Draft 1 KAIBAB $ b " ! Page ! Kayenta ! NAVAJO HAVASUPAI NAVAJO COUNTY HOPI (MOENKOPI) COCONINO COUNTY Kykotsmovi ! HUALAPAI MOHAVE COUNTY Bullhead ! City HOPI Window Rock Peach Springs $ e " ! Kingman Flagstaff ! FORT MOJAVE YAVAPAI COUNTY HUALAPAI $ e " ! ! Sedona ! PRESCOTT AMA YAVAPAI-APACHE YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT JOSEPH CITY INA Holbrook ZUNI Saint Johns ! ! ! Prescott ! Pine $ c " ! Parker ! HARQUAHALA INA MARICOPA COUNTY $ a " ! PHOENIX AMA ! Payson Springerville TONTO-APACHE LA PAZ COUNTY CA P COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES ! FORT APACHE GILA COUNTY FORT MCDOWELL SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA Phoenix Globe ! SAN CARLOS APACHE ! GREENLEE COUNTY CA ! $̀ " ! Florence AK-CHIN ! Gila Bend Clifton ! ! PINAL AMA Safford ! PINAL COUNTY $ a " ! GRAHAM COUNTY CA Yuma COCOPAH GILA BEND P GILA RIVER YUMA COUNTY FORT YUMA (QUECHAN) ! ! ! Lake Havasu City APACHE COUNTY P TOHONO O'ODHAM PIMA COUNTY # Tucson ! PASCUA YAQUI SAN XAVIER DISTRICT Benson City or Town TUCSON AMA ARI Z ON A ME X IC O Interstate Highway Central Arizona Project Aqueduct Indian Reservation Active Management Area Central Highlands Eastern Plateau Lower Colorado River Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Nogales 0 50 COCHISE COUNTY Sierra Vista ! Bisbee ! DOUGLAS INA ! Douglas 100 Miles ¨ Figure 2-1 Arizona Planning Areas Western Plateau Draft SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ! Irrigation Non-Expansion Area Arizona Planning Area ! $ d " ! SANTA CRUZ AMA County $ a " ! 2 c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Kayenta ! NAVAJO COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY ! Chilchinbito ! Little Colorado River Plateau Basin ! Pinon Hotevilla ! Polacca Old Oraibi ! ! ! Kykotsmovi Gray Mountain Lukachukai ! Rough Rock Chinle ! ! Tuba City ! ! Teec Nos Pos Dennehotso ! ! Page ! ! Cottonwood Keams Canyon ! Ganado ! Window Rock Twin Buttes ! Lupton ! Leupp ! Sanders ! ! Flagstaff ! Navajo ! Winslow ! Joseph City ! Holbrook ! Snowflake ! Concho ! Heber Saint Johns ! ! Show Low Lakeside !! Pinetop 0 c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Draft ! Springerville ! Greer 6 12 Miles ¨ Figure 2-2 Eastern Plateau Planning Area 3 Joseph City INA COUNTY City, Town or Place ! 2.0.1. Geography 1 The Eastern Plateau Planning Area includes the northeastern corner of the state and is within the Plateau Uplands physiographic province. This province covers the northern 2/5 of Arizona and is characterized by mostly level, horizontally stratified sedimentary rocks that have been eroded into canyons and plateaus, and by some high mountains. Major mountain ranges are the San Francisco Peaks near Flagstaff, the White Mountains in the southeastern portion of the planning area and the Chuska and Lukachukai mountains located along the Arizona-New Mexico border. The Chuskas reach an elevation of almost 10,000 feet. Much of the rain and snow that falls in the Chuskas drains westward into Canyon de Chelly. The Hopi reservation is characterized by three mesas that rise to an elevation of 7,200 feet. Elevations vary from over 12,600 feet at Humphreys Peak near Flagstaff, the state’s highest point, to 4,200 feet at Cameron, about ten miles north of Gray Mountain. The average elevation of the planning area is 6,061 feet. The planning area is about 26,700 square miles and is bounded on the south by the Mogollon Rim, on the north by the Arizona-Utah border, on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico border and on the west by the Coconino Plateau Basin and Paria Basin, whose boundaries coincide closely with U.S. Highway 89 (Figure 2-1). The Mogollon Rim is an escarpment almost 2,000 feet high in some places, extending from central Arizona to the Mogollon Mountains in New Mexico. It forms a hydrologic boundary between the Eastern Plateau Planning Area and the basins of the Central Highlands and Southeastern Arizona Planning Areas. The Little Colorado River is the main drainage for the basin, flowing from the White Mountains area and leaving the basin near Cameron. The northern third of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area/Little Colorado River Plateau Basin drains northward toward the San Juan River as part of the Colorado River watershed. In this area, Chinle Creek collects the majority of the surface water runoff. The southern two-thirds of the basin are within the Little Colorado River watershed. Streams and runoff in this area generally flow toward the Little Colorado River. 2.0.2 Hydrogeology 2 There are several local aquifers and 3 regional aquifers in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area that contain large amounts of groundwater in storage. (See Figure 2-19 for the location of large local and regional aquifers). These sedimentary formations of sandstone and limestone are stacked on top of one another and are generally separated by impermeable shales and siltsones. In descending order, the regional aquifers are the D-, N-, and C-aquifers. Each has a very large areal extent within the basin and except for the D and N aquifers, there is little vertical hydrologic connection between them. These waterbearing formations gain thickness towards the center of the basin resulting in artesian conditions. Main recharge areas are along the southern and eastern periphery of the planning area. It is estimated that there are about 508 million acre-feet (maf) in storage in Little Colorado River Plateau aquifers (ADWR, 1990). Figure 2-3 shows a generalized cross-section of the water bearing formations of the planning area. 1 Much of the information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume 1, ADWR August, 1994. 2 ibid Draft 4 Figure 2-3 Water Bearing Formations of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin The C-aquifer is the largest and most productive aquifer in the planning area with an areal extent of 21,655 square miles. It is named for its primary water-bearing unit, the Coconino Sandstone. It is utilized as a supply south of the Little Colorado River and along the eastern edge of the basin by Flagstaff, Heber, Overgaard, Show Low, Snowflake and Concho. North of the river the C-aquifer is too deep to be economically useful or is unsuitable for most uses because of high concentrations of total dissolved solids. The Department estimated that 413 maf are stored in the aquifer (ADWR, 1989). The N-aquifer occurs north of the Little Colorado River and has an areal extent of 6,250 square miles. Storage estimates vary from 166 maf to 293 maf (ADWR, 1989 and USGS, 1996). Navajo Sandstone and Wingate Sandstone are the main water-bearing units in the aquifer. It is generally unconfined but there are artesian conditions in the Black Mesa area and near Window Rock. This aquifer is utilized for the Black Mesa Coal Mine slurry pipeline. N-aquifer water quality is good and is a source of supply for the Navajo and Hopi reservations. Draft 5 The D-aquifer is the smallest in areal extent, occurring over about 3,125 square miles. It is estimated that there are 15 maf in storage (ADWR, 1989). The D-aquifer is composed of the Dakota, Cow Springs and Entrada sandstones. There is some connection to the underlying N-aquifer. Water quality is marginal to unsuitable for domestic use due to high concentrations of dissolved solids. Nevertheless, it is utilized in the north-central parts of the planning area for domestic use. Local aquifers are important for domestic uses where the regional aquifers are too deep or have unsuitable water quality. Local aquifers include alluvial deposits that occur along washes and stream channels, including along the Little Colorado River and its tributaries, sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bidahochi and other formations, and some sandstones. The Bidahochi formation forms a local aquifer in the central part of Apache and Navajo Counties and south of Sanders. In the southeastern part of Navajo County, saturated basaltic rocks together with underlying sedimentary rocks are locally known as the Lakeside-Pinetop aquifer, which is an important supply for the area. Undifferentiated sandstones west of Show Low along the Mogollon Rim and in the Springerville-Eager area form aquifers that are also locally important supplies. In the Fort Valley area near Flagstaff, a perched aquifer at a depth of a few hundred feet is utilized (PMCL, 2002). The San Francisco Peaks caldera, known as the Inner Basin, contains an aquifer that supplies much of the municipal water for the city of Flagstaff (http://cpluhna.nau.edu). Surface water is an important supply in some areas, but is geographically limited. The Little Colorado River, the main drainage in the planning area, was formerly perennial throughout its length, but it now flows perennially only from its headwaters to Lyman Lake, north of Springerville (Tellman, et al. 1997). This is primarily due to impoundments, diversions and falling groundwater levels from well pumping. On the Navajo reservation, two-thirds of the average annual surface water originates in the Chuska Mountains and the Defiance Plateau (http://cpluhna.nau.edu). Surface water at higher elevations in the southern part of the planning area is available for agricultural use. Colorado River water is the water supply for Page and neighboring LeChee. When there is sufficient rain and snow, surface water is stored in lakes near Flagstaff and used as a municipal supply. 2.0.3 Climate The Eastern Plateau Planning Area is a semi-arid, relatively high elevation region with cooler average temperatures than in other parts of Arizona. Average annual maximum temperatures in the planning area range from 61˚ F at Greer to 82˚F at Cameron. Annual average temperature is 50.8°F, compared to the state-wide average of 59.9°F. Eastern Plateau temperatures display a long-term warming trend (Figure 2-4), as in other parts of Arizona. Draft 6 Figure 2-4 Average Temperature And Total Precipitation In The Eastern Plateau Planning Area From 1930-2002. Horizontal lines are average temperature (50.8 °F) and precipitation (13.0 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from selected Western Regional Climate Center cooperative weather observation stations located south of the Little Colorado River. (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html). Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS Parts of the Eastern Plateau downwind of the Central Highlands Planning Area receive diminished precipitation due to the “rain shadow effect.” As moisture-laden air flows over topographic features such as mountain ranges, the air is lifted and cooled, resulting in greater precipitation on the windward side of the mountain. In contrast, the leeward side of mountain ranges receives much less precipitation as the air sinks, warms, and dries, creating a “rain shadow.” Precipitation in the Eastern Plateau is characterized by a multi-peaked distribution similar to much of Arizona (Figure 2-5). Precipitation is highest during July and August when the area receives over 43% of yearly precipitation, while the driest months on average are April, May, and June. Average annual precipitation ranges from about 4 inches at Monument Valley in the far northeastern part of the planning area to 36 inches in the White Mountains, Mogollon Rim and San Francisco Peak areas. Most of the Navajo and Hopi Reservation lands receive less than 10 inches of rainfall a year. The highest Draft 7 precipitation on the Navajo reservation is in the Chuska Mountains with an average annual precipitation of 25 inches (Navajo Nation, 2001). Figure 2-5 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature In The Eastern Plateau Planning Area, 1930-2002. Data are from selected Western Regional Climate Center cooperative weather observation stations located south of the Little Colorado River. (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html). Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS. Much of the state’s snowfall occurs along the Mogollon Rim and White Mountains in the Eastern Plateau and Central Highlands Planning Areas. Snowfall is an important water source and is often defined in terms of snow-water equivalent (SWE). SWE is dependent on snow density and describes the amount of liquid water present in a melted sample of snow; light, powdery snow yields less water than dense wet snow. Observations recorded March 1st from 1983 to 2006 at Mt. Baldy in the southeastern portion of the region show SWE variations from 1983 to the present (Figure 2-6). The Mt. Baldy record shows relatively high snow pack during the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s, followed by substantially lower snow pack since 1999. Draft 8 Figure 2- 6 Mt. Baldy Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE) for 1983-2006. Observations were recorded March 1st for each year except 2006, where February 15 was used. The horizontal, bold line is average SWE from 1983-2006 and highest SWE years (1993) and lowest SWE years (1999 and 2006) are highlighted. Figure author: Casey Thornbrugh, CLIMAS Two important features of precipitation in this region are variability between individual years, and shifts between wetter and drier than average periods on longer, 10-20 year (decadal) time scales (Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-7). For example, there have been multiple extended periods of above and below-average winter precipitation during every century since 1000 A.D. (Figure 2-7). The 1200s, 1500s, and 1700s were notably dry; in contrast, the mid-1000s, early 1300s, and early 1900s were notably wet. More recently, the 1950s were relatively dry, whereas the 1980s received above-average precipitation (Figure 2-4). These decadal shifts are related to circulation changes in the Pacific Ocean. On time scales of 2-7 years, the well-known El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific Ocean, with its phases of El Niño and La Niña, is associated with precipitation variations in the region, most notably during winter months (November-April). During El Niño episodes, there is a greater likelihood of increased precipitation; nevertheless El Niño winters can produce below-average precipitation. Generally, La Niña conditions are associated with drought in the region. Draft 9 Figure 2-7 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 2 (Northeastern Arizona; Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties) winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988, reconstructed from tree rings. Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. The average winter precipitation for 1000-1988 is 6.1 inches. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS. 2.0.4 Environmental Conditions A wide diversity of habitats occurs in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Semi-arid grasslands are the largest vegetative community. Other communities include semi-arid scrub vegetation, which predominates along the lower valley of the Little Colorado River near Holbrook, pinyon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine forest and mixed-conifer forest communities at high elevations. The forest stretching from near Flagstaff along the Mogollon Rim to the White Mountains region is the largest ponderosa pine forest on the continent. Above about 9,000 feet there are many subalpine grassland parks. Narrow riparian habitats are found in a few areas, primarily along the Little Colorado River and Silver Creek (Abruzzi, http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Research). Due to grazing and fire suppression efforts, pre-settlement environmental conditions have been permanently altered in the region. Woodland communities have expanded considerably and the increase Draft 10 in ponderosa pine density has led to both an increase in the severity and size of wildfires, and to a decrease in stream and spring flows due to less soil absorption of precipitation (Covington, et al. http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Research). Grazing and other activities have also impacted riparian areas. A number of riparian restoration activities in the Eastern Plateau have been funded by the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program (AWPF) since its inception in 1996. The objective of the AWPF program is to provide funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. Twenty-five projects were funded in the planning area through 2005. Many of these were for the purpose of fencing and for stream and watershed restoration. A list of projects and types of projects funded in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area through 2005 is found in Appendix A of this volume. (A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Appendix C of Volume 1). Four applications for instream flow claims have been filed in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, listed in Table 2-1. An instream flow right is a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. As shown in Figure 2-8, the length of the instream flow claims for Chevelon Creek and East Clear Creek are extensive. All claims are located in creeks south of the Little Colorado River. Table 2-1 Map Key 1 2 3 4 Instream flow claims in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Stream Applicant Billy Creek Billy Creek Chevelon Creek East Clear Creek Cartier, David N. Walker, F. Duane Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Coconino National Forest Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 33-94853.0 33-94847.0 Pending Pending Pending Pending 9/14/1989 9/14/1989 33-96707.0 Pending Pending 2/13/2002 33-90107.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 There are a number of listed threatened and endangered species that may be present in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Those listed by the USFWS as of January 2006 are shown in Table 2-2. Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development in a particular area. The USFWS should be contacted for details regarding the ESA, designated critical habitat and current listings. Draft 11 £ ¤ 89 Cr k @ ? 564 Cr e Chin le C ek 160 160 160 Teec Nos Pos W al ke rC Dennehotso £ ¤ £ ¤ £ ¤ Kayenta re ek ag ee a un £ ¤ 163 Oi jet o eek W as h Piute Canyon o k ee ra d Cr Navajo Cr to ibi 89A er Page Ka £ ¤ te c lo Co reek Az Ri v L @ ? 98 Chilchinbito £ ¤ £ ¤ 160 191 COCONINO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY Rough Rock APACHE COUNTY Lukachukai £ ¤ 160 Pinon 160 264 N az 191 lini W h Old Oraibi yo n as £ ¤ Hotevilla @ ? Polacca Keams Canyon Ganado Kykotsmovi Li t Gray Mountain C an Cottonwood de Tuba City y C Chinle £ ¤ reek he ll eC Tsali n Ki h lic @ ? ee Cr k ee Window Rock tle C 264 o l or o ad ! R iv 2 er Twin Buttes ! 6 £ ¤ 191 Lupton @ ? 87 R io 40 @ ? 99 W od Co Winslow Sanders a sh W as h § ¦ ¨ t Navajo § ¦ ¨ ou x 17 40 Le r § ¦ ¨ Leupp Fl a g wo De to n Flagstaff Joseph City § ¦ ¨ 40 @ ? 61 yo lk Mi £ ¤ el 180 as yW R ni Zu h he v @ ? 377 @ ? Snowflake Da Saint Johns c O Stream Data Source: AGFD, 1993 & 1997 Draft Springerville ee Cr o 191 @ ? 261 Milk C ree k 50 Miles Figure 2-8 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 12 eek £ ¤ 1 ¨ ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Cr te k ee 25 Co yo Cr k ee 260 Greer 0 60 @ ? Lakeside Pinetop £ ¤ al Cr Show Low n ow £ ¤ 60 2 k 61 260 rn er 260 191 @ ? @ ? Br @ ? £ ¤ Concho 277 r o R iver r ne Mi yW as h Cottonwood Wash yon Ca n Heber ive Ca ck 3 C Litt le olorad k C 4 S i l v e r C re e ks C C an Bl a Ja c on Cl ea r C r k ee an y on n Holbrook Reach with Instream Flow Application Perennial / Intermittent Stream COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place ! Table 2- 2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (Source: USFWS, 2005) Common Name Threatened Apache Trout Bald Eagle Black-footed ferret California Brown Pelican California Condor X X Chiricahua Leopard Frog X Little Colorado Spinedace X Loach Minnow X X X X Mexican Gray Wolf X Mexican Spotted Owl X Navajo Sedge X Peebles Navajo Cactus San Francisco Peaks Groundsel Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Zuni Fleabane Endangered X X X X Elevation/Habitat >5000 ft./cold mountain streams Varies/large trees or cliffs near water <10,500 ft./grassland plains Varies/lakes and rivers Varies/high desert canyonlands and plateaus 3,300-8,900ft./streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds stock tanks 4,000-8,000 ft./moderate to small streams in pools & riffles <8,000ft./benthic species of small to large perennial streams 4,000-12,000 ft. /chapparal, woodland, forests 4,100-9,000 ft./canyons, dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure 5,700-6,000ft./silty soils at shady seeps and springs 5,400-5,600 ft/gravely soils of the Shinarump conglomerate 10,900ft+/Alpine tundra <8,500 ft./cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams 7,300-8,000 ft./selenium-rich red or gray detrital clay soils derived from the Chinle and Baca formations 2.0.5 Population In 2000, about 55% of the planning area population resided in the non-reservation portion. Flagstaff is by far the largest community with 38% of the non-reservation population. As shown in Table 2-3, there are many rapidly growing communities including Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside and Taylor in the White Mountain area and Flagstaff. Some communities grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2005 than during the previous ten year period. There are also rapidly growing communities on the Navajo reservation, with high growth rates in a number of smaller communities. Draft 13 Table 2-3 Communities In The Eastern Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000. Communities are listed from highest to lowest population according to the most recent reported year (2000 or 2005). Source: www.workforce.az.gov 1990 Census Population Flagstaff 45,857 Show Low 5,020 Winslow 9,279 Page 6,598 Holbrook 4,686 Snowflake 3,679 Eager 4,025 Pinetop-Lakeside 2,422 Taylor 2,418 St. Johns 3,294 Heber-Overgaard 1,581 Springerville 1,802 Total > 1000 90,661 Other 20,469 111,130 Total Non-Indian Communities Draft 2000 Census Population 52,894 7,695 9,520 6,809 4,917 4,460 4,033 3,582 3,176 3,269 2,722 1,972 105,049 33,284 138,333 Percent Change 1990-2000 15.3 53.3 2.6 3.2 4.9 21.2 0.2 47.9 31.3 -0.8 72.2 9.4 15.9 62.6 24.5 2005 Pop. Estimate 61,185 9,885 9,835 7,110 5,425 4,935 4,435 4,165 4,100 3,865 NA 2,065 NA NA NA Percent Change 2000-2005 15.7 28.5 3.3 4.4 10.3 10.7 10.0 16.3 29.1 18.2 -4.7 ---- Hopi Reservation First Mesa/Polacca 7,360 1,108 6,946 1,124 -5.6 1.4 NA NA --- Navajo Reservation Tuba City Window Rock/Fort Defiance Chinle Kayenta Kaibito LeChee Lukachukai Many Farms Ganado St. Michaels Dilkon Pinon Tsaile 90,964 7,323 7,795 104,565 8,225 7,120 14.9 12.3 -8.6 NA NA NA ---- 5,059 4,372 641 NA 113 1,294 1,257 1,119 NA 468 1,043 5,366 4,922 1,607 1,606 1,565 1,548 1,505 1,295 1,265 1,190 1,078 6.1 12.6 150.7 NA 1,284.9 19.6 19.7 15.7 NA 154.3 3.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ------------ Total Planning Area 209,454 249,844 19.3 NA -- 14 2.0.6 Water Supply Both surface water and groundwater are important water supplies for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Due to recent drought conditions, some communities that historically used significant amounts of surface water, such as Flagstaff, have turned to more reliable groundwater supplies. Population growth, supply reliability and the desire for economic development is spurring interest in exploring long-term water supply augmentation options such as securing Colorado River water, constructing water conveyance pipelines, and acquiring lands with groundwater supplies. Effluent is also utilized by several communities for golf course and landscape irrigation. Surface Water Surface water is a municipal supply for the cities of Flagstaff and Page and for the town of Eager in the southeastern corner of the planning area. It is also utilized for agricultural irrigation by Indian and non-Indian users. Surface water from the Lake Mary reservoir system is an important municipal supply for the City of Flagstaff. Because surface water is drought sensitive, it can be unreliable, which has spurred interest in additional well drilling and development of groundwater supplies in the Flagstaff area. In wet years, Lake Mary has provided 70% of the City’s water supply (PMCL, 2002). The Salt River Project acquired the rights to the surface water in the C.C. Cragin Reservoir, formerly the Blue Ridge Reservoir, from the Phelps Dodge Corporation in February 2005 as part of the Gila River Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. In addition to satisfying obligations to the Gila River Indian Community, the reservoir will be used to supplement Salt River Project shareholders' water supply and as a water supply for northern Gila County (SRP, 2006). This supply is not available to users in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. The domestic water supply for the City of Page and the neighboring Navajo Nation Chapter of LeChee is obtained from Lake Powell through pumping and conveyance facilities first constructed in 1957. This water is available pursuant to a Colorado River Upper basin allocation of 2,740 acre-feet of consumptive use. 3 The existing raw water supply facilities marginally meet the current peak demands of the two communities during summer months. A new lake intake to increase capacity and groundwater well development are being considered to provide a more reliable supply (TETRA TECH RMC, 2003). In addition, the City of Page has requested an additional allocation of Colorado River water. Springs are an important water supply for habitat, wildlife, domestic and cultural/religious purposes. The communities of Tuba City, Moenkopi and Ganado rely on springs for domestic and agricultural uses. Groundwater 3 “Consumption of water brought about by human endeavors….along with the associated losses incidental to these uses.” USBOR, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Draft 15 It is estimated that groundwater satisfies 90% of the water demand in the planning area. Groundwater is withdrawn from both large regional aquifers and from local and perched aquifers. Flagstaff pumps groundwater from the C-aquifer (Woody Mountain and Lake Mary wellfields) and from shallow volcanic aquifers: the Inner Basin. In 2005, Flagstaff purchased the Red Gap Ranch east of the city as a potential source of groundwater supplies. The cities of Holbrook and Winslow rely entirely on groundwater pumped from the C-aquifer. Groundwater from the C-aquifer and from local aquifers (Bidahochi and Lakeside-Pinetop aquifers) is also the principal water supply for municipal use in the Mogollon Rim region, including the communities of Heber, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake, Springerville, Eager, St. Johns and Greer. North of the Little Colorado River, including on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, the N-aquifer, which is of good quality, is the primary water supply. In this area the C-aquifer is generally too deep and saline to be used. The D-aquifer underlies much of the Hopi and Navajo reservations and is utilized in some areas, however water quality is marginal due to high concentrations of dissolved solids. The community of Cameron pumps highly saline groundwater from wells near the Little Colorado River and treats it for use. Effluent The communities of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Ranch, Holbrook and Page use effluent for golf course and landscape irrigation. In 2003, over 1,600 acre-feet of effluent was used in the Flagstaff area. Reclaimed water is produced by both of the City’s wastewater treatment plants. A total of 10 schools, 8 parks, 2 cemetaries, 3 golf courses and a playing field at Northern Arizona University receive treated effluent. In addition, a large industrial user, SCA Tissues, uses effluent in its paper production process. In 2004, the first year of utilization, effluent accounted for 85% of its supply (about 240 acre-feet). Flagstaff also has a reclaimed water hauling program (www.flagstaff.az.gov). Other communities in the planning area discharge effluent to fields for agricultural irrigation or to support wetlands (see Table 2-16). Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense, 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. There are a number of LUST sites in the planning area. Sites are clustered in urban areas as shown in Figure 2-9. As mentioned in section 1.3.4 of Volume 1, shown are LUST sites where contamination is known or suspected and where remediation is required to meet soil and water quality standards. Four VRP sites are located in the planning area. Under this program, the property owner or other interested party initiates remedial or cleanup actions at a contaminated site on a voluntary basis. VRP sites are located near Flagstaff, Winslow, Joseph City and Springerville. Uranium Mine Tailings Remediation (UMTRA) sites are located on the Navajo reservation that are not mapped on Figure 2-9. Draft 16 T42N R20E R18E R16E R14E R26E R24E R22E R28E T30E Teec Nos Pos . ! . . T40N T38N R12E R10E ! £ ¤ 163 Page 89 £ ¤ 89A £ ¤ ! Dennehotso 160 £ ¤ Kayenta ! 98 @ ? T36N @ ? 564 191 £ ¤ Chilchinbito NAVAJO COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY ! Rough Rock Lukachukai ! ! T34N Chinle Tuba City T32N 160 £ ¤ @ ? ! 191 £ ¤ 264 ! Hotevilla Old Oraibi ! T28N Polacca ! ! ! Gray Mountain . ! Keams Canyon Kykotsmovi 264 @ ? Ganado . ! Twin Buttes 6 ! 2 ! ! 191 £ ¤ ! 87 @ ? Lupton ! Leupp Sanders ! . . . . ! . . . . . . .. - T20N 17 § ¦ ¨ ` Flagstaff _ 40 § ¦ ¨ Navajo 99 @ ? Winslow T18N . 77 ? @ . . . . ` ! _ . . . -. . . - 40 § ¦ ¨ 191 £ ¤ . !_ . ` Joseph City Holbrook 180 £ ¤ @ ? 99 @ ? 377 T14N 77 @ ? 180 @ ? Snowflake @ ? Heber 277 ! . -. . - Concho 180 £ ¤ ! 61 ? @ @ ? 260 Show Low ! . . . . . Lakeside . . ! Pinetop . ! . . . T8N T10N 60 £ ¤ Springerville @ ? 260 0 25 50 Miles ¨ Data Source:ADEQ,2005. Figure 2-9 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Contamination Sites 17 . ! . . . -. . . ` _ Greer c O . Saint Johns ! . . .. ! . T12N ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 61 ? @ . . ! . . . . . @ ? T16N ! 40 § ¦ ¨ . - 87 Draft Window Rock ! 89 £ ¤ T24N T22N Cottonwood ! T30N T26N ! Pinon ! 191 £ ¤ ! @ ? 273 T6N Leaking Underground Storage . Tank (LUST) Voluntary Remediation Program _ ` Consolidated Crystaline and Sedimentary Rocks Unconsolidated Sediments COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place 2.0.7 Cultural Water Demand The municipal sector is the smallest water demand sector in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area with approximately 33,000 acre-feet of surface water and groundwater demand per year. Industrial demand is the largest use with about 86,500 acre-feet of demand a year, followed closely by agricultural use of about 83,000 acre-feet. As shown in Figure 2-10, surface water is utilized more extensively as a supply by the agricultural sector, accounting for almost 60% of the water supply. Effluent is also used to meet some demands. About 3,000 acre-feet were used in 2003 for municipal sector turf irrigation. Wastewater generated by the Abitibi paper mill near Heber is discharged to a dry lake where it is used to irrigate pasture. Figure 2-10 Eastern Plateau Planning Area average 2001-2003 cultural water demand (acre-feet) 100,000 90,000 80,000 Acre-feet 70,000 60,000 Groundwater 50,000 Surface water 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Municipal Industrial Agricultural Water Demand Sector Municipal Demand The primary municipal water demand centers in the planning area are located at Flagstaff, Winslow/Holbrook, Page and in the White Mountain/Mogollon Rim communities of Eager, Heber, Pinetop-Lakeside, Overgaard, Show Low, Snowflake, Springerville, St. Johns and Taylor. Estimated water demand in these areas served by public and private water providers is shown in Table 2-4 for each water demand center. Effluent is used by Flagstaff, Page, Eager and Holbrook for golf course and urban irrigation. Four golf courses, Aspen/Elden in Flagstaff, Hidden Cove Country Club in Holbrook and Lake Powell National in Page use 100% effluent from a municipal source. An estimate of water demand associated with domestic/”self-supplied” wells is also listed in Table 2-4. This number is difficult to estimate. A population-based estimate rather than an estimate based on the Draft 18 number of domestic wells was used due to uncertainties regarding whether wells drilled are currently functioning. Water hauling is also common in unincorporated areas around Flagstaff and on the Navajo Reservation. Hopi and Navajo reservation demand was estimated using different per capita rates depending on the population density of the area as noted in the footnotes to the table. Table 2-4 2003 municipal water demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area WATER DEMAND CENTER Water Provider1 Flagstaff Area Heber-Overgaard/Forest Lakes Page Saint Johns/Concho Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside/Vernon Snowflake-Taylor Springerville/Eager Winslow/Holbrook Total Water Provider Domestic/Self-supplied2 Hopi Reservation3 Navajo Nation4 Total Municipal 2003 Groundwater, Surface Water and Effluent Demand (acre-feet) Groundwater Surface Water Effluent 8,800 800 1,650 750 0 0 0 3,120 440 660 0 0 6,500 0 0 2,160 0 0 850 120 120 4,200 0 75 23,920 4,040 2285 4,000 0 0 270 160 0 6,900 NR 0 35,090 4,200 2,285 1 Source; ADWR 2003 and 2004 water provider surveys; USGS and WIFA, 2005 Unincorporated population of 33,284 @ 107 GPCD 3 Moenkopi served by surface water; reported volume. Remainder of population, 6,045 @ 40 GPCD (from Table 3, Truini et al., 2005) 4 Tuba City, Window Rock, Chinle and Kayenta population @ 94 GPCD (from pumpage data for Tuba City and Kayenta in Table 3, Truini et al., 2005). Census 2000 redistricting data for other Navajo communities found a population of 22,743 @ 65 GPCD (from pumpage data for Chilchinbito, Dennehotso and Rough Rock in Table 3, Truini et al., 2005). Remaining Navajo population of 56, 189 @ 40 GPCD (from Table 3, Truini et al., 2005). NR = not reported; supply is utilized but volume not available. 2 Municipal water demand is primarily residential and commercial. Demand varies seasonally in some communities due to tourism and to summer-only landscape watering. Because of the higher elevation, shorter growing season, higher rainfall, and rural nature of many parts of the planning area, outdoor landscape watering is typically lower than that in the lower elevation, drier parts of the state. There have been significant conservation efforts in the Flagstaff area. Some of these programs target outdoor water use and landscape design, e.g. rebates for replacement of high water use landscaping. Estimated per capita usage in Flagstaff is 120 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is lower than many cities in Arizona (www.flagstaff.az.gov). Public municipal systems serve the majority of water demand in the planning area. Non-Indian large utility systems are listed in Table 2-5. Draft 19 Table 2-5 Water providers serving 500 acre-feet or more of water per year, excluding effluent, in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (Source: USGS, ADWR) Water Provider Arizona Water Company-Lakeside Arizona Water Company-Overgaard Doney Park Water Eager Municipal Water Flagstaff, City of Holbrook, City of Page Municipal St. Johns Municipal Snowflake, Town of Taylor, Town of Winslow Municipal 1991 (acre-feet) 597 183 455 680 8,172 NA 2,740 NA 872 445 NA 2000 (acre-feet) 897 337 737 781 9,927 NA 2,740 NA 1,323 721 NA 2003 (acre-feet) 600 500 751 685 8,493 1,369 3,000 557 1,473 720 2,762 NA = Not available Major municipal demand centers on reservation lands include Chinle, Kayenta, Tuba City, and Window Rock/Fort Defiance on the Navajo reservation, and to a lesser extent, Polacca on the Hopi reservation. Specific amounts used in each community are not known. According to a 2002 Navajo Department of Water Resources (NDWR) report, approximately 40% of the population routinely hauls water for domestic and stock uses. According to the report, the Navajo Nation has the highest percentage of its population lacking potable water systems compared to any other region in the United States. Most municipal water supplies are groundwater (NDWR, 2002). The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) is the largest public water provider on the Nation, which extends into New Mexico and Utah. Data for Arizona only was not available. Throughout the entire reservation, the NTUA operates more than 90 public water systems with approximately 24,000 connections, supplying more than 12,000 acre-feet of residential and 3,300 acre-feet of commercial water per year. It is estimated that smaller operators (NDWR and BIA) serve about 10,000 people and convey about 1,500 acre-feet of water. About 500 acre-feet of wastewater is used for dust abatement and construction. Other major uses are associated with coal mining on Black Mesa and electrical generation (NDWR, 2002). Hopi municipal water use is assumed to be low. The Hopi village of Moenkopi, with a population of about 900, uses approximately 160 acre-feet of water from springs. Some of this may be used for irrigation. Assuming 40 GPCD (Truini, et al., 2005) for the approximately 6,000 Hopi tribal members living on other tribal lands, municipal water use is estimated at 430 acre-feet per year. The N-aquifer is the only aquifer of sufficient quality and accessibility to supply reliable drinking water to the Hopi villages on the three mesas (www.hopi.nsn.us). Agricultural Demand Agricultural demand is not well documented in the planning area. Estimates contained in this section are generally based on older reports or records. Cessation of some agricultural irrigation has occurred recently in the Hunt Valley area and near St. Johns due to purchase by the Zuni Tribe to preserve tribal water resources at Zuni Heaven, an historically riparian area sacred to the Zuni. Draft 20 Areas of greatest non-Indian agricultural irrigation are near the communities of Saint Johns, Springerville, Snowflake/Taylor and Joseph City/Holbrook. Agricultural irrigation on the Navajo reservation is assumed served primarily by surface water and land is also dryland farmed. Dryland farming utilizes water harvesting techniques to catch and direct runoff to crops. Because there is no supplemental irrigation, both spring soil moisture and late summer precipitation are needed for success. It is estimated that approximately 34,000 acres in the planning area are actively irrigated with a combination of 83,000 acre-feet of surface and ground water. Agricultural demand is summarized in Table 2-6. Table 2-6 Agricultural demand in selected years in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 1991 Non-Indian Total Surface Water Groundwater Indian Total Surface Water Groundwater TOTAL 2000 Water Use (acre-feet) 71,100 37,000 34,500 12,000 11,600 400 83,500 76,700 39,700 37,000 12,800 12,400 400 89,500 2003 71,500 37,000 34,500 12,000 11,600 400 83,500 Note: agricultural use and source is a general estimate derived primarily from older sources. Estimated total 2003 active irrigated acres is 31,200 acres; 26,900 acres of non-Indian acreage and 4,300 acres of Indian acreage. Silver Creek Watershed-Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake There are two irrigation companies in the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside area, the Show Low Pinetop Woodlands Irrigation Company and the Lakeside Irrigation System. The irrigation season is limited and irrigated lands are used for pasture, orchards and gardens. Commercial agriculture is declining in the area. The Silver Creek Irrigation District operates in the communities of Shumway, Taylor and Snowflake. Both areas are within the Silver Creek Watershed for which a Hydrographic Survey Report was filed with the Adjudication court in 1990. At that time, the investigations showed that almost 6,300 acres were irrigated with surface water and groundwater, using a total of almost 29,000 acre-feet per year. Joseph City Irrigation Non-Expansion Area (INA) The Joseph City INA was established in 1980 by the Arizona Groundwater Management Act. The area had previously been designated as a Critical Groundwater Area in 1974. Designation of an area as an INA recognizes that there is “insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for the irrigation of the cultivated lands at the current rate of withdrawal” A.R.S. § 45-402(22). Within an INA, irrigation with groundwater is restricted to lands that were irrigated prior to establishment of the area. Groundwater withdrawals by irrigation and large non-irrigation users, such as cities or golf-courses, must be reported annually to the Department. Irrigation and non-irrigation uses (primarily the Cholla Generating Station), are shown in Figure 2-11. Irrigation use in the INA is generally between 2,000 and 4,000 acre-feet a year, served by the Joseph City Irrigation Company. Complete data for 2003 was not available. Draft 21 Figure 2-11 Groundwater withdrawals for irrigation and non-irrigation uses in the Joseph City INA, 1991- 2003. Groundwater (acre-feet) 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 0 Year Irrigation Non-Irrigation Upper Little Colorado River-Springerville, Nutrioso, Greer, Vernon, St. Johns, Concho The Department conducted an inventory of irrigation use in the Upper Little Colorado River watershed and published a report in 1994 (ADWR, 1994a). The inventory divided the area into ten regions: Nutrioso; Greer; Round Valley, including the Round Valley Water Users Association and Springerville Water Rights and Ditch Company; Vernon; St. Johns including Lyman Water Company and the St. Johns Irrigation Company; Concho, including Concho Water Company; Hunt; Hay Hollow; Woodruff, including the Woodruff Irrigation Company and Sanders. At that time 18,980 acres were irrigated with a total surface water and groundwater use of almost 35,000 acre-feet. The highest volumes of water use were in the St. Johns area (6,600 acre-feet) and in the Hunt Valley area, located west of St. Johns (3,800 acre-feet). The cropped acres were primarily pasture. No use was reported in the Sanders region. As mentioned previously, the Zuni tribe has recently purchased and retired agricultural lands in the Hunt Valley area and near St. Johns. Lower Little Colorado River-Winslow, Holbrook, Heber, Flagstaff The Department conducted an inventory of irrigation use in the Lower Little Colorado River watershed and published a report in 1994 (ADWR, 1994b). Similar to the Upper Little Colorado River watershed inventory, the area was divided into four regions, Winslow, Holbrook, Heber and Flagstaff. At the time of the inventory, (excluding the Joseph City Irrigation Company located in the Joseph City INA), about 3,700 acres were actively irrigated with a combination of 10,600 acre-feet of surface water and groundwater. Use was reported in three of the regions: 4,380 acre-feet per year at Winslow; 3,300 acrefeet per year at Heber; and 2,900 acre-feet per year at Holbrook. Pasture and alfalfa were the primary crops grown. No irrigation was reported in the Flagstaff region. Draft 22 Navajo Reservation In Arizona, Navajo reservation irrigation consists of Ak Chin (dryland farming) and small irrigation projects. Between 1910 and the late 1950’s the U.S. Government built and expanded dozens of small irrigation projects amounting to about 46,200 acres reservation-wide. Because of inadequate management and funding for operation and maintenance, these small systems have deteriorated and by 1986, an SCS survey found only 16,670 acres still were farmed, a decrease of 64% (NDWR, 2002). A field study conducted by Department staff in the portion of the Navajo Reservation in the Upper Basin portion of the Colorado River Basin, found less than 900 acres of active irrigation, entirely with surface water. Another 500 acres in the Upper Basin was identified as being dryland farmed. Hopi Reservation Agriculture on the Hopi reservation consists primarily of dryland farming on an estimated 300 acres of land. A survey is being conducted at the time of this publication to better quantify agricultural water demand and supply on the Hopi lands. Industrial Demand Industrial water demand in the planning area includes mining, electrical power generation, paper production, dairies and feedlots and golf course irrigation served by a facility water system. This demand is summarized in Table 2-7 for selected years. Industrial demand, particularly for power generation is a large cultural demand component in the planning area, representing about 30% of the total planning area demand in 2003. Table 2-7 Industrial demand in selected years in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area 1991 Type Mining Total Surface water* Groundwater Power Plant Total Surface water Groundwater Golf course Total Surface water Groundwater Dairy/Feedlot Total Surface water Groundwater Paper Mill Total Surface Water Groundwater TOTAL 2000 Water Use (acre-feet) 7,052 2,852 4,200 51,366 23,866 27,500 1,679 87 1,592 536 0 536 17,677 0 17,677 78,310 6,953 2,053 4,900 61,709 28,709 33,000 1,829 87 1,742 24 0 24 13,617 0 13,617 84,132 2003 4,700 0 4,700 62,484 26,284 36,200 1,692 87 1,605 520 0 520 13,562 0 13,562 82,958 * diverted pursuant to an exchange agreement between Phelps Dodge Corporation and the Salt River Valley Water Users Association. Phelps Dodge provides water to SRP from Show Low Lake but this water is accounted for as water used by the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Draft 23 Mine water use includes sand and gravel operations, the coal mines on Black Mesa south of Kayenta and surface water diversions from Show Low Lake and Blue Ridge/C.C. Cragin Reservoir for mining use outside the planning area. Peabody Coal company operates two mines on Black Mesa: the Black Mesa Coal Mine and the Kayenta Mine, the largest coal strip mining operation in the world. These mines annually ship approximately 12 million tons per year of low-sulfur subbituminous coal and pump approximately 4,400 acre-feet per year. Over 3.8 million gallons of groundwater per day are required to slurry coal to the Mohave Generating Station near Laughlin, Nevada. Coal is also sent to the Navajo Generating Station at Page by rail (http://cpluhna.nau.edu). At the time of publication, the 273-mile slurry pipeline was not operating because of Southern California Edison’s failure to upgrade pollution control devices at the Mohave Generating Station, as required by a lawsuit brought by a consortium of environmental groups. Powerplants include the Navajo Generating Station, the Coronado Generating Station located six miles northeast of Saint Johns, the Springerville Station located northeast of Springerville and the Cholla Generating Station near Joseph City. Use at the Cholla Generating Station for the period 1991-2003 is shown in Figure 2-11. The Navajo Generating station uses water from Lake Powell pursuant to an Upper Basin Colorado River contract which entitles it to receive up to 34,000 acre-feet of water per year. In recent years it has diverted about 27,500 acre-feet a year. All other facilities pump groundwater. Demand in acre-feet for 2003 is shown in Figure 2-12 below. Figure 2-12 Water demand by electrical generating stations in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area in 2003. Cholla 15,300 af Springerville 10,300 af Navajo 27,500 af Coronado 10,600 af There are eleven industrial golf courses in the planning area, including six in the Pinetop-Lakeside/Show Low area. In 2003, a total of about 1,700 acre-feet of primarily groundwater was used. Because of cooler temperatures, higher precipitation and short growing season, relatively little water is required for golf course irrigation at most locations. In 2003, an estimated 124,000 swine were raised at four feedlot facilities near Snowflake. These feedlots have been in existence since the early 1980s. A small dairy is located near Taylor. Combined water demand by the dairy and feedlots is typically between 450 to 600 acre-feet a year. Draft 24 The Abitibi paper mill, formerly Stone Container Corporation, operates about 23 miles southwest of Holbrook. Waste water from the operation is discharged to Dry Lake and is used to irrigate pasture east of SR 377. In 2005, approximately 11,900 acre-feet of effluent was generated while 14,000 acre-feet was pumped. This suggests that about 85% of the annual groundwater withdrawal is recovered and used for irrigation. SECTION 2.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin The following subsections present data and maps related to water resource characteristics of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin, the only groundwater basin in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Section 1.3 of Volume 1 of the Atlas. 2.1.1 Geography of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin The Little Colorado River Plateau Basin is the largest groundwater basin in the state. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 2-13. Located at the southern end of the Colorado Plateau, it is characterized by relatively high elevation, semi-arid mesas and several high elevation mountain ranges. Elevations generally increase from north to south. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 2-13 are: o Monument Valley north of Kayenta o Kaibito Plateau south of Page o Painted Desert, located between Gray Mountain and Winslow o Defiance Plateau, running north/south near Window Rock o Black Mesa in the vicinity of Chilchinbito o Canyon de Chelly, near Chinle o First, Second and Third Mesas on the Hopi Reservation o Petrified Forest located between Holbrook and Navajo o Mogollon Plateau or Mogollon Rim stretching 200 miles from Flagstaff to the White Mountains o Lukachukai and Chuska Mountains near Lukachukai o The Little Colorado River, which flows to the Colorado River from the headwaters near Greer, and exits the basin at Cameron north of Gray Mountain. • Though not well shown on Figure 2-13, the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff and the White Mountains along the southeastern boundary of the basin are prominent geographic features. An isolated peak, Navajo Mountain, straddles the Arizona-Utah border east of Page. Rising to over 10,400 feet it is a prominent visual feature of the basin. Humphreys Peak in the San Francisco Peaks is the highest point in Arizona at 12,633 feet. The White Mountains rise to over 11,000 feet at Mt. Baldy. Principal basin communities are shown and were selected based on population, cultural relevance or for locational purposes. • • • Draft 25 Draft R10E T42N ! T40N R20E R18E R16E R14E R12E R24E R22E R28E R26E R30E ! Page Teec Nos Pos ! Dennehotso ! Kayenta T38N Chilchinbito ! T36N COCONINO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY Rough Rock ! ! Lukachukai T34N T32N ! ! Tuba City Chinle ! Pinon !Cottonwood T30N Hotevilla! Old Oraibi ! Polacca ! Keams Canyon ! T28N ! Kykotsmovi ! Gray Mountain !Ganado Window Rock ! T26N T24N ! Twin Buttes Lupton ! T22N ! Leupp Sanders ! Flagstaff ! ! Navajo T20N ! Winslow ! T18N Joseph City Holbrook ! T16N T14N ! Snowflake Saint Johns ! ! Concho ! T12N Heber T10N ! Show Low 26 T8N !Lakeside Pinetop ! Springerville ! ! Greer T6N 0 6 12 Miles ¨ c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Base Map: USGS 1:500,000, 1981 Figure 2-13 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Geographic Features COUNTY City, Town or Place ! 2.1.2 Land Ownership in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of each ownership category is shown in Figure 2-14. Principal features of land ownership are the large amount of tribal lands, the continuous band of national forest lands along the southern and southwestern boundary of the basin, and the “checkerboard” pattern of land ownership south of the reservation lands. This distribution of land ownership has implications for land management and water development and use. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8 A key land ownership feature in the basin is the significant amount of private lands interspersed with state trust lands and to a lesser extent federal lands in a checkerboard pattern south of the Navajo Reservation. Prior to 1871, federal land grants of alternating one-square-mile sections of land along the right-of-way were given to railroads to promote railroad expansion. In addition, the 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 educational purposes. Other legislation authorized additional state trust lands. Where the “school” section lands were previously claimed or on federal reservations, national forest, park or Indian reservations, the state was given the right to select an equal amount of acreage of Federal land. The state is also allowed to trade lands for other federal lands or private lands to block up Trust land holdings (www.land.state.az.us/history.htm). These decisions have resulted in the pattern observed in the basin. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. Indian Reservations • 63.9% of the land in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin is under tribal ownership. • Of the 27,000 square miles of Navajo nation lands in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, more than 13,000 square miles are in Arizona. • Navajo tribal lands include parts of Apache, Navajo and Coconino Counties. • Window Rock is the location of the Navajo tribal headquarters. • The Hopi reservation encompasses about 2,400 square miles (1.5 acres) in parts of Navajo and Coconino counties. • The Hopi reservation is primarily comprised of three mesas and tribal communities at Lower and Upper Moenkopi east of Tuba City. Hopi people have continually occupied the area since 500 A.D. and the community of Old Oraibi, established as early as 1,100, is considered the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the United States. The Hopi Tribal Headquarters are located in Kykotsmovi on Third Mesa (www.azcommerce.com). • There are areas north of Joseph City under Hopi and Navajo ownership. • Other tribal lands include those of the Zuni (about 8 square miles) north of Concho and White Mountain Apache lands (about 4.5 square miles) southwest of Greer. The Zuni tribal lands in Arizona, “Zuni Heaven”, were formally recognized in 2004. The Zuni also hold large, nonreservation ranch holdings in and around their reservation. • The Hopi Tribe holds large, non-reservation ranch holdings in the checkerboard lands area including deeded land, state leased property and Forest Service lands. • Primary land uses are grazing, mining and farming. Draft 27 Private • 14.8% of land ownership in the basin is private. • Private lands are primarily located in areas surrounding non-Indian communities and in the area between Winslow and the New Mexico border south of the Navajo reservation and north of National Forest lands. • Private land in-holdings are located within National Forest lands in the Nutrioso area southeast of Springerville and to a lesser extent in other areas as shown. • Primary land uses are domestic, industrial and commercial. National Forest and Wilderness • 10.5% of land is National forest and wilderness. There are two forest districts, the Coconino and Apache Sitgreaves. • Forest lands contain the headwaters of most of the major streams and of the only major river in the basin. • Primary land uses are grazing, recreation and logging. State Trust • 8% of lands are held in trust for public schools and 13 other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • There is a large amount of contiguous state land ownership between Springerville and Saint Johns and another contiguous area adjacent to national forest lands southeast of Flagstaff. • Most land uses are for livestock grazing. Parks, Monuments, Historical and Recreational Sites • 1.4% of lands are under federal or state ownership as parks, monuments and other sites. • Sites identified on Figure 2-14 include a small portion of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Canyon De Chelly National Monument, Wupatki National Monument, Petrified Forest National Park, Sunset Crater National Monument, Walnut Canyon National Monument. • Primary land use is for recreational purposes. U.S. Bureau of Land Management • 1.2% of lands are under federal ownership by the Bureau of Land Management. • All lands are included in the checkerboard pattern of land ownership in Navajo and Apache counties. • Primary land uses are for livestock grazing. Other (Arizona Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% is held by other landowners. • These lands are located in the vicinity of Springerville, southeast of Flagstaff and there are a few sections scattered in the checkerboard lands. • Primary land uses on Arizona Game and Fish lands is for wildlife conservation. Draft 28 Draft R10E T42N Page 160 ! ! Dennehotso £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 89A £ ¤ 64 £ ¤ 160 NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION £ ¤ R30E Teec Nos Pos £ ¤ 163 T38N R28E R26E R24E R22E GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA ! T40N R20E R18E R16E R14E R12E ! Kayenta ?@ 564 ?@ 98 ! COCONINO COUNTY T34N 191 T32N NAVAJO COUNTY £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ 89 Tuba City ! HOPI INDIAN RESERVATION (MOENKOPI UNIT) ! Pinon 191 Old Oraibi ! 1 Polacca ! Keams ! Canyon ! Kykotsmovi Gray Mountain NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION 89 HOPI INDIAN RESERVATION T26N WUPATKI NATIONAL MONUMENT T24N Flagstaff ?@ Ganado ! 6 ! 2 ! ! Twin Buttes ?@ 264 Leupp 191 Lupton ! § ¦ ¨ 40 £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ T20N ! £ ¤ 180 40 Window Rock NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION 87 ! ! £ ¤ Hotevilla ! T28N SUNSET CRATER NATIONAL MONUMENT Cottonwood ! 264 Lukachukai CANYON DE CHELLY NATIONAL MONUMENT Chinle ! 1 ?@ £ ¤! ! APACHE COUNTY Rough Rock HOPI INDIAN RESERVATION T30N T22N £ ¤ Chilchinbito T36N ! Sanders ! PETRIFIED FOREST NATIONAL PARK § ¦ ¨ 40 § ¦ ¨ 17 WALNUT CANYON NATIONAL MONUMENT ?@ 77 1 T14N 61 ! Holbrook NATIONAL T16N ?@ Joseph City § ¦! ¨ 40 FOREST ?@ ?@ £ ¤ 99 87 180 ?@ 377 APACHE - ?@ 77 SITGREAVES ! NATIONAL T12N § ¦ ¨ Winslow ! COCONINO T18N Navajo ! 40 FOREST ZUNI HEAVEN INDIAN RESERVATION 180 180 Concho Heber 191 £ ¤ ?@ Snowflake £ ¤ ! Saint Johns ! ! ?@ ?@ ?@ 61 260 260 T10N Lakeside £ ¤ 60 ! Show Low £ ¤ 60 ! 29 T8N Pinetop Springerville ! ! ?@ 260 Greer ?@ 261 ! £ ¤ 191 ?@ 273 T6N Land Ownership (Percentage in Basin) 0 6 12 Miles ¨ c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Source: ALRIS , 2004 Figure 2-14 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Land Ownership Indian Reservations (63.9%) Private (14.8%) National Forest & Wilderness (10.5%) State Trust (8.0%) Parks, Monuments, (1.4%) Historical & Recreational sites U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1.2%) Other (Game & Fish, County and (0.1%) Bureau of Reclamation Lands) COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place 2.1.3 Climate of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Climate data from four types of meteorological stations are compiled in Table 2-8 and their location is shown on Figure 2-16. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Coop Network • Refer to Table 2-8A • There are 56 NOAA/NWS Coop network climate stations reported in the Basin although information is not available for 2 of them. • Stations are widely dispersed throughout the basin. • Of the 54 stations for which information is available, data from different periods of record may be used as shown. This may be due to discontinued measurements, date of installation or other availability issues. • Station elevation ranges from 4,160 feet at Cameron 1 NNE to 8,490 feet at Greer. • Maximum average temperatures range from 61.5˚F at Greer to 81.7˚F at Page. • Minimum average temperatures range from 27.0˚F at Fort Valley to 36.5˚F at Cameron 1 NNE. • Station precipitation varies considerably with an annual average precipitation range of 4.09 inches at Monument Valley to 28.46 inches at McNary 2 N. • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 36 inches at sites along the Mogollon Rim and near Flagstaff • Almost all stations report highest average precipitation during the summer season (JulySeptember). • On average, the driest season is spring (April-June). • Altitude is a factor in precipitation, however the rain shadow effect results in greater precipitation on the windward side as storms move northeastward. Blue Ridge Ranger Station at 6,880 feet received an average of 20.6 inches of rainfall a year while Betatakin, at 7,290 feet received only 12.81 inches. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 2-8B • There are three sites in the basin at Flagstaff, Page and Winslow. • Of these sites, the lowest evaporation rate is at Flagstaff, elevation 7,010 feet, and the highest is at Winslow, elevation 4,890 feet. AZMET • Refer to Table 2-8C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, located at Flagstaff at an elevation of 6,747 feet. Average annual reference evaporation is similar to that at the Flagstaff WB AP site. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 2-8D • There are data from twenty snow measurement sites in the basin, more than any basin in the state. Four sites have been discontinued. Draft 30 • • • • • • Elevations at current sites range from 6,930 feet at Lake Mary to 11,200 feet at Snow Bowl #2. High elevation sites (>8,000 feet) in the vicinity of Flagstaff typically continue to accumulate snowpack into April. High elevation sites (>8,000 feet) in the Beaver Springs and Tsaile Canyon areas report highest average snowpack in March. Sites <8,000 feet generally show highest snowpack in March/February. Highest average snowpack is found at three stations near Flagstaff and a station at Mount Baldy (Baldy #2). There is a correlation between elevation and the average snowpack at the beginning of the month with the highest measurement as shown in Figure 2-15. However, location of the site, even those in close proximity to each other, and the period of record affect snowpack accumulation averages. Figure 2-15 Relationship of elevation to highest monthly average snowpack in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin. Average Snowpack (inches snow water content) 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6,580 7,350 7,640 7,800 8,470 8,920 Elevation (in feet) Draft 31 9,160 9,750 11,200 Table 2-8 Climate Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Record Elevation (in Avg. Annual Evap Used for Averages feet) (in inches) Flagstaff WB AP 1968 - 1978 7,010 54.00 Page 1957 - 2002 4,270 80.57 Winslow AP 1990 - 1999 4,890 84.7 C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Record Flagstaff 11/2003 - current Elevation (in Average Annual Reference Evapotranspiration, in inches (number of years to calculate average) feet) 55.48 (2) 6,747 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Record Elevation (in Used for Averages feet) Average Snowpack at Beginning of Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June Arbabs Forest 1985 - current 7,680 1.2(18) 2.5(20) 1.9(19) 0.2(20) 0(0) 2.4(1) Baldy (SNOTEL) 1950 - current 9,125 3.7(33) 6.0(54) 7.8(54) 6.6(54) 0.4(19) 0(17) Baldy #1 1950 - 1999 (discontinued) 9,125 3.7(28) 5.7(49) 7.3(50) 6.4(49) 0.8(22) 0(21) Baldy #2 1963 - 1997 9,750 0(0) 12.3(2) 0(0) 19.1(9) 25.2(1) 0(0) Beaver Spring 1986 - current 9,220 3.8(16) 6.9(17) 8.9(16) 7.3(18) 0(0) 0(0) Cheese Springs 1969 - current 8,700 2.6(26) 4.2(36) 5.8(36) 3.9(36) 0(1) 0(0) Fort Apache 1951 - current 9,160 3.7(25) 6.0(52) 7.7(54) 7.0(54) 0(0) 0(0) Fluted Rock 1985 - current 7,800 1.3(18) 2.9(20) 3.3(19) 0.6(20) 0(0) 0(0) Forestdale Alt. 1984 - 1989 (discontinued) 6,580 0.5(6) 1.0(6) 0.6(6) 0(6) 0(0) 0(0) Fort Valley 1947 - current 7,350 1.3(30) 2.3(58) 2.4(58) 1.0(57) 0(1) 0(0) Heber 1950 - 1999 (discontinued) 7,640 1.8(23) 3.5(49) 3.6(49) 2.1(46) 1.0(2) 0(0) Heber (SNOTEL) 1950 - current 7,640 2.2(29) 4.5(54) 4.6(54) 2.4(50) 0(22) 0(22) Lake Mary 1975 - current 6,930 1.3(25) 2.5(30) 3.0(30) 0.4(30) 0(0) 0(0) Mormon Mountain 1950 - 1999 (discontinued) 7,500 2.8(30) 4.8(49) 5.8(50) 4.2(47) 5.1(3) 0(0) 1950 - current 7,500 2.5(35) 4.5(54) 5.7(55) 4.2(52) 1.1(25) 0(22) 1975 - current 8,470 3.8(14) 7.5(20) 11.7(22) 13.0(27) 0(0) 0(0) Snow Bowl #1 Alt. 1984 - current 9,920 5.3(20) 7.9(21) 11.7(21) 13.2(20) 0(0) 0(0) Snow Bowl #2 1965 - current 11,200 7.8(27) 11.8(39) 16.7(39) 21.3(38) 0(0) 0(0) Tsaile Canyon #1 1985 - current 8,160 2.6(19) 5.1(20) 5.9(19) 3.2(20) 0(0) 0(0) Tsaile Canyon #3 1986 - current 8,920 3.6(18) 6.9(19) 8.4(18) 6.6(19) 0(0) 0(0) Mormon Mountain (SNOTEL) Mormon Mountain Summit #2 WB = Weather Bureau AP = Airport Alt = Alternate Draft 32 Draft 8 10 8 ||Page Page 10 | Betatakin 8 | Copper Mine T.P. £ ¤ 160 8 | 12 NAVAJO COUNTY £ ¤ 191 12 Pinon Cottonwood | Cottonwood I.S. T30N 264 | Cameron 1 NNE Old Oraibi 12 Hotevilla ?@ Fluted Rock 10 Polacca | Keams Canyon 12 Ganado £ ¤ Ganado 89 | 10 T26N T24N Twin Buttes 6 ! ?@ 24 10 | Winslow AP 14 || § ¦ ¨ 40 Joseph City 191 ?@ 40 ?@ Holbrook | Holbrook ?@ 87 99 | Petrified Forest N.P. 12 12 £ ¤ 14 30 || 32 260 Heber Snowflake Snowflake 15 W | Snowflake | ?@ 277 Heber Heber R.S. 22 Heber (SNOTEL) T10N 180 Concho | Clay Springs | Pinedale 20 ¤ |£ 24 | Show Low A.P. Show Low Forestdale Alt. 33 Lakeside T8N ?@ 61 £ ¤ 60 26 | |McNary 2N 22 30 Cheese Springs ¤ | £ 14 Springerville 60 Springerville | ?@ ?@ 373 | Fort Apache Baldy #1 260 ?@ 261 16 24 Pinetop Saint Johns 16 60 Pinetop | 12 ?@ £ ¤ ?@ Saint Johns 16 32 377 180 | 36 ?@ 28 | Blue Ridge R.S. 16 18 | Wallace R.S. 28 | Chevelon R.S. ?@ 77 18 T12N £ ¤ 180 26 34 | 61 § ¦ ¨ 22 T14N Sanders Sanders 11 ESE | Painted Desert N.P. 77 24 T16N ?@ Winslow AP Winslow 20 Mormon Mountain (SNOTEL) | Navajo Navajo ?@ Mormon Mountain Summit #2 Mormon Mountain 30 | 99 Lake Mary 16 12 § ¦ ¨ 40 Leupp Sanders 12 | | Lupton 8 17 34 £ ¤ Leupp 40 26 14 87 | | 191 10 Snow Bowl #1 Alt. Snow Bowl #2 | Sunset Crater N.M. 36 | | 22 T22N ||Fort ValleyFlagstaff |Burrus Ranch Fort Valley 24 | ¦ ¨ | Flagstaff WB AP § ¦| Flagstaff AP ¨ T20N § | St. Michaels 6 WNW | Arbabs Forest | Klagetoh 12 WNW 2 ! Wupatki N.M. Window Rock Window Rock 4 SW 32 | | 14 6 Keams Canyon Kykotsmovi Gray Mountain Chinle Canyon de Chelly 12 |Tuba City 10 T18N || Chinle 10 Tuba City T32N 18 Greer Baldy (SNOTEL) 191 £ ¤ Baldy #2 T6N Greer 0 6 ¨ c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Precipitation Data Source: Oregon State University, 1998 | Beaver Spring 8 Flagstaff 14 Many Farms S. | | | 160 89 T28N Tsaile Canyon #3 | 12 | £ ¤ £ ¤ 16 APACHE Lukachukai COUNTY Lukachukai Tsaile Canyon #1 Rough Rock Tonalea 10 T34N 64 10 Chilchinbito COCONINO COUNTY |£ ¤ 12 Kayenta 14 564 98 8 12 T36N ?@ ?@ 10 14 Kayenta Teec Nos Pos 8 12 89A 10 10 £ ¤ 160 Teec Nos Pos 160 14 6 £ ¤ 14 £ ¤ £ ¤ Dennehotso £ ¤ 8 R30E 12 163 89 T38N | Monument Valley 8 Page T40N R28E R26E R24E R22E R20E R18E R16E R14E R12E 12 Miles Figure 2-16 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Average Annual Precipitation (1961-1990) inches per year 4-6 22-24 Meteorological Stations NOAA\NWS NRCS Snow 6-8 24-26 8-10 26-28 AZMET 10-12 28-30 30-32 Pan ET 12-14 14-16 32-34 16-18 34-36 18-20 36-38 20-22 38-40 24 30 R10E T42N | " | " | " | " Precipitation Contour COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place 12 ! 2.1.4 Surface Water Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, annual flow and other information is shown in Table 2-9. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin as of September 2004 is shown in Table 2-10. Reservoir and stock pond data including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water is shown in Table 2-11. The location of streamflow and flood gages, using the USGS or station ID number, is shown on Figure 2-17. The location of large reservoirs is also shown on Figure 2-17 and keyed to Table 2-11A. A description of the stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 2-9 • Criteria for including stations are that there is at least one year of record, and annual streamflow statistics are included only if there are at least three years of record. Seasonal flow information provides data relevant to seasonal surface water availability. Annual flow volumes (in acre-feet) provide an indication of potential volumetric availability of the surface water supply. • Data from forty-five stations, including 21 discontinued stations, are shown in the table and on Figure 2-17. • The average seasonal flow as a percentage of annual flow is highest in the Spring (April-June) from winter snowmelt and spring rains and in the Summer (July-September) from high intensity monsoon storms. • High summer season percentages were noted at many gages on the Navajo and Hopi reservation. High winter flow percentages (January-March) were recorded at gages near Lakeside, Show Low and Snowflake. • The year of minimum and maximum flow varies depending on the location and period of record. For the 11 active gages in existence prior to 1990, 8 reported that the minimum year of flow occurred during the period 1990 to 2004. For these same gages, the maximum year of flow was more variable. However, the largest percentage (36%) recorded maximum flows during the 1980s. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 2-10 • There were 32 stations in the basin as of October 2005. Stations vary in type. Some are precipitation stations only while others include stage information and also serve repeater functions. Stations that are only repeaters are not included. • Flood gage information is presented to direct the reader to sources of additional precipitation and flow information that can be utilized in water resource planning. Reservoirs and Stock Ponds • Refer to Table 2-11 • Surface water is stored or could be stored at 92 large reservoirs and 685 small reservoirs in the basin. Draft 34 • • • • • • • • • • • • • Table 2-11A lists large reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity or larger) by highest to lowest maximum storage capacity. Table 2-11B lists other large reservoirs (50 acres or more of surface area) from highest to lowest maximum surface area for those reservoirs for which storage volume was not available. Maximum storage information was available for 60 large reservoirs in the basin There are 32 large reservoirs for which only surface area data were available. 33 large reservoirs are intermittent or dry, particularly those listed in Table 11-B. The most common use of large reservoirs is for recreation (46), followed by fire protection, stock or farm use (33) and for irrigation (30). More than 40% of the reservoirs serve multiple uses. Two reservoirs, Powell and Blue Ridge are used to generate hydroelectric power. The highest concentrations of large reservoirs are in the high elevation areas of the White Mountain and Mogollon Rim, although a number of large reservoirs are located in the drier, lower elevation areas. There are 18 large reservoirs on the Navajo reservation and one (for flood control) on the Hopi. Navajo reservation reservoirs are used for the same primary purposes as those in the entire basin. Blue Canyon (#33) reservoir’s reported use is for domestic water supply. Water from Lake Powell is treated at Page and delivered to the Navajo community of LeChee. Three reservoirs provide municipal water supply to non-reservation communities: Lower Lake Mary (Flagstaff); Powell (Page); and Blue Ridge/C.C. Cragin Reservoir, which is used as a municipal supply outside the basin. Capacity information was available for 416 small reservoirs, which have a combined maximum storage capacity of 13,343 acre-feet. There are 269 small reservoirs for which only surface area data was available with a total surface area of 3,907 acres. Because of the large number of small reservoirs, and less reliable data, individual reservoir data is not provided. Stock pond data was compiled from the ADWR surface water registry for ponds with a capacity of 15 acre-feet or less. There are an estimated 6,113 stock ponds in the basin, although this has not been field verified. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 2-17. • Runoff contours reflect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication of the amount of runoff that can be expected at a particular geographic location. • Average annual runoff varies from 5 inches per year at higher elevations along the Mogollon Rim and near Greer to 0.1 inches near the Little Colorado River and along a contour stretching from near Sanders, through Polacca to the northwest corner of the basin. Draft 35 Draft Table 2-9 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Mean Basin Period of Record Elevation (in feet) Station Number USGS Station Name Contributing Drainage Area (in sq. miles) 9379025 Chinle Creek at Chinle1 639 NA 9379050 Lukachukai Creek near Lukachukai1 Not determined 9379180 Laguna Creek at Dennehotso 9379200 Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 11/1999-current 49 42 6 2 905 (2002) 6,624 6,258 10,860 (2004) 5 NA 11/1999-current 28 37 22 13 796 (2002) 1,947 1,781 2,172 (2003) 5 414 NA 7/1996-current 13 4 61 22 1,694 (2004) 3,826 4,408 8,760 (1997) 6 Chinle Creek near Mexican Water 1 3,650 6,260 10/1964-current 19 32 36 13 3,062 (1994) 15,457 20,429 67,692 (1982) 40 9379910 Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam 107,741 NA 10/1965-9/2003 23 28 27 22 7,847,916 (2002) 8,166,466 8,382,855 9,252,432 (1971) 9 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry1 107,841 NA 10/1921-current 16 44 24 16 1,383,521 (1963) 9,375,509 10,885,307 20,322,048 (1984) 83 108,041 NA 10/1980-9/2004 24 25 28 22 7,833,437 (1988) 8,383,659 9,876,067 18,699,615 (1986) 20 1.3 NA 10/1966-9/1972 (discontinued) 7 43 26 24 261 (1970) 398 405 543 (1969) 5 0.5 NA 10/1966-9/1972 (discontinued) 9 47 30 13 11 (1969) 94 79 130 (1969) 5 1.9 NA 10/1966-9/1972 (discontinued) 17 29 30 24 116 (1967) 188 191 239 (1970) 5 29.1 9,400 8/1960-9/1982 (discontinued) 12 59 20 9 5,198 (1961) 8,688 11,437 25,267 (1973) 21 83.3 8,550 6/1967-9/1982 (discontinued) 21 63 6 10 485 (1977) 2,729 4,517 16,507 (1973) 14 86.8 NA 7/1967-9/1982 (discontinued) 19 69 4 8 290 (1977) 2,237 4,235 17,013 (1973) 14 704 7,760 4/1940-current 20 52 17 10 2,259 (1996) 11,113 15,588 51,258 (1941) 64 790 NA 4/1941-9/19852 21 63 6 10 478 (1963) 1,509 2,722 19,547 (1973) 34 845 NA 3/1985-current 26 52 13 9 9383000 36 9383200 9383220 9383250 9383400 9383500 9383550 9384000 9385500 9385700 Colorado River at Compact Point near Lees Ferry Lee Valley Creek above Lee Valley Reservoir near Greer Lee Valley Creek Tributary near Greer Lee Valley Creek below Lee Valley Reservoir near Greer Little Colorado River at Greer Nutrioso Creek above Nelson Reservoir near Springerville Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir near Springerville Little Colorado River above Lyman Lake near St. Johns1 Little Colorado River below Lyman Reservoir near St. Johns Little Colorado River below Salado Springs1 2,432 (2003) and 2,164 (2004) 2 Draft Table 2-9 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Station Number USGS Station Name Contributing Drainage Area (in sq. miles) 9386000 Little Colorado River at St. Johns 964 9386030 9386250 9386300 9386500 9388000 Little Colorado River above Zion Reservoir near St. Johns1 Carrizo Wash near St. Johns1 Little Colorado River below Zion Reservoir near St. Johns Little Colorado River above Zuni Reservoir near Hunt Little Colorado River near Hunt 9390000 Silver Creek near Shumway 37 9390500 9392000 9392500 Show Low Creek near Lakeside1 Show Low Creek below Jaques Dam near Show Low1 Show Low Creek at Show Low Mean Basin Period of Record Elevation (in feet) 4/1906-4/1940 NA (discontinued) Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 24 33 27 16 2,013 (1939) 3,895 10,309 45,538 (1909) 8 1,005 NA 10/1975-current 29 31 16 24 94 (2004) 3,453 5,149 18,823 (1985) 29 Not determined NA 8/1998-current 0 0 99 1 65 (2004) 1,596 2,082 5,169 (2002) 5 NA NA 9/1998-current 1 <1 97 2 80 (2003) 116 2,684 11,798 (2002) 6 3,557 7,160 3/1940-9/1972 (discontinued) 16 10 60 14 8 (1961) 2,266 3,778 22,009 (1955) 31 6,173 7,060 5/1929-9/1972 (discontinued) 14 12 64 10 239 (1962) 5,046 10,424 58,424 (1941) 34 119 NA 10/1944-6/1955 (discontinued) 12 44 38 6 5,575 (1951) 7,891 8,466 13,683 (1952) 10 68.6 7,320 5/1953-current 53 19 9 19 970 (2002) 6,863 9,692 31,493 (1978) 51 73.0 NA 10/1955-current 47 25 13 14 1,405 (1990) 3,033 6,391 28,090 (1993) 49 90.2 NA 10/1944-6/1955 (discontinued) 65 12 12 11 1,086 (1953) 4,156 6,519 24,832 (1952) 10 9393400 Cottonwood Wash at Snowflake1 262 NA 10/1981-8/1984 79 0 3 17 9393500 Silver Creek near Snowflake 846 6,400 10/1950-9/1995 (discontinued) 45 8 28 19 2,020 (1990) 10,461 13,830 59,583 (1993) 44 9394000 Silver Creek near Woodruff 887 NA 4/1929-9/1952 (discontinued) 51 4 36 9 4,293 (1942) 14,914 17,902 58,642 (1932) 15 9394500 Little Colorado River at Woodruff 1 7,775 6,810 3/1905-current 27 12 46 15 5,524 (2000) 26,860 35,839 165,791 (1919) 74 9396500 Puerco River near Adamana 2,604 6,730 4/1940-9/1949 (discontinued) 24 13 47 16 9,557 (1944) 26,642 46,732 167,963 (1941) 8 11,115 6,730 3/1905-current 19 10 55 16 13,973 (1950) 82,533 91,138 197,646 (1968) 26 271 7,030 5/1947-current 57 28 5 10 0 (1996, 2002) 22,950 30,032 97,737 (1965) 30 9397000 9397500 Little Colorado River at Holbrook1 Chevelon Fork below Wildcat Canyon near Winslow1 3,460 (1982) and 10,060 (1983) 2 Draft Table 2-9 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Mean Basin Period of Record Elevation (in feet) 1/1906-9/1972 (discontinued, now 6,440 real-time) Station Number USGS Station Name Contributing Drainage Area (in sq. miles) 9398000 Chevelon Creek near Winslow1 781 9398500 Cleak Creek below Willow Creek near Winslow 317 7,100 9399000 Clear Creek near Winslow1 621 9400350 Little Colorado River near Winslow1 9400562 Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Years of Annual Flow Record 38 Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 49 33 6 11 10,715 (1956) 32,651 38,756 99,909 (1952) 44 6/1948-9/1991 (discontinued) 41 45 3 11 4,127 (1990) 36,633 59,275 168,963 (1973) 43 6,500 1906-12/1982 (discontinued, now real-time) 39 49 2 9 3,852 (1967) 46,697 60,719 183,890 (1978) 51 16,100 NA 12/2001-current 52 9 23 16 54,009 (2003) 69,140 73,870 98,461 (2004) 3 Oraibi Wash near Tolani Lake1 635 NA 7/1995-current 1 0 72 19 434 (1996) 1,998 1,980 4,177 (1997) 9 9400568 Polacca Wash near Second Mesa1 905 NA 4/1994-current 5 1 73 21 195 (1995) 2,125 2,117 3,678 (1997) 8 9400583 Jeddito Wash near Jeddito 1 147 NA 9/1993-current 0 1 88 11 14 (1998) 145 298 1,426 (2003) 11 9401000 Little Colorado River at Grand Falls 20,700 6,440 11/1925-9/1994 (discontinued) 39 24 30 7 18,461 (1956) 162,171 198,406 587,869 (1941) 24 9401110 Dinnebito Wash near Sand Springs1 473 NA 6/1993-current 5 3 78 14 311 (1994) 2,085 2,680 6,682 (2004) 11 9401226 Coal Mine Wash Tributary near Kayenta 0.6 NA 10/1977-9/1981 (discontinued) 2 4 90 4 0 (1979) 3 24 70 (1980) 3 9401239 Coal Mine Wash near Mouth near Shonto NA NA 5/1978-10/1982 (discontinued) 20 11 48 21 434 (1979) 775 857 1,361 (1980) 3 9401260 Moenkopi Wash at Moenkopi1 1,629 5,850 7/1976-current 13 4 64 18 1,376 (1994) 7,457 7,083 14,769 (2001) 28 9401280 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City 1,904 NA 7/1926-9/1940 (discontinued) 8 2 81 9 5,408 (1928) 9,774 16,334 45,828 (1930) 13 9401400 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City 2,492 5,820 10/1940-9/1978 (discontinued) 8 2 58 33 2,179 (1944) 8,833 11,158 44,452 (1972) 25 Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Notes: NA = Not available to ADWR Statistics based on Calendar Year Average Seasonal Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of Record may not equal Years of Annual Flow Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Draft Table 2-9 Streamflow Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Station Number USGS Station Name Contributing Drainage Area (in sq. miles) Mean Basin Period of Record Elevation (in feet) In Period of Record, current equals September 2005 Real-time gage 2 Station operated by SRP after 1985 and table statistics do not include the SRP data 1 Average Seasonal Flow (% of Annual Flow) Winter Spring Summer Annual Flow in Acre-Feet (Year) Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum Years of Annual Flow Record 39 Draft Table 2-10 Flood Alert Equipment in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1701 Little Colorado River @ Hunt Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1715 Black Canyon Lake Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1720 Oklahoma Flat Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1722 Stermer Ridge Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1724 Bunger Point Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1725 Dreamy Draw Precipitation/Stage 3/1/2004 Navajo County FCD Precipitation/Stage 10/27/1995 Navajo County FCD Stage NA Navajo County FCD Precipitation/Stage 9/5/1995 Navajo County FCD 1729 1739 40 1743 Little Colorado River @ Winslow @I-40 Cottonwood Wash Winslow Obed Bridge over Little Colorado River @ Joseph City 1750 Leroux Wash Precipitation/Stage 11/2/1995 Navajo County FCD 1764 Little Colorado River @ Holbrook Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1771 Joseph City @ SR 66 Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1778 Pinedale Ridge Precipitation 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1785 Silver Creek at Snowflake Precipitation/Stage 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1795 Lone Pine Dam Precipitation/Stage 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1800 Chevelon Butte 20 mi. SW of Winslow Repeater/Precipitation 7/18/1995 Navajo County FCD 1804 Porter Mountain Repeater/Precipitation 1/18/1995 Navajo County FCD 1808 Buckskin Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1815 Schoens Dam Precipitation/Stage 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD Draft Table 2-10 Flood Alert Equipment in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin 41 Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1822 White Mountain Lake Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1829 Cottonwood Wash Taylor Precipitation/Stage 10/6/1995 Navajo County FCD 1843 Dutch Joe Precipitation 8/1/2001 Navajo County FCD 1850 Morgan Wash Precipitation/Stage 11/22/1995 Navajo County FCD 1857 Holbrook Base Station Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1864 South County Complex Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1871 Heber Repeater Repeater/Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1881 Black Canyon Wash Stage NA Navajo County FCD 1885 Heber SNOTEL Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1892 Show Low Lake Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 1893 Phoenix Park Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Navajo County FCD 3300 Newman Canyon Precipitation/Stage NA City of Flagstaff 3310 Rio de Flag Precipitation/Stage NA City of Flagstaff FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available to ADWR Table 2-11 Reservoirs and Stock Ponds in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) Draft MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) Schoens Lyman Many Farms Upper Lake Mary Red2 Blue Ridge/C.C. Cragin Mormon Lone Pine3 White Mountain (Daggs Dam) Tremaine (Hay Lake Dam) Chevelon Canyon Show Low (Jacques Dam) Tsaile Wheatfields Fool's Hollow Canyon Diablo Reservoir Willow Springs Ashurst Alejandro Ganado Reservoir Dry Lake II (Twin Lakes Dam) Hay3 River Reservoir Kinnikinick Ortega + Little Ortega (Ortega Lake Retention) White Mountain Lower Lake Mary Rainbow (Lakeside Dam) Cholla Millett Swale Black Canyon Blue Canyon Soldier Annex Knoll Scott Reservoir Bear Canyon Concho Unnamed (Twin Dams) Little Mormon Becker Woods Canyon Little Long3 Mexican3 Round Rock Hog Wallow Pool Corral Nelson Slade Broken Tank Mexican Hay Clear Creek (Clear Creek #2) Tunnel Norton3 Haumont Tank 3 Lee Valley Soldiers Patterson Bunch Bureau of Reclamation Navajo County Lyman Water Co Navajo Nation City of Flagstaff Navajo Nation Bureau of Reclamation/Salt River Project Coconino NF Navajo County Snowflake & Taylor Irrigation Bar T Bar Ranch AZ Game & Fish City of Show Low Navajo Nation Navajo Nation AZ Game & Fish Navajo Nation AZ Game & Fish AZ Game & Fish Private Navajo Nation Abitibi Bar T Bar Ranch Round Valley Water Users AZ Game & Fish Silver Creek Flood Control Round Valley Water Users Coconino NF Show Low Irrigation Arizona Public Service Silver Creek Flood Control AZ Game & Fish Navajo Nation Coconino NF AZ Game & Fish Show Low Irrigation AZ Game & Fish Concho Water Co Hopi Tribe Apache Sitgreaves NF Apache Sitgreaves NF AZ Game & Fish St. John's Irrigation Apache Sitgreaves NF Apache Sitgreaves NF Navajo Nation Lyman Water Co Lyman Water Co AZ Game & Fish Private AZ State Land Dept. Lyman Water Co City of Winslow Apache Sitgreaves NF Town of Springerville AZ State Land Dept./Rancho Allegra AZ Game & Fish Coconino NF AZ Land Dept Round Valley Water Users 20,325,000 62,000 44,500 32,500 21,041 15,517 15,000 15,000 14,700 13,750 9,000 8,542 8,160 8,100 5,700 5,617 4,700 4,230 4,164 4,111 3,750 3,7004 3,530 3,195 3,124 2,500 2,3914 2,240 2,226 2,2004 2,104 1,900 1,900 1,886 1,774 1,740 1,638 1,560 1,500 1,400 1,338 1,232 1,2004 1,200 1,100 1,070 1,000 993 900 898 8514 821 750 694 680 674 640 550 5344 512 H,I,O,R,S C I,R I,R S,R F,I,R H,S,R F,R C I,R I R O,R I,R I,R R I,R R R U I,R O U I,R R C,R I,R R,S I,R F,O,R C R S F,I,P,R R I,R R I,R C F,R I,F,R R I,R F,R C,F,I I,R I I R I P I,R I,R I,R I I I,R R P I,R Federal State State Tribal State Tribal State Federal State State State State State Tribal Tribal State Tribal State State State Tribal State State State State State State Federal State State State State Tribal Federal State State State State Tribal Federal Federal State State Federal Federal Tribal State State State State State State State Federal State State State Federal State State 42 Table 2-11 Reservoirs and Stock Ponds in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) 5 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Dry6 Dry6 Dry Red6 Ortega Sink6 Long3 Long Greasewood 6 Dry 6 Mud6 Tolani 3 Toh De Niihe 3 Dry 6 Dry 6 Mud Lake & Tank 3 Breezy 3 Yaeger Lake & Tank 3 Dry 6 Dry Lake & Windy Tank 6 Unnamed6 Vail Grass Flat Tank 3 Dry Horse Lake & Tank 3 Unnamed3 Whipple 3 McDermit3 Pine Lake & Tank 3 Tobenayoli Pond3 Deep3 Indian3 To Kla Dua Aakee Navajo Nation Private Private Navajo Nation Apache Sitgreaves NF Coconino NF Coconino NF Navajo Nation Private Private Navajo Nation Navajo Nation Navajo Nation Navajo Nation Coconino NF Coconino NF Coconino NF Navajo Nation Navajo Nation Private Coconino NF Coconino NF Navajo Nation Coconino NF Private Apache Sitgreaves NF Private Coconino NF Navajo Nation Coconino NF Coconino NF Navajo Nation 2,642 1,817 1,674 502 405 323 271 269 215 168 129 121 112 110 106 101 96 95 92 90 88 88 87 84 81 75 72 70 65 62 60 54 P P P P P F,P,R F,P P P F,P P P P P F,P P,R P P P P P P P P P F,P,R P P P F P P Tribal Landowner Landowner Tribal Federal Federal Federal Tribal Landowner Landowner Tribal Tribal Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Federal Federal Tribal Federal Landowner Federal Landowner Federal Tribal Federal Federal Tribal C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 416 Total maximum storage: 13,343 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) 5 Total number: 269 Total surface area: 3,907 acres E. Stock Ponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 6,113 (estimate based on water right filings) Notes: NF = National Forest C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; N= navigation; O=other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond R=recreation; S=water supply; U=unknown 2 Dam is in New Mexico as is most of the lake 3 Intermittent Lake 4 Normal capacity < 500 acre-feet 5 Capacity data not available to ADWR 6 Dry Lake 1 Draft 43 Draft R10E do Ri ve r ( T42N ! ! 9379910 lo 1 ! Page Co 9380000 !! 9383000 163 ! 89 9379180 ! ( 98 ! 9401226 e a iW ! NAVAJO COUNTY 1 9401239 4 as 2 15 # 68 ( as Cottonwood cc 0.2 9401260 ! aW 0. 5 Pinon ! Po la ( 9401280 ! Chinle !! h # ! 72 ( ! 9401400 Hotevilla ?@ Old Oraibi ! 79 ( ! Gray Mountain 9401110 Polacca ! ! Ja £ ¤ ! 92 # T24N ( ( 264 74 ! # Twin Buttes Lupton ! 87 Leupp § ¦ ¨ 40 ! Sanders ?@ 77 99 ! 1743 ( ( Holbrook !! 9397000 ! 1764 ?@ ( Snowflake Show Low !! 9392500 9392000 13 ! 1804 1892 ! !! 36 9390500 ! ! 1850 29 ! Lakeside 65 ## # #! 9385500 ! 9384000 £ ¤ 60 59 # #41 Springerville ! ?@ 260 55 # 60# 24 52 Greer # # 27 # !! 54 # 9383400 #4748 50 57 # 9383200 # ! !! 9383250 (( ( Pinetop ( 5 44 T8N 3 # ( (( ( ( ( ( T10N ( ( ?@ 61 43 ! 9385700 ( 1715 ! (( ( ( 1720 1724 31 # # 1822 ! 9390000 ! # 45 # 1795 ! 260 ?@ #9 10 26 1778 # ! 16 86 40 1725 # 44 # #1864 ! # ! 2 1815 ! ( 1722 ! ! # 38 ( ! 1885 #! ! ! 1893 ( # # 18 32 ( 42 ( ! 1808 ( (( ( 37 # 9393400 1829 ! ( 277 180 ( ?@ Heber 1881 ! !! 1871 ! ! ! 1785 ( ( #12 ( # 1843 56 ( el ! 191 £ ¤ # 20 @ ? 69 # # 9386000 !! Saint Johns Concho # ev Ch ( 5 £ ¤ R 1701 iv er ! 9386500 Wash 9388000 ! ! 9386100 Carrizo ! 9386250 ! 180 ! 9386030 ( ##22 on o ! 9393500 63 ! 9397500 ( Ca ny ( 80 # ( ( 99 9394500 ! L ittle C olo 9394000 ! d ra 1800 ! ! 9398500 377 T6N 6 12 Miles ¨ c O Stream Data Source: ALRIS, 2005 Figure 2-17 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions ! 9383500 £ ¤ 191 9383220 USGS Annual Runoff Contour for 1951-1980 (in inches) Stream Channel (width of line reflects stream order) Reservoir > 500 AF Capacity or > 50 Acres Stream Gages 2 #1 USGS ( 0 49 # ! 9383550 (( ?@ (( ( 51 # 7 35 61 ! 87 # ?@ 9396500 1857 ?@ 2 ! ! 30 ! !# 1 58 # ##67 34# #1123 T12N ( 9399000 1771 9398000 # 40 Joseph City ( ( ( # ! 53 25 T14N # Winslow ! ! ! ! 1739 9400350 85 § ¦ ¨ 17 ! 1750 1729 ( ( ( ( # 70 62 ( ## #84 90 ! # 3300 19# 91 ## 87 82 # 66 # # 76 8# 77 T18N 88 # ## 75 # Navajo ! # ?@ ( 28 5 81 # ( 40 ((( § ¦ ¨ ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ! 73 # Flagstaff T16N Window Rock 0.1 # 9400583 on ( 3310 ?@ ?@ 2 0. 17 # Ganado ! 5 0. § ¦ ¨ 21 89 # 78 # ! ! T20N ! #33 h 6 ! 180 ! as 61 0.1 £ ¤ W 9401000 ! T22N 9400562 ! 2 ! o dit 9400568 ( T26N ( 89 # 39 # Keams ! Canyon Kykotsmovi 6 Flood ! COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place ! ( ! # £ ¤ 191 ! 264 9379025 # #71 T30N T28N #14 W 160 Tuba City ! Lukachukai # ra i £ ¤ T32N Rough Rock bi 89 ! 9379050 ! APACHE COUNTY h #64 £ ¤ 46# O T34N Mo op nk ( COCONINO COUNTY 2 ! Chilchinbito T36N sh 1 160 564 ( £ ¤ ?@ ?@ Kayenta Chinle Wash T38N Teec Nos Pos 160 !! Dennehotso 83# 0.2 ¤ £ ¤£ 89A £ ¤ 9379200 ( £ ¤ ( ( T40N # R30E ( ra R28E R26E R24E R22E R20E R18E R16E R14E R12E ! 2.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 2-12. The location of major springs is shown on Figure 2-18, keyed to Table 2-12A. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • • • Draft Perennial streams are found at higher elevations in the basin due to winter snow and monsoon storms and where supported by spring flow. The Little Colorado River, the major drainage in the basin, flows perennially only in areas near the headwaters and below Silver Creek. An intermittent stream GIS cover was unavailable for tribal lands. There are 37 “major” springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken prior to 1990. Only 6 major and 6 minor spring measurements post-date 1990. Greatest discharge rates were measured in the far southeastern corner of the basin at the headwaters of Silver Creek (Silver, 3,648 gpm), south of Saint Johns (Salado, 1,730 gpm), east of Pinetop (Big, 1,211 gpm) and near Concho (Concho, 1,120 gpm). Most of the other major springs are also located in this area. A cluster of major springs is also located in the vicinity of Tuba City and the Hopi community of Moenkopi. Almost three quarters of the major springs discharge less than 100 gpm. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 2-12B. There are 50 “minor” springs identified in the basin. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies between 1,222 to 1,305, depending on the database reference. 45 Table 2-12 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Draft Discharge Location 1 Lattitude Longitude (in gpm) 341951 1095527 3,648 Name Date Discharge Measured 1 Silver 2 Salado 342604 1092352 1,730 On or before 1990 3 Big (multiple) 340814 1095804 1,211 11/30/1990 4 Concho 342551 1093745 1,120 12/6/1951 5 Pinetop 340724 1095454 673 11/20/1990 6 Carnero 340609 1093212 400 9/24/1974 7 Adair 340825 1095727 276 11/30/1990 2 06/1990 8 Unnamed 342240 1092318 200 8/15/1985 9 Porter/Paige 341047 1095622 145 7/1/1971 10 Moenave 360840 1112005 118 2/25/1948 11 Wiltbank 341629 1092359 100 1/6/1975 12 Bourdon Ranch 342039 1095612 100 6/25/1952 13 Big Hollow Wash 343215 1092520 67 9/17/1975 14 Dotson Upper 360830 1111441 66 7/26/1954 15 Sheep 340316 1093358 60 5/22/1952 16 Unnamed 343135 1092553 50 2/12/1975 17 Sawmill 345014 1112234 40 7/18/1978 18 Whitcom 340845 1095217 40 6/11/1952 19 Danstone 340921 1094749 38 6/13/1952 2 20 Unnamed 342251 1092251 37 8/15/1985 21 Unnamed 342247 1092254 31 8/15/1985 22 Pasture Canyon2 361021 1111159 31 4/26/2004 23 Davis2 342932 1091634 29 1/1/1957 24 Big Leroux's 351736 1114327 25 9/26/1949 25 Los Burros 340829 1094634 25 6/11/1952 26 24 Ranch 341723 1092445 20 1/6/1975 27 Oak 351438 1113521 20 9/20/1962 28 Thompson 340752 1095358 20 6/11/1952 29 Dotson Lower 360828 1111441 19 7/26/1954 30 Charlie Day 360833 1111412 16 6/10/1988 31 Hoxworth 350225 1113427 15 4/1/1996 32 Wide Reeds Ruins (right) 354237 1093312 15 11/9/2004 33 Unnamed Near Dennehotso 364656 1094254 13 04/2004 34 Moenkopi School 360632 1111311 12 3/29/2004 35 Wide Reeds Ruins (left) 354237 1093312 11 11/9/2004 36 Mineral 340939 1093645 10 11/20/1974 37 Schuster 342859 1093002 10 2/6/1975 46 Table 2-12 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Little Giant Draft Latitude Discharge 1 Longitude (in gpm) 341027 1093417 8 Date Discharge Measured 9/24/1974 Atascacita 341007 1093100 8 9/24/1974 Neilson 341753 1092124 8 1/17/1975 Huse 354218 1144836 7 2/10/1976 CC Hall 340715 1093737 6 6/23/1952 Mud 342154 1092847 5 1/7/1975 Ortega 342657 1093555 5 1/15/1975 McIntosh 343048 1091740 5 7/1/1946 Navajo 350605 1092938 5 11/18/1975 Halleck2 340730 1095513 5 06/1952 Walker Wash 361056 1141732 5 3/12/1980 Unnamed 351823 1114243 5 8/23/1979 Chipmunk 340830 1095218 4 6/11/1952 Malpais 342428 1093325 4 1/15/1975 Ashurst 350131 1112949 3 7/26/1978 Bitter 363930 1113845 3 4/30/1952 Red Bluff (south) 362740 1141512 3 3/11/1980 Unnamed 340913 1092742 3 12/24/1974 Hall 341624 1092055 3 1/16/1975 Wepo (south) 355325 1102203 3 8/17/1993 Betatakin 364049 1103218 3 8/28/2002 Hotevilla 355544 1104024 3 8/16/1993 Laguna Salada 342018 1094324 3 1/15/1975 Babbitt 350401 1113216 2 3/27/2004 Unnamed 362812 1105902 2 7/8/1954 Maynard 361544 1141818 2 3/11/1980 Lizard Hill 350659 1103153 2 7/20/1972 Telephone 340842 1094837 2 6/13/1952 Fireman Cabin 340653 1093736 2 9/24/1974 Unnamed 364128 1103606 2 8/7/1954 Franey 340718 1093744 2 9/24/1974 Unnamed 363632 1103822 2 8/6/1954 Wepo (north) 355330 1102159 2 8/17/1993 Unnamed 342448 1093109 2 1/15/1975 Youngs 350517 1112838 2 7/24/1978 Nasjo Toh 363504 1100937 1 10/13/1954 Unnamed 361603 1105911 1 6/24/1954 Red Bluff (north) 362744 1141505 1 3/11/1980 Beehive 340404 1093239 1 9/23/1974 Sherwood 341715 1092115 1 1/16/1975 Clark 350402 1113444 1 3/27/2004 Salt Seeps 350625 1092706 1 11/18/1975 Coyote 351358 1113934 1 8/27/1979 47 Table 2-12 Springs in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin B. Minor Springs (con't.): Location Name Latitude Discharge 1 Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Trough 341937 1102448 1 11/7/1952 McCormick 340853 1094623 1 6/13/1952 Campbell 344453 1112947 1 8/6/2002 Heiser 353021 1112114 1 5/30/2002 Unnamed 362208 1094113 13 11/1/1929 351521 1113544 1 8/27/1949 353118 1112231 13 8/23/1950 Unnamed 2,4 Wupatki C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 1,222 to 1,305 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Most recent measurement < 1gpm 4 Location approximated by ADWR 1 Draft 48 C ke rC re e k Was h Red £ ¤ 160 191 Luka k chu k ai C ree Rough Rock COCONINO COUNTY T34N £ ¤ NAVAJO COUNTY £ ¤ 160 Lukachukai APACHE COUNTY k ee Tsa l ie C r 30 22 E 10 34 Chinle EE E T32N 14 29 Tuba City nd eC 89 64 y Chilchinbito £ ¤ Beg a T36N Kayenta £ ¤ 564 shib i 98 W al 33 160 k ee Teec Nos Pos ?@ to W a sh ek ?@ £ ¤ 160 he ll re L a gu n r aC 163 £ ¤ 160 Dennehotso £ ¤ R30E £ ¤ C h in le Oij eto Wa sh Potatoe C to C bi £ ¤ 89A T38N k Ka i 89 £ ¤ jo C reek ree Nava anyon ll k we nC C tC r ee Po ek re E ke R28E R26E R24E R22E cC zt e T40N La r ive oR d Page ra R20E R18E R16E R14E A yo an olo R12E es W Draft T42N R10E Pinon T30N 264 Old Oraibi o River rad olo le C Keams Canyon Kykotsmovi T28N Gray Mountain c nli Ki e he Ganado 32 k ?@ E 35 £ ¤ ee Cr Window Rock E T26N Whisky Creek sh Wa i zlin Na Polacca yo Cottonwood Hotevilla ?@ Litt C an 264 89 C tle Li t 2 ! ol o do ra Twin Buttes 6 ! r ve Ri T24N £ ¤ 191 Lupton ?@ 87 Sanders k ?@ 99 dW Winslow Co t to n E 31 w Navajo xW as h § ¦ ¨ oo § ¦ ¨ ou § ¦ ¨ 40 17 40 er ree as h tC L ?@ 77 Joseph City T18N ?@ 61 Blac reek E E re ek C er rad ek Springerville rn Ca Nutrios r ive oR ?@ 6 191 lte Cr ee Co Milk Greer 12 Miles E E Figure 2-18 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 60 £ ¤ rC re T6N £ ¤ 261 ek ds E E W as h d h on W as E EE 15 Cre reek 36 6 Co lo De C oC E ek E E re 25 lC E E E o ra E ne k 5 18 60 23 te Mi Stream Data Source: AGFD, 1993 & 1997 7 28 £ ¤ 273 ¨ ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 19 E 21 E E E 11 2 ?@ 5 28 Pinetop 0 Oc 3 Pinetop 25 9 re e k 19 260 nC ee k ?@ w Bro 3 7 18 60 Saint Johns 13 8 20 26 61 1 £ ¤ T8N r iver 16 37 4 ?@ 12 260 k Cr re e Bil ly Cree ?@ Show Low Lakeside nC 49 Lakeside Low Co Wash 180 Snowflake Concho T10N w Bro Sho w ¤ ?@ £ 180 oy o ?@ 260 9 Little C olorad oR Do 277 cke rW ash T12N ?@ ive 191 E E E E E Ch Ch h W as W Heber w oo t t on iR £ ¤ er C 377 lo n C ?@ ev e o eve l Cl nC 77 ce Ea s a n Creek ?@ er t n yo an Silv ny Ca Ja ck s 99 sh Wa Pi e ar £ ¤ yon T14N ?@ yon lk y Mi 180 an ke on e kC La Cl n Zu Lit tle ar 87 ng T16N Cr ?@ Lo E D ay 17 ee k Holbrook EE E T20N lnu Wa 40 E E 40 § ¦ ¨ E § ¦ ¨ Leupp 27 E £ ¤ 180 Flagstaff E 24 E T22N Springs Intermittent Streams Perennial Streams COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place E 1 k 2.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 2-13. Figure 2-19 shows aquifer boundaries, aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 2-20 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 2-19. Figure 2-19 shows well yields in 5 yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 2-13 and Figure 2-19. • Major aquifers, their utilization, extent and other characteristics are described in Section 2.0.2. There are several local aquifers and 3 large regional aquifers in the basin. • Recent stream alluvium aquifers include alluvial deposits along washes and stream channels, including along the Little Colorado River and its tributaries. • Volcanic aquifers include the Lakeside-Pinetop aquifer and the smaller aquifer inside the caldera of the San Francisco Peaks, known as the “Inner Basin”. • The large regional aquifers are located in sedimentary formations of sandstone and limestone that are stacked on top of one another and are generally separated by impermeable shales and siltsones. In descending order, the regional aquifers are the D-, N-, and C-aquifers. • The Bidahochi formation forms a local aquifer in the central part of Apache and Navajo Counties and near St. Johns. • Undifferentiated sandstones west of Show Low along the Mogollon Rim and in the Springerville-Eager area form local aquifers, known as the White Mountain and Springerville Aquifers, respectively. • Flow directions are shown in Figure 2-19. Flow directions in the D-aquifer are generally from east to west. Flow in the N-aquifer varies as shown on the map. Flow direction in the C-aquifer is south to north in the southern part of the basin and generally from east to west in the northern part of the basin. The Bidahochi Aquifer flows are not mapped in the area south of Keams Canyon. Flows in the “Volcanic” aquifer are generally toward the north. Well Yields • Refer to Table 2-13 and Figure 2-21. • Well yield information is generally measured when the well is drilled and reported on completion reports. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity. Specific information is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. • Yields vary greatly in the basin. In general, well yields are greatest along the Little Colorado River and in alluvial areas north of Springerville and in the vicinity of Concho, Saint Johns and Snowflake. Areas of lower yield are found in the northern part of the basin and in the volcanic aquifers around Flagstaff and Greer. Draft 50 Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 2-13 • Estimates of natural recharge for the large regional aquifers are from relatively recent estimates from USGS studies. • Estimated natural recharge to the major regional aquifers is 173,820 acre-feet per year to the Caquifer (areal extent 21,655 square miles), 5,392 acre-feet per year to the D-aquifer (areal extent 3,125 square miles) and between 2,500 to 4,800 acre-feet to the N-aquifer (areal extent 6,250 square miles). Main recharge areas are along the southern and eastern periphery of the basin. • Recharge rates to other basin aquifers is not known. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 2-13 • Estimates of storage are based on rough estimates and considerably more studies are needed. Components of storage include aquifer depth and specific yield. • The only storage estimate for the entire basin is 508 million acre-feet from a 1989 ADWR study. Water Level • Refer to Figure 2-19 • Depth to water and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 is shown in Figure 219. ADWR annually measures 57 index wells in the basin. In 2001, the year of the last waterlevel sweep in the basin, 932 wells were measured. • Deep water levels are found in areas near Flagstaff where water levels as deep as 1,572 feet below land surface were measured and near Cottonwood and Pinon. Shallow water levels (<50 feet below land surface) are found along the Little Colorado River, in the Tuba City area, near Window Rock and near Dennehotso. • Water levels can vary significantly even where wells are in close proximity based on the specific location of the well. • Areas of most significant decline were found in the vicinity of St. Johns, Pinon, Flagstaff and Kayenta. Few wells measured showed water level rises of more than a foot. Rises were noted in individual wells near Springerville, Concho, Chilchinbito and Flagstaff. • Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figure 2-19 but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 2-20. Hydrographs show the well depth, the aquifer, the well use and location identifier. Wells located off reservation have a cadastral location code. Draft 51 Table 2-13 Groundwater Data for the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 26,700 Geologic Units and/or Name Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Volcanic Rock (Lakeside-Pinetop Aquifer) Sedimentary Rock (Bidahochi Formation, C, D, N, Springerville, and White Mountain Aquifers) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 8-1,602 Median 95 (85 wells measured) Range 1-3,000 Median 500 (386 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large diameter wells ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 173,820 (C Aquifer) USGS (2002) 5,392 (D Aquifer) USGS (2003) >2,500 - >4,800 (N Aquifer) USGS (1996) 508,000,000 (total) ADWR (1990) 413,000,000 (C Aquifer) ADWR (1989) 15,000,000 (D Aquifer) ADWR (1989) 166,000,000 - 293,400,000 (N Aquifer) ADWR (1989) and USGS (1996) N/A Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) 1 NTUA = Navajo Tribal Utility Authority 52 1 (> 10-inch) Range 30-300 Current Number of Index Wells: 57 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2001 (932 wells measured) Draft Measured by ADWR and/or USGS or NTUA Draft Teec Nos Pos 160 233 Page 26 £ ¤ £ ¤ £ ¤ Kayenta AB 89A £ ¤ 564 866 ?@ 399 318 686 98 AC 853 416 217 104 COCONINO COUNTY 210 141 128 172 830 -37 432 307 160 17 308 155 ?@ 191 11 160 89 £ ¤ £ ¤ Dennehotso AA 163 334 Chilchinbito 480 289 NAVAJO COUNTY 368 374 541 152 £ ¤ 1316 £ ¤ 89 6 AD Rough Rock AE 345 165 134 851 80 AF 52 89 59 53 978 386 290 £ ¤ Pinon 887 511 766 ?@ 448 AK 264 1104 Cottonwood AJ AL Old Oraibi 213 12 Chinle 1022 £ ¤ Hotevilla 271 11 749 869 414 61 AH 40 1272 AI 202 89 19 15 727 884 310 AG 52 Tuba City 30 Lukachukai APACHE COUNTY 160 851 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤377 191 99 263 Polacca AM 245 498 Gray Mountain Keams Canyon Kykotsmovi 7 Ganado 48 AN 177 £ ¤ 37 89 20 184 Window Rock 112 AO 12 45 -98 10 22 1588 724 2 ! AP 125 193 51 § ¦ ¨ AT 40 1142 1239 17 145 95 Flagstaff 125 927 § ¦ ¨ 1325 1339 1572 AU 662 6 ! 70 1962 § ¦ ¨ 191 87 27 39 Sanders AS 137 ?@ 99 40 572 821 AV 564 236 574 240 280 Winslow AW AY 42 37 § ¦ ¨ 40 267 65 43 304 29 BA 734 £ ¤ 180 ?@ ?@ 560 77 377 912 712 564 159 432 Heber 738 477 711 ?@ 260 BL 603 BF 40 ?@ 277 439 140 187 180 105 550 427 708 590 60 531 number is depth to water in feet letter is hydrograph Lakeside Greater than -30 Between -30 and -15 BM Show Low 180 271 299 BH 26 13 34 £ ¤ BN 85 265 292 53 ?@ 260 ?@ 373 ?@ ?@ 261 Greer 273 Greater than +30 Change Data Not Available COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place Consolidated Crystalline & Sedimentary Rocks Unconsolidated Sediments Aquifer Boundary 0 6 12 Miles ¨ Figure 2-19 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions 575 60 Between +1 and +15 "Bidahochi" Aquifer BO £ ¤ Between -1 and +1 "C" Aquifer "N" Aquifer "D" Aquifer BJ 191 61 32 Between +15 and +30 300 Saint Johns 211 BK 267 Concho Springerville Pinetop Between -15 and -1 ?@ £ ¤ 26 £ ¤ BP BI ?@ BG 499 489 698 191 Snowflake 789 887 £ ¤ BE 58 410 510 358 26 BD 573 668 AZ 320 BB 55 BC AX 209 c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ?@ 61 428 56 99 87 191 Holbrook ?@ ?@ £ ¤ 40 Joseph City 405 Generalized Flow Direction "Volcanic" Aquifer 57 397 § ¦ ¨ 77 24 623 40 23 ?@ 43 Water-level change in feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 AB § ¦ ¨ Lupton Navajo 603 375 £ ¤ 7 ?@ Leupp AQ Twin Buttes 178 254 77 16 192 109 BR £ ¤ 157 191 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 75 AA 1975 AB WELL DEPTH: 925 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY N-aquifer 08 022-07.34X12.44 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: 686 ft USE: UNUSED N-aquifer 08 039-00.70X01.57 BMOB 125 175 200 250 525 575 1975 AC 1975 AD 1975 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 N-aquifer 02 040-05.38X15.27 BMOB 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 720 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 N-aquifer 08 037-12.81X16.98 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 2005 54 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued 150 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 0 AE 1975 AF WELL DEPTH: 960 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY N- aquifer 01 058-11.71X12.08 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 612 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 N-aquifer 03 077-13.38X05.87 50 100 725 1975 AG 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2460 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 N-aquifer 04 074-08.95X02.95 BMOB 775 825 875 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 55 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued 0 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 175 225 1000 1050 200 AH 1975 AI 1975 AJ 1975 AK WELL DEPTH: 200 ft USE: UNUSED unknown aquifer 10 071-05.55X01.98 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 N-aquifer 03 077-11.59X14.61 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2905 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 sedimentary rocks (?) 10 072-07.01X13.28 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 361 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 D-aquifer 06 096-02.73X03.65 250 300 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 56 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued 200 AL WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC N-aquifer 06 095-06.50X08.61 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 250 300 1975 300 AM 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1106 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 N-aquifer 06 094-03.23X11.05 350 400 450 500 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 57 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued AN 150 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 1975 AO 0 50 1975 1950 AP 2000 1975 75 125 AQ 1975 WELL DEPTH: 390 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY unknown aquifer 17 109-10.13X00.78 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 141 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY unknown aquifer 18 108-04.48X01.55 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2200 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-23-08 21ABA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2200 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer 05 131-13.60X14.28 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 2005 58 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 100 50 100 1200 AR 1975 AS 1975 AT WELL DEPTH: 86 ft USE: DOMESTIC volcanic rocks A-22 06 26BDB1 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 250 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 C -aquifer A-21-27 25BBD2 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1600 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-21-06 35CBA 1250 1300 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 59 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued 550 AU WELL DEPTH: 1206 ft USE: UNUSED C-aquifer A-20-08 18BBB 600 650 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 700 550 600 0 50 0 50 1975 AV 1975 AW 1975 AX 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 640 ft USE: STOCK C-aquifer A-20-12H24CBB 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 610 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-19-16 36DBB 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 170 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 recent stream alluvium A-18-23 06CDC2 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 2005 60 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued 250 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 300 350 400 275 325 25 75 AY 1975 AZ 1975 BA 1975 BB 1975 WELL DEPTH: 293 ft USE: UNUSED C-aquifer A-18-14 13ABD3 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 420 ft USE: UNUSED Bidahochi Formation A-18-30 20CDD 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 570 FT USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-17-20 26DBC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-16-22 17CCD 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 2005 61 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued BC 650 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 700 1975 700 BD 750 1975 25 BE 75 1975 0 BF WELL DEPTH: 780 ft USE: STOCK C-aquifer A-15-12 15DDC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 860 ft USE: STOCK 2005 C aquifer A-15-17 02CCC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 425 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-15-23 28DDC1 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 410 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-aquifer A-14-26E18CBD2 50 100 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 62 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 250 BG WELL DEPTH: 328 ft USE: IRRIGATION C-aquifer A-13-21 24CCB 300 1975 250 300 5 0 50 1985 BH 1975 BI 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-13-27 15BDC WELL DEPTH: 574 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-13-26 06DCB WELL DEPTH: 447 UNUSED 100 150 200 250 Draft 1975 1985 YEAR 63 1995 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued 75 7 5 BJ C-aquifer A-13-29 05BAD WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: MONITORING Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 125 175 225 275 325 1975 125 BK 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 327 ft USE: STOCK 2005 C-aquifer A-13-29 35AAA 175 225 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 64 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 450 500 675 725 5 0 50 100 Draft BL 1975 BM 1975 BN 1975 C-aquifer A-12-17 33BDD WELL DEPTH: 603 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-11-24 22DBC WELL DEPTH: 850 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-11-28 22BDD2 WELL DEPTH: 550 ft USE: MONITORING 1985 YEAR 65 1995 2005 Figure 2-20. Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells - continued BO 500 C-aquifer A-11-29 20ABB WELL DEPTH: 1550 ft USE: MONITORING Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 550 600 1975 500 BP 1995 1985 WELL DEPTH: 750 FT USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY C-aquifer A-10-22 30ABA 550 1975 0 BQ 5 050 1975 150 BR 200 1975 1985 1995 2005 unknown aquifer A-09-22 36CBB WELL DEPTH: 200 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 226 ft USE: STOCK 2005 unknown aquifer A-07-30 14BDD 1985 1995 YEAR Draft 2005 66 2005 Draft T42N R10E R28E R26E R24E R22E R20E R18E R16E R14E R12E £ ¤ £ ¤ £ ¤ 160 160 89 Page T40N R30E Teec Nos Pos Dennehotso £ ¤ 163 89 £ ¤ £ ¤ 160 Kayenta £ ¤ 89A T38N ?@ 98 £ ¤ 160 ?@ 564 £ ¤ 191 £ ¤ 160 T36N Chilchinbito COCONINO COUNTY T34N £ ¤ 89 APACHE COUNTY Rough Rock NAVAJO COUNTY Lukachukai £ ¤ 160 Chinle Tuba City T32N Pinon £ ¤ 160 Cottonwood £ ¤ 89 ?@ T30N 264 £ ¤ Hotevilla 191 Old Oraibi Polacca T28N Gray Mountain Keams Canyon ?@ 264 Kykotsmovi Ganado £ ¤ 191 Window Rock T26N £ ¤ 2 ! 89 T24N Twin Buttes 6 ! £ ¤ 191 Lupton ?@ 87 Leupp T22N 180 £ ¤ Flagstaff § ¦ ¨ 40 40 ?@ 99 § ¦ ¨ 40 T20N § ¦ ¨ Sanders § ¦ ¨ 17 Navajo ?@ 77 § ¦ ¨ 40 191 40 Winslow T18N £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ ?@ Joseph City 61 Holbrook ?@ 87 T16N ?@ £ ¤ 99 180 ?@ £ ¤ 77 ?@ 377 191 T14N Snowflake T12N 277 Saint Johns 61 260 260 180 ?@ ?@ ?@ £ ¤ Concho ?@ Heber £ ¤ 191 Show Low T10N £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ 60 Lakeside £ ¤ 60 Springerville 67 T8N ?@ 260 Pinetop Greer ?@ 261 ?@ £ ¤ 273 T6N Well Yield Greater 2000 gal/min Between 1000 and 2000 gals/min 0 6 12 Miles ¨ c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Figure 2-21 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Well Yields Between 500 and 1000 gals/min Between 100 and 500 gals/min Less than 100 gals/min COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place Consolidated Crystalline & Sedimentary Rocks Unconsolidated Sediments 191 2.1.7 Water Quality of the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Drinking water standard exceedences in wells, springs and mine sites including location and parameter(s) exceeded are shown in Table 2-14A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 2-14B. Figure 2-22 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 2-14. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, springs and mine sites • Refer to Table 2-14A • Drinking water standard exceedences in wells, springs and at mine sites have been reported at 237 sites in the basin. • North of Highway 264, the parameters most frequently exceeded in the sites measured were thallium and radionuclides in both wells and springs • Between Highway 264 and Interstate 40, the parameter most frequently exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. There is a notable arsenic cluster in the vicinity of the Hopi communities of Polacca, Kykotsmovi and Keams Canyon. • South of Interstate 40 the parameters most frequently exceeded in the sites measured were arsenic and cadmium. • For the entire basin, the most frequently exceeded constituents measured, in order of greatest occurrence were arsenic, radionuclides, thallium, lead and TDS. Lakes and streams • Refer to Table 2-14B • Water quality standards were exceeded in eight lakes, and at two reaches on Nutrioso Creek and at six reaches of the Little Colorado River • The parameter most frequently exceeded in the lakes measured was mercury. • Turbidity was the most frequently exceeded parameter in the Little Colorado River and Nutrioso Creek. Draft 68 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedances in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Draft Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Well Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Mine Mine Spring Mine Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Well Well Mine Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Township Range Section Parameter(s) Exceeding Drinking Water Standard2 41 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 39 North 39 North 39 North 38 North 38 North 38 North 38 North 37 North 37 North 37 North 37 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 36 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 35 North 34 North 34 North 34 North 34 North 34 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 32 North 30 East 29 East 23 East 19 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 39 East 39 East 21 East 29 East 28 East 20 East 7 East 31 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 31 East 30 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 29 East 28 East 23 East 23 East 22 East 30 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 22 East 23 East 22 East 21 East 21 East 9 East 24 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 11 East 23 East 23 East 20 East 12 East 12 East 34 14 28 21 29 18 13 1 26 21 14 31 31 35 33 2 23 28 19 27 26 2 18 6 33 21 18 17 15 14 4 1 33 18 9 2 27 27 27 18 8 7 17 20 8 23 22 31 7 32 32 2 27 33 21 6 21 14 Tl Tl Pb As, Rad Rad Rad Rad As As As Rad Sb Tl Rad, Se, Tl Tl Rad Tl Rad, Tl Sb, Tl Rad, Tl Sb, Rad Tl Rad Tl Rad As, Rad, Se, Tl Tl As, Rad, Se, Tl Tl Pb Rad, Tl Tl Rad, Se As, Tl Pb Rad As As As Rad Rad, Tl Rad, Tl Tl Tl Tl As As, Tl Tl Se Tl Rad Rad Rad, Tl Tl Rad Tl As, Pb, Rad Tl 69 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedances in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines cont'd. Site Location Draft Map Key Site Type 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Spring Well Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Mine Well Well Mine Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Township Range Section Parameter(s) Exceeding Drinking Water Standard2 32 North 32 North 32 North 31 North 31 North 30 North 30 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 24 North 24 North 11 East 11 East 9 East 24 East 23 East 19 East 10 East 21 East 19 East 18 East 15 East 12 East 9 East 9 East 9 East 9 East 9 East 19 East 19 East 19 East 19 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 10 East 15 East 12 East 11 East 11 East 10 East 9 East 23 East 22 East 22 East 17 East 11 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 23 East 22 East 22 East 22 East 22 East 21 East 20 East 20 East 10 East 24 East 23 East 33 29 2 5 21 25 16 5 33 26 12 7 33 25 22 15 11 21 21 9 9 22 14 14 28 27 27 26 26 26 9 9 5 16 27 26 19 6 11 35 35 31 7 14 16 9 2 19 35 35 17 6 22 34 22 30 24 1 Tl Tl As, Tl Tl Rad Pb Rad AS, TDS Fl Se NO3 Tl TDS As, Ba, Pb, Rad TDS NO3 As, Ba, Be, Cd, Pb, Rad As As As As As, Pb As As As As As As As As As As Pb NO3 As, Rad As, Rad, Tl As, Rad Pb TDS As, Rad As As TDS As, Rad, Tl TDS TDS Tl As, Rad As Ba Tl As Tl Ba, Tl As As Pb As As, Rad, Se, Tl 70 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedances in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines cont'd. Site Location Draft Map Key Site Type 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 Well Spring Spring Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Exceeding Drinking Water Standard2 24 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 18 East 23 East 22 East 21 East 19 East 17 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 31 East 30 East 30 East 21 East 19 East 18 East 8 East 6 East 6 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 6 East 6 East 29 East 28 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 25 East 25 East 19 East 28 East 26 East 25 East 23 East 23 East 16 East 16 East 11 4 8 14 21 24 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 27 22 4 9 10 27 26 26 30 30 28 24 24 23 20 13 10 35 25 25 25 25 20 20 19 9 25 23 20 32 28 26 4 28 15 15 4 32 11 19 3 28 20 Ba As, Rad As Ba Ba As Rad Rad Cd Pb As Cd Pb Cd Rad Cd Cd, Rad Tl As As Ba NO3 NO3 Rad Rad Cd Cd As Rad As Cd As, Cd, Rad Be Be F As, Cd Pb, NO3 As TDS As As As, Sb As As As As Rad As F F TDS As As Cd, Rad TDS Rad TDS TDS 71 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedances in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines cont'd. Site Location Draft Map Key Site Type 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well 3 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Exceeding Drinking Water Standard2 19 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 9 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 26 East 22 East 19 East 30 East 28 East 28 East 25 East 22 East 18 East 30 East 30 East 27 East 27 East 25 East 16 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 27 East 21 East 21 East 28 East 28 East 28 East 26 East 18 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 16 East 29 East 29 East 28 East 22 East 21 East 20 East 19 East 14 East 25 East 25 East 23 East 22 East 22 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 20 East 20 East 23 East 22 East 22 East 29 East 23 East 17 16 16 8 13 17 28 14 35 18 6 14 9 21 7 15 1 4 9 29 28 20 31 26 26 18 17 17 13 28 33 32 30 21 15 28 7 9 23 34 29 18 11 22 22 22 32 14 13 3 3 20 13 22 26 25 9 10 Ba As, Rad As, Rad Be, F, TDS F TDS Cd, Pb TDS TDS NO3 F F TDS F F TDS TDS As As F TDS F NO3 NO3 NO3 F As F Be As Cd, Se As, Cd, Se Cd, Se Cd, Se Pb As As As As As, Cd As, Cd Cd As Cd Cd Cd Cd As Pb As As, Cd Cd, Pb, Se Be, Cd Cd Pb, Cd Cd Pb Cu, Pb 72 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedances in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines cont'd. Site Location Map Key Site Type 233 234 235 236 237 Well Well Spring Spring Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Exceeding Drinking Water Standard2 7 North NA NA NA NA 26 East NA NA NA NA 14 NA NA NA NA NO3 Pb, Tl As, Pb, Rad Tl Tl B. Lakes and Streams Draft Designated Use Standard4 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 55 A&W, AgI, AgL, FBC DO, Se 12 NA A&W Turbidity Little Colorado River (Porter Tank to McDonalds Wash) 17 NA A&W Cu, Ag River Little Colorado River (Silver Creek to Carr Wash) 6 NA A&W Pb e River Little Colorado River (unnamed tributary to Lyman Lake) 3 NA A&W Turbidity f River Little Colorado River (Water Canyon Creek to Nutrioso Creek) 4 NA A&W Turbidity g River Little Colorado River (West Fork to Water Canyon Creek 20 NA A&W Turbidity h Lake Long Lake (lower) NA 323 FC Hg Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) Map Key Site Type Site Name a Lake Bear Canyon NA b River Little Colorado River (Nutrioso Creek to Carnero Wash) c River d 73 Table 2-14 Water Quality Exceedances in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin B. Lakes and Streams cont'd. Designated Use Standard4 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 764 FC Hg NA 1,308 FC Hg Nutrioso Creek (headwaters to Picnic Creek) 27 NA A&W Turbidity Stream Nutrioso Creek (Picnic Creek to Little Colorado River) 4 NA A&W Turbidity m Lake Rainbow NA 111 A&W, AgI, AgL, FBC DO, NO3, P, pH n Lake Soldiers NA 28 FC Hg o Lake Soldiers Annex NA 122 FC Hg p Lake Upper Lake Mary NA 760 FC Hg Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) Map Key Site Type Site Name i Lake Lower Lake Mary NA j Lake Lyman k Stream l Notes: NA = Not applicable Most water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2003. One sample was collected in 1951. 2 Sb = Antimony As = Arsenic Ba = Barium Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate/Nitrite P = Phosphorous Se = Selenium Ag = Silver TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Tl = Thallium Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium 3 Conflicting locational information 4 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife AgI = Agricultural Irrigation AgL = Agricultural Livestock Watering FBC = Full Body Contact FC = Fish Consumption 1 Draft 74 Draft T42N R10E £ ¤ 89 4 , & Page T40N , & R28E R26E R24E R22E R20E R18E R16E R14E R12E £ ¤ Dennehotso 163 , && , 10 & ,& , ,5 & £ ¤ 89A T38N , & 89 £ ¤ Kayenta 17 18 , & 14 Chilchinbito & , 35 £ ¤ & 34 , , 33 & 42 & ,& 41 , 43 & , 40 & , 37 , & Rough Rock 39 47 & 38 , 45 ,& & , 46 , 44 52 & ,& & , 49 160 COCONINO COUNTY T34N & 48 , NAVAJO COUNTY £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ 89 Pinon , & 65 , & 95 , , & & 105 & , 104 & , , , 103 & & 89 T26N 264 94 , 93 & , & , & T24N R io T20N 157 , & ?@ 87 136 & , Leupp 120 & , 121& , 156 155 ?@ 264 98 , Twin Buttes & , & , 119 & 115 191 118 i § ¦ ¨ ?@ 99 p & 175 , 77 § ¦ ¨ 40 T18N T16N o h ?@ 187 ?@ 87 171 161 & 169 , ,& 178 & , Holbrook 180 ?@ 177 61 176 , & , & & 181 , 186 , & 99 , & d ?@ £ ¤ 180 , & , & , & , & 192 190 , & T14N £ ¤ T12N ?@ , & 217 ?@ 260 , & & , 208 ,& 207 & ,, 205 & 206 , & Snowflake , & T10N 216 , & 215 214 , & , & , & & , , 224 & ?@ 223 & , 221 , 222 & Lakeside 230 220 , ,& 229 & T8N 75 m & , & , ,& & , 218 , & j 195 201 & 211 , , 210 e & 60 b 219 ?@ 260 Greer 189 188 Saint Johns £ ¤ & , , 232 228 & Pinetop 191 182 , & 202 212 & , 61 Show Low , 225 & & , 226 227 213 £ ¤ 191 194 , , ,& & 203 & , 200 & 204 , & 183 196 197 Concho & , & 199 , 277 209 Heber a , & , & 180 198 184 , & 77 193 179 185 ?@ 377 132 , & , & & 143 ,& ,& ,, , & ,& ,& & 164 & 142 144 , Navajo 166 & 150 152146 , , 160 & 165 & , , ,& & ,& 163 & , 40 162 168 § ¦ &,170 ¨ , & Joseph City c n 172 ?@ 174 & 173 , , & Winslow 131 125 126 127 124 , 128 & , & 129 , 130 & 133 & , , 123 & 145 151 141 140 148 147 , & 149 , & 167 , & Lupton £ ¤ , 137 & 40 Window Rock & 134 , , 135 & , 153 & 237 Ganado & 109 & , , , 111 & & , 107 108 & , , & , 116 & ! De 159 ,& & , , & ,,& 158 & , & 112 & , 117 6 122 & , , & 191 236 , , 106 & & , & 110 & , 113 2 ! Flagstaff £ ¤ 100 99 102 , 114 & 139 154 Fl ag , & 69 Hotevilla , 66 & , Old Oraibi & 68 90 8986& , & , 67 Polacca 78 , 80 & & , & Keams Canyon , & 83 , , & , & , & 79 , & , & 88 8177 76 92 Kykotsmovi 82 , & 87 101 84 85 ?@ , 70 & 74 & , , & 73 & , , 72 & , & 71 & , 91 96 Chinle , 64 & 75 , 97 & && , , 235 Cottonwood & 63 , £ ¤ T30N 234 & 55 , , 54 & & , 62 89 £ ¤ 191 && , , 51 , 56 & 53 & , Tuba City , 60 & ,& ,& & , 59 57 58 61 T32N T28N Gray Mountain £ ¤ 50 , & T22N 138 ,& & , 22 19 20 31 , & 21 , 24 ,& & , , & 32 & , & 27 ,& ,, 30 23 & ,& & , ,& & , 29 28 26 & 36 & , 25 APACHE Lukachukai COUNTY 564 T36N & , , & ?@ 98 12 15 16 160 ?@ Teec Nos Pos 13 , & £ ¤ 1 , & 9 160 £ ¤ &8 , ,7 & 11 6 £ ¤ 160 2 , & 160 3 £ ¤ R30E g f l Springerville £ ¤ 60 , 231 & @ , 233? & 261 k £ ¤ 191 T6N 0 6 12 Miles ¨ c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Figure 2-22 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions Well , Spring or Mine Site with Recorded MCL Exceedence Effluent Dependent Reach Impaired Stream or Lake Consolidated Crystaline and Sedimentary Rocks Unconsolidated Sediments COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place 123 a 2.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells, and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 2-15. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 2-16. Figure 2-23 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 2.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • • • • • • • • • • • • Refer to Table 2-15 and Figure 2-23. Population increased by an average of 3,700 people per year between 1980 and 2000. Projections suggest a more rapid rate of growth through 2050. Total groundwater pumping is increasing with an average of 122,000 acre-feet pumped per year in the period from 2001-2003. Total surface water diversions are estimated to be comparable to historic diversion volumes with 82,500 acre-feet diverted per year in the period from 2001-2003. Municipal surface water diversions, however appear to be declining. Approximately 4,000 acre-feet of surface water is diverted per year for municipal use Most high intensity municipal and industrial (M&I) use is found in the population centers of Flagstaff, Page, Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside, Taylor/Snowflake and Winslow/Holbrook. Industrial use has remained relatively constant with an average of 86,500 acre-feet of surface water and groundwater used per year during the 2001-2003 period. Approximately two-thirds of the industrial water supply is groundwater. Location of power plants and mines are shown on Figure 2-23 including the extent of the large Black Mesa and Kayenta coal mines south of Kayenta. Power plants/electrical generating stations are Cholla, near Joseph City, Coronado near St. Johns, Navajo at Page and the Springerville power plant located northeast of Springerville. Agricultural use is estimated to have declined slightly since 1991 Surface water is the primary agricultural water supply, comprising about 60% of the total supply. Large tracts of agricultural lands are found along Highway 191 on the Navajo Reservation and in the vicinity of Snowflake, Springerville, Saint Johns and Holbrook. The large agricultural area northeast of Heber is pasture irrigated with wastewater from the Abitibi paper mill, an industrial user. Effluent Generation • • • • • Draft Refer to Table 2-16. There are 61 wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. The population served appears to be overestimated for the basin as a whole. Multiple databases were used to compile the effluent generation information and may contain flawed population estimates. More than 36,000 acre-feet of effluent per year are generated in the basin. Almost a third of this volume is generated by a single facility, the Abitibi paper mill. Nine facilities discharge waste water for irrigation. 76 • • Draft Effluent is used to irrigate seven golf courses. Discharge from 14 facilities recharges the aquifer through an unlined impoundment. There are no facilities permitted by the Department as Underground Storage Facilities. 77 Table 2-15 Cultural Demands in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Year Recent (Census) and Projected (DES) Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 1971 1972 60,000 85,000 1973 1974 1975 2,8652 7452 1976 1977 77,000 85,000 1978 1979 1980 175,451 1981 178,851 1982 182,252 892 88 90,000 85,000 1983 185,652 1984 189,052 1985 192,452 1986 195,853 1987 199,253 1988 202,653 691 36 93,000 85,000 1989 206,053 209,454 1990 3 1991 213,493 1992 217,532 768 31 21,000 53,000 35,500 7,100 30,500 50,000 1993 221,571 1994 225,610 1995 229,649 1996 233,688 1997 237,727 1,181 39 24,500 54,000 34,500 5,500 32,000 48,500 1998 241,766 1999 245,805 2000 249,844 2001 255,141 467 15 29,000 56,500 34,500 4,000 30,000 48,500 2002 260,437 2003 265,734 2010 302,811 2020 342,207 2030 381,697 2040 423,531 473,296 2050 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 4 553 4 WELL TOTALS: 7,417 958 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 In 1990, 113,000 acre-feet were used for municipal and industrial demands and 89,000 acre-feet were used for irrigation. 4 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. Draft 78 Data Source ADWR (1994) ADWR (2003, 2004a,b & 2005), Truini (2005), USGS (2005), WIFA (2005) Draft £ ¤ 160 Page R NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION £ ¤ 160 Dennehotso £ ¤ 163 £ ¤ 160 89 £ ¤ £ ¤ Teec Nos Pos Kayenta 89A B ?@ ?@ 564 98 Chilchinbito £ ¤ 191 Lukachukai Rough Rock B £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ 89 HOPI INDIAN RESERVATION Tuba City Chinle HOPI INDIAN RESERVATION (MOENKOPI UNIT) B Pinon Cottonwood Hotevilla ?@ 264 Old Oraibi Polacca Kykotsmovi Gray Mountain Keams Canyon NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ B 191 Window Rock ?@ 264 Ganado B 2 ! 6 ! B Twin Buttes B ?@ Lupton 87 £ ¤ Leupp Flagstaff 180 40 B § ¦ ¨ 40 ?@ 99 § ¦ ¨ 40 § ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ Sanders Navajo 17 ?@ Winslow B § ¦ ¨ 40 87 B R 191 ?@ 61 Holbrook ?@ £ ¤ 180 99 ?@ ?@ 77 377 ?@ 277 Heber £ ¤ 40 Joseph City B ?@ § ¦ ¨ 77 B B ZUNI HEAVEN INDIAN RESERVATION ?@ Snowflake R £ ¤ 180 180 Concho Saint Johns B ?@ ?@ ?@ 61 260 260 £ ¤ 60 BShow Low R £ ¤ 191 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ 60 Lakeside 79 ?@ B 260 Pinetop Greer ?@ 273 ?@ Springerville £ ¤ 191 261 Demand Centers Agriculture M&I - High Intensity 0 6 12 Miles ¨ c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Primary Data Source: USGS National Gap Analysis Program, 2004 Figure 2-23 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand M&I - Low Intensity Large Mine Small Mine/Quarry B Power Plant R Indian Reservations COUNTY Interstate Highway Major Road City, Town or Place ! Draft Table 2-16 Effluent Generation in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Abitibi Private Industrial NA 11,862 550 62 Disposal Method Water-course Evaporation Irrigation Pond Wildlife Area Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Primary NA 2005 X NA 70 2000 X Secondary 100 2000 Discharge to Groundwater Another Recharge Facility X Bacobi WWTP Hopi Tribe Bacobi Bison Ranch WWTP Private Overgaard NA Black Mesa Ranger District Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Forest Service Facilities NA Black Mesa Sewer System Navajo Nation Black Mesa 305 Golf Course/Turf Irrigation 34 Cameron WWTF Navajo Nation Cameron 190 11 NA 380 2000 Chilchinbito Sewer System Navajo Nation Chilchinbeto 150 17 X Secondary 600 1999 Chinle WWTP Navajo Nation Chinle 7,775 493 X Secondary 750 1998 Cottonwood Sewer System Navajo Nation Cottonwood 1,000 112 X Secondary 645 2000 Dennehotso Navajo Nation Dennehotso 1,000 112 X Secondary 1,115 2000 Dilkon WWTF Navajo Nation Dilkon 1,408 134 X Secondary 850 2000 Eager WWTP Town of Eagar Eagar 4,500 269 Adv. Trt.II 1,400 2001 Flagstaff Ranch Development WWTP X NA Flagstaff Ranch NA NA 80 Private Flagstaff Fort Valley Meadow Subdivision Private Flagstaff Ganado Burnwater Phase IX Navajo Nation Ganado 3,000 336 X Secondary 500 1998 Ganado WWTP Navajo Nation Ganado 851 157 X Secondary 51 1996 Ganado Wood Springs II Navajo Nation Ganado NA 45 X NA NA 2000 NA 2003 NA Glen Canyon NRA WWTF National Park Service Recreation Area Greenhaven WWTP Private Page Greer WWTP Little Colorado SD Greer 600 56 X Secondary 300 2000 Houck Burnwater Phase I Navajo Nation Houck 300 34 X Secondary 300 2001 Inscription House Septics Navajo Nation Inscription House 1,000 112 X Secondary 250 2000 Joseph City WWTF Town of Joseph City Joseph City 1,300 314 X Secondary 60 2000 Kachina Village WWTP Kachina Village ID Kachina Village 5,000 426 Secondary NA 2001 Secondary 750 2000 26 13 X X Laguana & Chinle Washes Kayenta WWTP Navajo Nation Kayenta 3,270 627 Le Chee Sewer System Navajo Nation Le Chee 150 17 X Secondary 165 2000 Leupp WWTF Navajo Nation Leupp 400 45 X Secondary NA 1999 Linden Trails WWTP NA Show Low Secondary 1,540 2000 Secondary 620 2000 NA Livco Sewer Co. Private Concho NA 3 X Lukachukai Navajo Nation Lukachukai 200 22 X Many Farms Navajo Nation Many Farms 685 34 Moenkopi WWTF Hopi Tribe Moenkopi 1,385 NA X Navajo Govt. Complex Navajo County Holbrook 700 45 X X NA 2003 NA Secondary NA 2004 Draft Table 2-16 Effluent Generation in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Nazali WWTF Navajo Nation Ganado Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) 1,493 157 X X Oraibi Hopi Tribe Oraibi 500 56 Page WWTF City of Page Page 7,500 1,120 Painted Mesa WWTF City of Holbrook Holbrook 6,000 728 Pinetop-Lakeside SD PinetopLakeside 20,000 1,792 Pinetop Lakeside WWTF Disposal Method Population Served Pinon WWTP Navajo Nation Pinon 2,050 213 Rio De Flag WWTP 1 City of Flagstaff Flagstaff 20,000 2,722 Rough Rock WWTF Navajo Nation Rough Rock 839 11 Water-course Evaporation Irrigation Pond Wildlife Area Golf Course/Turf Irrigation Discharge to Groundwater Another Recharge Facility Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary NA 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Adv. Trt. I NA 2000 Adv. Trt.I NA 2004 Adv. Trt. II 2,200 2004 Secondary 700 2000 Adv. Trt. II NA 2004 Secondary 635 2000 X Secondary 1,500 2004 Secondary NA 2000 Lake Powell X X X Hidden Cove X NA Rio De Flag X X X NA NA Sanders Unifed School District NA Sanders Show Low WWTF City of Show Low Show Low 8,800 896 Shungopavi WWTF Hopi Tribe Shungopavi 400 45 X X 81 Sipaulovi WWTF Hopi Tribe Sipaulovi 500 56 Snowflake WWTF Town of Snowflake Snowflake 3,600 282 Springerville WWTF Town of Springerville Springerville 1,400 224 St. Johns WWTP Town of St. John's St.Johns 3,340 446 St. Micheals WWTF Hopi Tribe St.Micheals 500 50 Sweetwater Sewer System Navajo Nation Sweetwater 200 22 Taylor WWTF Town of Taylor Taylor 2,400 202 X X NA X X X X Secondary 200 2000 Adv.Trt.I 600 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary 159 2000 Secondary 450 1999 Secondary 200 2001 Secondary 1,200 2004 Tec Nos Pos WWTF Navajo Nation Tec Nos Pos 400 22 X Secondary 1,399 2000 Tolani-Red Lake Sewer System Navajo Nation Tolani-Red Lake 100 11 X Secondary 100 2000 Tsaile WWTF Navajo Nation Tsaile 4,861 448 Tuba City WWTF Navajo Nation Tuba City 12,443 448 X X 500 2000 350 2000 Secondary 245 1999 Adv. Trt II NA 2004 Secondary 2,215 2000 Adv. Tr. I NA 2004 NA Waweep WWTF National Park Service Park Wide Ruins Sewer System Navajo Nation Wide Ruin 245 11 Wildcat WWTP City of Flagstaff Flagstaff 60,988 8,177 Rio De Flag Window Rock WWTP Navajo Nation Window Rock 10,650 986 Black Creek Winslow WWTF City of Winslow Winslow 9,800 2,016 Ruby Wash Notes: NA: Data not currently available to ADWR NRA: National Recreation Area WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WRP: Water Reclamation Plant SD: Sanitation District ID: Improvement District Adv. Tr. l: Advanced treatment level l Adv. Tr. ll: Advanced treatment level ll Secondary Secondary X X X X 2.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 2-17. Figure 2-24 shows the location of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.1. • • • • A total of 245 determinations of water adequacy have been made through May, 2005. 104 determinations of inadequacy have been made, primarily in the vicinity of Flagstaff, Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside. The primary reason for a determination of inadequacy was insufficient data on physical and continuous water availability. The number of lots receiving an adequacy determination, by county, are: County Apache Coconino Navajo Total Draft Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate 2,973 2,312 5,187 10,472 4,387 3,597 7,750 15,734 82 Percent Adequate 68 64 67 66 Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 22-401052 Inadequate A1, A2 05/07/04 A-1 Ranch Homeowners Adequate --- 12/02/76 Town of Eager 1 A-1 Ranch Coconino 21 North 6 East 15 33 2 Amity Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 7 23 3 Anasazi Trails Coconino 22 North 8 East 10, 15 17 22-401071 Inadequate A1, A2 10/14/03 Doney Park Water Company 4 Apache Trails Unit One (amended) Apache 10 North 24 East 11 94 22-400112 Inadequate C 07/30/99 Cedar Grove Water Company 5 Arizona Rancheros, Rancho 36 Navajo 18 North 22 East 9 21 22-400335 Inadequate C 06/28/00 Sun Valley Utilities 6 Arrowhead Estates Coconino 21 North 7 East 9 8 Inadequate A2, A3 08/08/88 Dry Lot Subdivision 7 Aspen Glen Coconino 22 North 8 East 27 28 22-300069 Inadequate A1 12/05/95 Doney Park Water Company 8 Aspen Shadows Coconino 21 North 6 East 25 390 22-300242 Adequate --- 08/11/97 Flagstaff Ranch Water Company 9 Bar D Ranches Coconino 22 North 8 East 23 15 22-400979 Inadequate A1, A2 07/30/03 Doney Park Water Company 10 Bear Country Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 22 22-400036 Adequate --- 03/24/99 Arizona Water Company Inadequate D 03/02/87 Belair Estates HOA 22-400431 Inadequate A1 12/01/00 Town of Eager Adequate --- 06/21/89 Ponderosa DWID 11 Belair Estates Apache 10 North 24 East 9 10 12 Benny Jay Heights Apache 8 North 29 East 17 9 13 Bent Oak Navajo 8 North 23 East 2, 11 71 83 14 Bison Cabin Resort II Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 33 22-400516 Adequate --- 04/02/02 Arizona Water Company 15 Bison Ranch Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 39 22-400080 Adequate --- 06/02/99 Arizona Water Company 16 Bison Ranch Resort Suites Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 88 22-401659 Adequate --- 05/25/05 Arizona Water Company 17 Bison Ranch, Parcel C3 Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 22 22-400572 Adequate --- 09/21/01 Arizona Water Company 18 Bison Resort Cabins Navajo 11 North 17 East 3 57 22-400257 Adequate --- 03/06/00 Arizona Water Company 19 Bison Resort Cabins III Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 57 22-400691 Adequate --- 04/02/02 Arizona Water Company Navajo 12 North 17 East 33, 34 34 22-400447 Adequate --- 01/19/01 Arizona Water Company 20 21 Bison Town I (Parcels B1 & B2) Bison Town II (Parcels B3 & B4) Navajo 12 North 17 East 33, 34 25 22-400446 Adequate --- 01/19/01 Arizona Water Company 22 Blue Ridge Estates Coconino 15 North 12 East 32 193 22-300463 Adequate --- 06/12/98 Starlight Water Company 23 Blue Valley Apache 8 North 29 East 16 8 Adequate --- 05/14/76 Town of Eager 24 Brewer Acres Navajo 13 North 21 East 23 20 Adequate --- 11/03/75 Town of Snowflake 25 Burdon Ranch Estates Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 131 Inadequate A1 12/06/84 Dry Lot Subdivision 26 Bushman Acres Navajo 13 North 21 East 26 48 Adequate --- 08/11/76 Town of Snowflake 27 Casitas of Pinetop Navajo 9 North 23 East 32 28 Inadequate A1 10/31/80 Pinetop Water Company 28 Cedar Ridge Apache 8 North 29 East 10 49 Adequate --- 08/22/83 Town of Eager 29 Cedar Ridge #1 Apache 10 North 24 East 10 13 Inadequate A1 11/06/91 Dry Lot Subdivision 30 Cedar Ridge #2 Apache 10 North 24 East 4 5 Inadequate A1 07/09/87 Dry Lot Subdivision 31 Central Center Navajo 10 North 22 East 20 10 Inadequate A1 06/21/84 City of Show Low Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 32 Cheney Ranch Location Township Range Section No. of Lots Navajo 10 North 21 East 8, 9 168 ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate --- 04/17/86 White Mountain Water Company 33 Cholla Subdivision Navajo 13 North 21 East 36 12 Adequate --- 03/04/81 Town of Taylor 34 Chu-Vista Estates Navajo 12 North 22 East 30 NA Inadequate D 05/12/87 Dry Lot Subdivision 35 Cinder Forest Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 26, 27, 35, 36 82 Inadequate A2 01/16/74 Dry Lot Subdivision 36 Cinder Mountain Navajo 8 North 23 East 11 65 Adequate --- 09/17/73 Ponderosa Water Company 37 Circle G at Temple Hill Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 23 Adequate --- 05/22/02 Town of Snowflake 38 Cobblecreek Development Navajo 11 North 20 East 32 47 Adequate --- 05/12/87 Pinedale DWID 39 Concho Valley # 1B Apache 12 North 26 East 18 21 Adequate --- 05/11/82 LIVCO Water Company 22-400715 40 Concho Valley # 5A Apache 12 North 26 East 19 108 Adequate --- 07/16/79 LIVCO Water Company 41 Concho Valley # 5B Apache 12 North 26 East 19 192 Adequate --- 06/23/80 LIVCO Water Company 42 Concho Valley # 9 Apache 12 North 26 East 29 181 Adequate --- 08/23/89 LIVCO Water Company 84 43 Concho Valley # 9A Apache 12 North 26 East 19 117 Adequate --- 05/23/91 LIVCO Water Company 44 Concho Valley # 10 Apache 12 North 26 East 7, 8 193 Adequate --- 05/23/91 LIVCO Water Company 45 Concho Valley # 12 Apache 12 North 26 East 8 303 Adequate --- 07/30/92 LIVCO Water Company 46 Concho Valley # 18 Apache 12 North 26 East 8, 9 203 Adequate --- 03/05/93 LIVCO Water Company 47 Concho Valley # 33 Apache 12 North 26 East 33 82 Adequate --- 01/15/85 LIVCO Water Company 48 Condominium at Pine Creek Navajo 9 North 23 East 31 101 Inadequate A1 10/03/86 Pinetop Water Company 49 Cool Water Acres Navajo 17 North 19 East 12 25 Adequate --- 05/23/84 Dry Lot Subdivision 50 Cosnino Equestrian Estates Coconino 21 North 9 East 7, 8 30 Adequate --- 08/28/73 Black Bill & Doney Park WUA 51 Cosnino Equestrian # 2 Coconino 21 North 9 East 8, 9 77 Adequate --- 03/21/79 Black Bill & Doney Park WUA 52 Cottonwood Ranch Navajo 19 North 16 East 7 47 Inadequate A1 06/19/85 Dry Lot Subdivision 53 Country Club Estates # 1 Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 18 Adequate --- 10/31/83 Town of Snowflake 54 Country Club Manor # 1 Navajo 10 North 21 East 14 60 Adequate --- 09/13/78 City of Show Low 55 Country Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 10 20 Adequate --- 09/11/80 Town of Eager 56 Eagle Ridge Apache 11 North 24 East 34 54 22-300464 Adequate --- 12/28/98 Cedar Grove Water Company 57 Eagle View Park Coconino 22 North 8 East 10 11 22-401404 Inadequate D 09/02/04 Doney Park Water Company 58 East Highland Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 23 49 Adequate --- 05/23/79 Town of Snowflake 59 East Valley Acres Apache 8 North 29 East 2 12 Inadequate A1 08/21/86 Town of Eager 60 El Rancho Grande Navajo 12 North 21 East 6 46 61 Elk Crest Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 18 72 62 Elk Meadow Apache 6 North 29 East 1 8 22-400164 Inadequate A1 03/14/84 Dry Lot Subdivision Inadequate A1 11/30/99 Town of Eager Adequate --- 05/30/89 Elk Meadow HOA Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 63 Ellkins Acres Navajo Location Township Range Section No. of Lots 10 North 21 East 24 51 ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 22-401991 Inadequate A1 08/18/03 Park Valley Water Company 64 Escondido Apache 8 North 29 East 7, 8 48 Adequate --- 08/22/79 Town of Eager 65 Escondido # 2 (amended) Apache 8 North 29 East 18 57 Adequate --- 05/21/82 Town of Eager 66 Escudilla Mountain Estates Units 1, 2 & 3 Apache 7 North 30 East 31 74 22-300583 Inadequate A1 12/15/98 Dry Lot Subdivision 67 Evergreen Estates Unit I Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 24 22-400725 Inadequate A1 05/22/02 Pineview Water Company 68 Fairway Park Center Navajo 10 North 21 East 23 26 Adequate --- 09/24/76 Fairway Park 69 Foothills # 2 Apache 8 North 29 East 9 36 Adequate --- 12/21/79 Town of Eager 70 Forest Trails # 1 Navajo 12 North 17 East 28 170 Adequate --- 07/20/84 Arizona Water Company 85 71 Forest Trails # 2 Navajo 12 North 17 East 28 207 Adequate --- 05/13/85 Arizona Water Company 72 Forest Trails # 3B Navajo 12 North 17 East 28 49 22-300004 Adequate --- 04/03/95 Arizona Water Company 73 Fort Valley Meadows-Lots 56-65 Coconino 22 North 6 East 26 10 22-400139 Inadequate A2 07/30/99 Community well 74 Fort Valley Pines Coconino 22 North 6 East 34 11 22-400898 Inadequate A1 03/12/03 Dry Lot Subdivision 75 Frontier Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 202 22-400564 Adequate --- 08/30/01 Town of Snowflake 76 Frontier Hills Coconino 22 North 8 East 24 33 Inadequate A1, A2 05/04/94 Doney Park Water Company 77 G Flake Subdivision Navajo 13 North 21 East 22 NA Adequate --- 09/28/01 Town of Snowflake 78 Gobbler Peak Estates Apache 6 North 29 East 1 28 Adequate --- 10/24/91 Dry Lot Subdivision 79 Golden Lockett Coconino 21 North 7 East 3 14 Inadequate A1, A2 05/23/03 NA 80 Grand View Estates # 1 Apache 8 North 29 East 18 58 Adequate --- 07/26/82 Town of Eager 81 Green Valley Acres Apache 8 North 29 East 16 198 Adequate --- 02/26/75 Town of Eager 82 Green Valley Ranches Navajo 11 North 22 East 6 22 Adequate --- 09/01/76 Subdivision wells 83 Greer Acres Apache 7 North 27 East 2 14 Inadequate A1 12/08/99 Dry Lot Subdivision 22-400583 22-400951 22-400209 84 Greer Lodge Estates Apache 7 North 27 East 14 16 Adequate --- 09/13/94 Greer Meadows HOA 85 Greer Mountain Subdivision Apache 7 North 27 East 14 24 Adequate --- 07/11/95 Greer Mountain Subdivision Joint Venture 86 Greer View Estates Apache 7 North 27 East 12 22 22-400001 Adequate --- 03/04/99 Dry Lot Subdivision 87 Hacienda Pines-Unit 1 Navajo 10 North 21 East 25 68 22-300448 Adequate --- 04/23/98 City of Show Low 88 Harvest Valley Navajo 12 North 21 East 5 10 Adequate --- 02/24/76 Dry Lot Subdivision Club at Hidden Ranch HOA 89 Hidden Meadow Ranch Apache 9 North 27 East 30 52 22-400654 Inadequate B 05/13/02 90 High Country Pines II - Unit I Navajo 12 North 16 East 15 n/a 22-300405 Adequate --- 01/08/98 91 High Country Pines II - Unit 2 Navajo 12 North 16 East 15 74 22-400127 Adequate --- 07/21/99 92 High Country Pines Inc. Navajo 12 North 16 East 15 142 Adequate --- 04/26/85 93 Highland Park-Unit 5, Phase 1 Navajo 13 North 21 East 26 12 Adequate --- 06/24/96 22-300161 High Country Pines Water Company High Country Pines Water Company High Country Pines Water Company Town of Snowflake Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 94 Hillcrest Apache Location Township Range Section No. of Lots 8 North 29 East 3, 4 36 ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate --- 01/29/76 Town of Eager 95 Homestead at Torreon-Unit 1 Navajo 10 North 21 East 25, 26 109 22-300437 Adequate --- 03/31/98 City of Show Low 96 Hutchinson Acres Coconino 22 North 8 East 9, 16 95 22-400459 Inadequate A1 03/23/01 Doney Park Water Company 97 J. L. Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 4 11 Adequate --- 07/23/76 Town of Eager 98 Koch Field East Coconino 22 North 8 East 25 10 Inadequate A2 04/26/93 Doney Park Water Company 99 Laguna Estates # 1 Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 151 Inadequate A1 07/07/86 High Country Water 100 Linden Trails Navajo 10 North 21 East 3, 4 96 22-401605 Adequate --- 03/16/05 Mountain Glen Water Service 101 Lockett Estates Coconino 21 North 7 East 4 16 22-400415 Inadequate A1, A3 11/13/00 Community well 102 Mahogany Run Subdivision Coconino 21 North 7 East 3, 4 7 22-400716 Inadequate A3 05/21/02 Dry Lot Subdivision 103 Majestic Views Estates Coconino 22 North 6 East 26 28 22-401616 Inadequate A1 01/12/05 Majestic Views DWID 104 Mogollon Airpark Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 27 Adequate --- 01/03/86 Arizona Water Company 86 105 Mogollon Airpark # 3 Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 59 Adequate --- 05/15/87 Arizona Water Company 106 Mogollon Airpark # 4A Navajo 12 North 17 East 34 52 Adequate --- 10/06/93 Arizona Water Company 107 Mogollon Air Park # 4B Navajo 12 North 17 East 27, 34 36 108 Mogollon Airpark # 6 Navajo 12 North 17 East 27, 34 52 109 Mogollon Airpark Properties Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 54 110 Mogollon Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 27, 34 70 111 Mountain Pine Ranch- Unit I Apache 10 North 24 East 5 57 112 Mountain Pine Ranch-Unit II Apache 10 North 24 East 5 57 113 Mountain Pines Estates Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 86 114 Mountain View Apache 12 North 28 East 4 55 22-300042 22-300167 22-400107 Adequate --- 04/06/94 Arizona Water Company Adequate --- 07/25/95 Arizona Water Company Adequate --- 03/06/85 Arizona Water Company Adequate --- 07/15/96 Arizona Water Company Inadequate A1 04/13/93 Dry Lot Subdivision Inadequate A1 06/29/99 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate --- 09/01/83 Ponderosa Water Company Adequate --- 12/30/76 Mountain View Water Company 115 Mountain View # 2 Apache 12 North 28 East 4 32 Adequate --- 08/18/78 Mountain View Water Company 116 Mountain View Ranchos Coconino 21 North 9 East 6 28 Adequate --- 07/19/73 Subdivision wells 117 Needles Creek Subdivision Navajo 10 North 21 East 13 57 Inadequate A1 01/19/01 Fools Hollow Water Company 118 Nicoll Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 9 20 22-400451 Adequate --- 02/06/80 Town of Eager 119 Noble Mountain Estates (amended) Apache 6 North 30 East 7 65 Inadequate A1 07/26/94 Dry Lot Subdivision 120 North Peak Coconino 22 North 8 East 28, 29 18 Inadequate A2 01/24/92 Doney Park Water Company 121 North Peak # 2 Coconino 22 North 8 East 28 11 Inadequate A2 02/23/93 Doney Park Water Company 122 Northern Taylor Navajo 13 North 21 East 36 14 Adequate --- 08/15/77 Town of Taylor 123 Northfork Ranches # 1 Apache 10 North 24 East 7 93 Inadequate A1 04/10/85 Dry Lot Subdivision 124 Ojo Bonito Estates Apache 10 North 25 East 19 63 Adequate --- 09/10/81 Ojo Bonito HOA Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 125 Park Place Navajo Location Township Range Section No. of Lots 10 North 21 East 24 78 ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 22-300341 Inadequate A1 08/15/97 Park Valley Water Company 126 Park Place III Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 35 22-400331 Inadequate A1 07/17/00 Park Valley Water Company 127 Park Place IV Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 16 22-401172 Inadequate A1 01/12/04 Park Valley/Fool Hollow Water Company 128 Park Plaza # 1 Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 31 Adequate --- 05/23/86 Town of Snowflake 129 Park Show Low # 1 Apache 10 North 24 East 1 20 Inadequate A1 06/22/94 Dry Lot Subdivision 130 Park Show Low # 1-4 Apache 10 North 24 East 1 140 Inadequate A1 11/06/91 Dry Lot Subdivision 131 Park Show Low # 3, 4 Apache 11 North 24 East 1, 11 47 Inadequate A1 06/22/94 Dry Lot Subdivision 132 Park Show Low # 4,5,6 Apache 11 North 24 East 1, 13, 15 62 Inadequate A1 12/22/86 Dry Lot Subdivision 133 Park Valley # 3 Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 86 Inadequate A1 10/05/83 Park Valley Water Company 134 Park Valley # 4 Navajo 10 North 21 East 25 189 Inadequate A1 10/08/86 City of Show Low 135 Petrified Forest Estates # 2 Apache 18 North 24 East 5 133 Inadequate C 01/14/87 Dry Lot Subdivision 87 136 Pine Canyon Estates Coconino 14 North 12 East 6 385 137 Pine Meadows Country Club Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 116 138 Pine Mountain Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 9 36 139 Pine Oaks Navajo 10 North 22 East 29 78 140 Pine Ridge # 1 Navajo 8 North 23 East 4, 5 22-300466 Adequate --- 06/24/98 Starlight Water Company Adequate --- 05/30/86 Arizona Water Company 22-300065 Inadequate A1 12/05/95 Doney Park Water Company 22-300200 Inadequate A1 09/27/96 City of Show Low 73 Inadequate A1 01/08/86 Pinetop Water Company 141 Pine Rim Forest Navajo 12 North 17 East 30 56 Inadequate A1 09/01/83 Arizona Water Company 142 Pineaire Navajo 10 North 22 East 32 160 Adequate --- 10/25/73 Pineview Water Company 143 Pinecrest Lake Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 200 Adequate --- 08/05/86 144 Pineglen Park Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 94 Inadequate A1 12/05/83 145 Pineglen Village # 1 Navajo 9 North 22 East 4 84 Inadequate A1 12/05/83 Arizona Water Company Pineview Land and Water Company Pineview Land and Water Company 146 Pinegrove Park Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 37 Inadequate A1 08/10/83 Park Valley Water Company 147 Pines at Show Low Condominiums Navajo 10 North 22 East 32 132 Adequate --- 02/18/87 Pineview Water Company 148 Pinetop Country Club Village Navajo 8 North 23 East 11 n/a Adequate --- 09/17/73 Ponderosa Water Company 149 Pinetop Lakes Plaza # 2, 3 Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 53 Adequate --- 10/06/83 Ponderosa Water Company 150 Pinetop Lakes, Mountain Homes Navajo 8 North 23 East 11 111 Adequate --- 02/06/74 Ponderosa Water Company 151 Pioneer Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 4 20 Adequate --- 06/08/81 Town of Eager 152 Pioneer Valley # 1 Coconino 22 North 8 East 14, 23 35 Inadequate A2 12/04/92 Doney Park Water Company 153 Pioneer Valley # 3, 2B Coconino 22 North 8 East 23 83 Inadequate A2 10/03/94 Doney Park Water Company 154 Randall Navajo 18 North 19 East 15 36 Adequate --- 09/06/73 Joseph City Water Company 155 Rendezvous at Torreon-Unit 1 Navajo 10 North 21 East 23 113 Adequate --- 03/31/98 City of Show Low 22-300436 Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 156 Rim Rock View Estates Unit 1 Navajo Location Township Range Section No. of Lots 13 North 21 East 22 8 ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 22-400642 Adequate --- 01/03/02 Subdivision wells 157 Rim Spur Navajo 9 North 22 East 27 11 22-400368 Inadequate C 08/30/00 Dry Lot Subdivision 158 Rim Top Ranch Coconino 15 North 12 East 21, 27, 35 211 22-300542 Inadequate D 09/21/99 HOA Wells 159 Rio Rancho Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 35, 36 37 22-400499 Inadequate A1 03/26/01 Doney Park Water Company 160 Rio Vista Estates Apache 21 North 28 East 13 34 22-401474 Inadequate A1 11/03/04 Navajo Tribal Utility Authority 161 River Run Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 4 214 22-400290 Inadequate A1 04/13/00 Town of Eager 162 Rolling Hills # 2 Navajo 12 North 21 East 3 49 Adequate --- 03/12/74 Town of Taylor 163 Roundhouse Square # 2 Navajo 8 North 23 East 2 9 Adequate --- 03/31/76 Ponderosa Water Company 88 164 San Juan Meadows Apache 13 North 27 East 25, 26 15 Adequate --- 10/31/97 Dry Lot Subdivision 165 Saskan Ranch Coconino 21 North 6 East 23, 24 14 22-300370 Inadequate D 08/31/94 HOA Wells 166 Satellite Homestead Navajo 11 North 22 East 25 131 Adequate --- 05/13/75 Silver Well Service Corporation 167 Scotts Pine Meadows Navajo 9 North 22 East 9 27 Inadequate A1 02/11/86 Pineview Land and Water Company 168 Shadowing Pines Navajo 8 North 23 East 5 112 Adequate --- 12/16/74 Pinetop Water Company 169 Show Low Golf & Country Club Navajo 10 North 21 East 23 NA Adequate --- 07/01/75 City of Show Low 170 Show Low Vista Community-Unit 1A Navajo 10 North 22 East 18 20 22-300490 Adequate --- 07/08/98 City of Show Low 171 Sierra Pines Navajo 10 North 22 East 30 57 22-300054 Adequate --- 10/19/95 City of Show Low 172 Sierra Pines Unit 2 Navajo 10 North 22 East 30 61 22-300198 Inadequate A1 09/19/96 City of Show Low 173 Sierra Pines Unit 3 Navajo 10 North 22 East 29, 30 39 22-300379 Adequate --- 10/15/97 City of Show Low 174 Sierra Pines Unit 4 Navajo 10 North 22 East 30 49 22-300501 Adequate --- 07/21/98 City of Show Low 175 Sierra Vista Ranchettes Navajo 19 North 15 East 1 20 Adequate --- 06/05/86 Dry Lot Subdivision 176 Silver Creek Village Navajo 11 North 22 East 15 35 Inadequate A1 02/04/85 177 Silver Creek Waterfront Estates Navajo 11 North 22 East 10, 11 99 22-400262 Adequate --- 03/20/00 178 Silver Lake Estates # 1 & 2 Navajo 11 North 22 East 35 12 22-300146 Inadequate C 07/25/96 Silver Well Service Corporation 179 Skyline Estates Coconino 22 North 9 East 19 9 22-401403 Inadequate D 09/02/04 Doney Park Water Company 180 Slayton Ranch Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 13, 24 117 22-401149 Inadequate A1, A2 12/22/03 Doney Park Water Company 181 Snowbase Coconino 22 North 6 East 26 55 22-300287 Inadequate A1 06/04/97 Dry Lot Subdivision White Mountain Lake Water Company White Mountain Lakes Estates Utility 182 Snowbowl Ranch Coconino 22 North 6 East 23 15 Inadequate A1, A2 08/24/94 Dry Lot Subdivision 183 Snowflake Country Club Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 57 Adequate --- 06/04/80 Town of Snowflake 184 Snowflake Country Club Properties Navajo 13 North 21 East 21 80 Adequate --- 08/20/02 Town of Snowflake 185 Snowflake East # 1 Navajo 13 North 22 East 3 27 Inadequate A1 08/09/85 Dry Lot Subdivision 186 Snowflake Garden Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 14 47 Adequate --- 07/08/74 Town of Snowflake 22-400563 Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 187 Snowflake Heights Location Township Range Section No. of Lots Navajo 13 North 22 East 17 90 188 Snowflake Heights # 2 Navajo 13 North 22 East 17 131 189 Stardust Meadows Coconino 22 North 8 East 24 9 ADWR File 2 No. 22-300002 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate --- 01/27/84 Town of Snowflake Adequate --- 06/06/84 Town of Snowflake Inadequate A1 04/10/95 Doney Park Water Company 190 Starlight Pines # 1 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 154 Adequate --- 05/23/83 United Utilities Company 191 Starlight Pines #2 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 176 Adequate --- 04/24/86 Mogollon Water Company 192 Starlight Pines # 3 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 n/a Adequate --- 10/24/86 Mogollon Water Company 193 Starlight Pines # 4 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 248 Adequate --- 11/09/88 Mogollon Water Company 194 Starlight Pines # 5 Coconino 15 North 12 East 31 17 Adequate --- 02/09/95 Starlight Water Company 195 Starlight Pines Ranchettes Coconino 14 North 12 East 7 125 22-300093 Adequate --- 07/30/96 Starlight Water Company 196 Starlight Ridge Estates-Unit 1 Navajo 9 North 22 East 8 48 22-401400 Inadequate D 07/20/04 Pineview Water Company 197 Starwood Estates Navajo 8 North 23 East 1 65 22-400300 Inadequate D 05/03/00 Ponderosa DWID 89 198 Summer Meadows Apache 8 North 29 East 4 17 Adequate --- 06/08/81 Town of Eager 199 Summer Meadows #3 Apache 8 North 29 East 4 7 Inadequate A1 08/21/86 Town of Eager 200 Summer Place Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 36 Adequate --- 10/08/85 Arizona Water Company 201 Summer Place North Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 45 22-300369 Adequate --- 11/17/97 Arizona Water Company 202 Summer Place North-Unit 2 Navajo 12 North 16 East 24 40 22-400412 Adequate --- 11/17/00 Heber DWID 203 Sun Valley Highlands # 2 Navajo 18 North 22 East 5 58 22-300308 Inadequate A1 06/03/97 Dry Lot Subdivision 204 Sundance Springs Community Navajo 13 North 21 East 13 257 22-401743 Adequate --- 08/04/05 Snowflake Municipal Water Company 205 Sunrise Vista Estates Apache 10 North 24 East 9 24 Adequate --- 10/26/93 Cedar Grove Water Company 206 Sunset Vista Estates Coconino 22 North 8 East 31 24 22-300390 Inadequate A1 12/10/97 Doney Park Water Company 207 Tall Pine Estates # 2 Coconino 18 North 9 East 28 44 Inadequate A1 08/10/89 Tall Pines Estates Water & Improvement 208 Tamarron Pines Coconino 15 North 12 East 32 411 22-400100 Adequate --- 07/02/99 Starlight Water Company, Inc. 209 The Village Navajo 10 North 21 East 24 17 22-401373 Inadequate D 08/04/04 Park Valley Water Company. 22-400132 210 Thunder Run Estates Navajo 12 North 17 East 30 41 211 Timberline Estates # 3 Coconino 22 North 8 East 9 10 Adequate --- 07/28/99 Arizona Water Company Inadequate A2 10/03/89 Doney Park Water Company 212 Timberline Estates-Unit 4 Coconino 22 North 8 East 9 25 Inadequate A1, A2 10/20/99 Doney Park Water Company 213 Town and Country # 1 Navajo 18 North 19 East 15 214 Udall Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 7, 18 33 Adequate --- 05/07/79 Joseph City Utility Company 37 Adequate --- 12/05/83 Town of Eager 22-400187 215 United Estates # 1 Navajo 12 North 17 East 30 35 Adequate --- 05/23/79 Arizona Water Company 216 Valley View Estates Apache 8 North 29 East 8 11 Adequate --- 09/01/76 Town of Eager 217 Valley View Estates Navajo 13 North 21 East 26 49 Adequate --- 09/26/77 Town of Snowflake Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name County 218 Valley View Estates # 2 Apache 219 Vein of Gold-Unit IV Navajo 220 Vernon Valley II Apache Location Township Range Section No. of Lots 8 North 29 East 8 21 18 North 22 East 5, 8 332 10 North 25 East 22 28 ADWR File 2 No. 22-300309 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate --- 07/26/82 Town of Eager Inadequate A1 06/03/97 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate --- 10/15/86 Serviceberry Water Company 221 Vista San Juan # 1 Apache 13 North 28 East 31 45 Adequate --- 12/06/76 Developer water company 222 Wenima Village Project Apache 9 North 29 East 8, 17, 18 221 Adequate --- 05/17/89 Town of Springerville 223 West Gardens Navajo 13 North 21 East 16 43 Adequate --- 12/09/76 Town of Snowflake Inadequate A2, A3 08/11/94 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate --- 01/18/05 Town of Snowflake 224 West Peak Coconino 21 North 6 East 23, 24 12 225 West View Subdivision Navajo 13 North 21 East 23 12 22-401498 226 Westbrook Addition-Vernon Townsite Apache 10 North 25 East 21 8 22-400494 Adequate --- 04/18/01 Vernon DWID 227 Westwood Estates Coconino 21 North 6 East 23 78 22-300012 Adequate --- 06/21/95 Flagstaff Ranch Water Company 228 Whispering Pines Townhouses Navajo 9 North 23 East 31 89 Inadequate A1 07/03/84 Pinetop Water Company White Mountain Lake Water Company White Mountain Lakes Estates Utility White Mountain Lakes #1 8 Navajo 11 North 22 East 10, 14, 15 132 Inadequate A1 09/27/84 White Mountain Lakes Estates Navajo 11 North 22 East 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 NA Adequate --- 06/27/85 231 White Mountain Resort Apache 54 Inadequate A1 06/16/95 Dry Lot Subdivision Inadequate A1 Inadequate A1 11/08/01 Pineview Water Company Inadequate A1 08/15/04 Pineview Water Company Adequate --- 07/10/91 Lord Arizona Water Systems 90 229 230 Navajo 9 North 24 East 17 10 North 22 East 32, 33 9 North 22 East 4, 5, 22-300007 232 White Mountain Vacation Village 233 White Mountain Vacation Village Unit 2, Phase 3 Navajo 9 North 22 East 234 Wilderness Apache 10 North 24 East 235 Winchester Trails Ranches Apache 10 North 25 East 17 135 Adequate --- 03/03/87 Lord Arizona Water Systems 236 Winchester Trails Ranches # 2 Apache 10 North 25 East 17 68 Inadequate C 01/28/85 Dry Lot Subdivision 237 Wing Mountain Ranch-Unit 1 Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 16 Inadequate A1 04/11/90 Dry Lot Subdivision 117 22-400626 4 7 22-401415 12 115 238 Wing Mountain Ranch-Unit 2 Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 239 Wing Mountain Ranch-Unit 3 Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 240 Wing Mountain Ranch Unit 3, Phase 2 Coconino 22 North 6 East 27 15 22-401217 Inadequate A1 03/02/04 Dry Lot Subdivision 241 Wolf Pines-Unit 1 Navajo 9 North 22 East 9 26 22-400565 Inadequate A1 10/02/02 Pineview Water Company 242 Woodland Acres Navajo 12 North 17 East 33 19 220400043 Adequate --- 03/24/99 Arizona Water Company 22-300534 Inadequate A1 07/07/92 Dry Lot Subdivision Inadequate A1, A2 09/22/98 Dry Lot Subdivision 243 Woodland Hills Subdivision Navajo 8 North 23 East 6 152 22-300514 Inadequate A1, C 08/27/98 Pinetop Water Company 244 Wupatki Trails Coconino 23 North 8 East 29, 32, 33 41 22-400517 Inadequate A1 05/14/01 Doney Park Water Company 245 Wye Subdivision Apache 8 North 29 East 11 18 Adequate --- 08/22/83 Town of Eager 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. Draft Table 2-17 Adequacy Determinations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin1 Map Key Subdivision Name 2 County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records DWID = Domestic Water Improvement District NA = Data not currently available to ADWR 3 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 91 Figure 2-24 Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations R10E 73 103 181 237 238 239 240 165 224 227 182 T22N 79 102 96 138 211 212 101 120 121 152 £ ¤ 180 1 ! ! 8 T20N 179 98 159 116 ! !! 7 35 § ¦ ¨ 17 R16E R18E R20E R22E R24E R26E R28E 50 ! 51 COCONINO COUNTY 191 6 87 Lupton APACHE COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY Leupp R30E £ ¤ ! ?@ 2 180 76 189 89A 9 153 6 R14E 3 57 206 £ ¤ 74 244 R12E § ¦ ¨ 40 Sanders § ¦ ¨ 160 40 Flagstaff ?@ Navajo 99 ?@ 175 52 ! 77 § ¦ ¨ £ ¤ 40 203 219 191 Joseph City Winslow T18N § ¦ ¨ 40 207 ?@ 61 5 ! 135 154 213 Holbrook ! 49 ?@ 87 £ ¤ 180 T16N 190 191 192 193 194 ?@ 99 ?@ !! ! ! ?@ 377 22 208 37 75 77 156 136 T14N 141 210 215 195 Heber 90 91 92 T12N ?@ 260 70 71 72 107 108 110 ! !! !! ! 277 60 10 15 20 21 104 105 242 176 ! Inadequate COUNTY 0 6 City, Town or Place c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Consolidated Crystalline & Sedimentary Rocks Unconsolidated Sediments 100 ! Adequate ¨ ! ! 260 143 137 T10N 109 32 68 155 169 63 125 126 127 133 146 209 12 Miles 171 172 174 117 170 ! 38 £ ¤ 180 185 204 122 34 82 88 162 ?@ 18 24 58 225 186 ?@ 180 187 ! !! ! 188 !!! 26 ! Snowflake 93 ! 217 ! ! 33 17 19 106 ! 191 223 14 16 ! 200 201 202 ?@ 53 128 183 184 Adequacy Determinations Major Road £ ¤ 77 158 ! ! 54 ! ! !!! ! 142 87 147 95 196 134 157 230 177 229 25 99 111 166 112 ! 178 123 Show Low 31 139 173 Pinetop 131 132 56 ! ! 45 !! 46 ! ! 39 ! 42 ! ?@ 129 130 234 ! ! 235 236 167 241 ! 168 140 191 £ ¤ 60 89 197 ?@ 260 216 218 2 64 214 83 ?@ 373 ! Greer 86 ! ?@ 273 84 85 97 151 161 198 199 222 ! 92 Springerville 94 61 65 80 ?@ 261 12 23 81 69 118 28 55 £ ¤ 191 66 78 £ ¤ 60 59 245 !! !!!!! ! ! 62 T6N Draft Saint Johns £ ¤ ! ! 36 148 150 114 115 221 47 61 30 ! 180 ! ! 61 ! !! 144 11 220 145 4 205 232 226 29 124 233 13 113 48 231 149 228 163 27 Lakeside T8N 243 £ ¤ 67 60 40 41 43 44 £ ¤ ?@ 164 Concho ! 119 SECTION 2.2 Water Resource Issues in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area A number of water resource issues have been identified in the planning area by community groups, through the distribution of surveys, and from other sources. Primary issues are the accessibility of groundwater supplies in some areas due to hydrologic conditions and water quality problems. There are also infrastructure deficiencies that influence access to water supplies. A number of communities lack financial resources for infrastructure development or repair and drought has impacted surface water supplies. The ability to meet future water demands is a concern for many communities. Many Navajo communities currently face critical water shortages. Water hauling is commonplace on the reservation, in part because widely scattered housing makes direct water delivery impractical in many areas. Hauling is also common at some locations outside of the reservation. Several watershed groups have formed in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area to address a variety of water resource issues. Some groups encompass areas outside of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Groups that are currently active in various locations within the basin are the Coconino Plateau Advisory Council, Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users, Little Colorado Watershed Coordinating Council (formerly the Little Colorado River Multi-Objective Management Partnership (LCRMOM)), Show Low Creek Watershed Partnership, the Silver Creek Watershed Partnership, the Upper Little Colorado River Watershed Partnership and the Navajo Nation. A complete description of participants, activities and issues is found in Appendix B. Primary issues identified by these groups that apply to the Eastern Plateau Planning area can be summarized as follows: Growth: • Excessive growth in some areas • Proposed development in Greer and impacts on the Little Colorado River • Unregulated lot splits Water Supplies and Demand: • Limited and deep groundwater supplies • Drought sensitive supplies • Numerous water haulers and few hauling stations which are sometimes cutoff during drought • Limited surface water supplies for Page • Limited groundwater data for entire region • Potential impacts on groundwater system from power plants • Seasonal demands impacting ability to meet peak demands Legal: • Potential limitation of groundwater usage resulting from Indian reserved groundwater rights • Uncertainty of Indian water right settlements (Little Colorado River & Colorado River) • Access to water development activities on public lands • Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water • Upper Basin/Lower Basin Colorado River issues affecting potential for use • Unresolved surface water adjudication Water Quality: • Minor arsenic issues in Woody Mtn. Well field (9-14 ppb) • Arsenic and TDS in some areas Environmental: • Endangered Species Act implications on groundwater usage and impacts on perennial streams Draft 93 • Impact of invasive species (Tamarisk) Funding: • Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies • Extremely high cost of water augmentation projects • Funding for Colorado River water infrastructure • Funding for water delivery infrastructure Drought: • Drought impacts on surface water supplies and springs resulting in impacts on agriculture and cattle ranching • Potential impacts on tourism due to drought Other: • Political differences between some communities • Perception of no real water supply problem • Several high hazard unsafe dams Potential future and current water supply shortfalls have lead to discussions among the Coconino Plateau Advisory Council regarding water supply development/augmentation alternatives. Among the proposed alternatives is a water pipeline from Lake Powell to communities in both the Eastern and Western Plateau Planning Areas (Heffernon and Muro, 2001). A study to identify potential supply alternatives for the area was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2005 and an appraisal level is expected to be completed in 2006. The Department conducted a rural water resources survey in 2003 to compile information to provide to 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. A report of the findings from the survey was completed in 2004 (ADWR, 2004). Thirty-seven water providers and jurisdictions in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area responded to the survey and of these, 23 ranked issues. Respondents were asked to rank eighteen issues which can be compressed into three categories: infrastructure, water supply and water quality. In the planning area, both infrastructure and water supply issues were ranked among the top five issues by a majority of respondents. In addition, a majority of respondents noted at least one drought impact. Primary drought impacts noted were increased demand, increased peak demand and lowered groundwater levels. 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, 44 water providers in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, with a total of approximately 46,500 service connections, were willing to participate and provide information on water supply, demand, infrastructure and to rank a list of seven issues. In regard to the question of groundwater level trends in their service area, the 33 respondents reported as follows: 20 stable; 8 falling, 3 don’t know, 2 variable. None reported rising water levels. Water providers were asked to rank issues from 0 to 4 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. Of the 44 water providers that responded to the survey, 39 ranked issues. These respondents include most of the largest water providers in the planning area Draft 94 including City of Flagstaff, City of Holbrook, City of Show Low, Town of Snowflake, Winslow Municipal Water and Doney Park Water Company. Table 2-18 Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (39 water providers) Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Moderate concern Major concern Total 6 6 12 Percent of respondents reporting issue was a moderate or major concern 31 7 4 11 28 4 1 5 13 9 3 12 31 11 8 19 49 10 12 22 56 6 4 10 26 Although responses to the 2003 questionnaire are not directly comparable to the 2004 survey due to differences in the form and wording of the surveys, responses to the same issues are similar as shown in Table 2-19. Table 2-19 Water resource issues ranked by 2003 survey respondents in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (17 water providers and 6 jurisdictions) Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Draft Ranked as one of the top 5 issues (of 18) 9 Percent of respondents 39 6 26 4 17 9 39 13 10 52 43 8 35 95 Tribal Issues A Navajo Department of Water Resources (NDWR) White Paper identified the need for an increased water supply to help support needed basic services on the reservation (NDWR, 2002). The tribe is investigating the feasibility of transporting water by pipeline to several areas and is conducting groundwater development investigations. NDWR, USBR and BIA have cooperated on a plan to investigate the alluvial aquifer in the Bird Springs area located east of Leupp at the southern edge of the Navajo Reservation Boundary northwest of Winslow, to analyze the feasibility of well field development (NDWR, 1999). One of the water development challenges on the Navajo reservation is that resolution of problems requires the coordination of multiple agencies and private resources. In addition, the population has limited economic resources that make large capital investments difficult and the widely dispersed population results in large distances between water sources and water users. Although the Navajo Nation has adopted a Drought Plan and conducts numerous planning activities, additional regional water planning, investigation of a regional conveyance system, improving water service to domestic water haulers and water conservation and reuse were also identified as needs (NDWR, 2002) The Hopi and Navajo are concerned about the impact to their water supply by Peabody Coal Company extracting N-aquifer water to transport coal from the Black Mesa Coal Mine to the Mohave Generating Station at Laughlin, Nevada. The N-aquifer is the only source of drinking water for the Hopi. This pumping is believed to be affecting water supplies in some areas (www.hopi.nsn.us). The USGS, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, is evaluating the C-aquifer near Leupp on the Navajo Reservation for potential use as a water supply for Peabody Coal and for the Navajo and Hopi (USGS, 2005). The Hopi tribe has recently purchased off-reservation ranches near Winslow and Springerville for potential irrigation development or other purposes (www.hkminc.com/Hopi.htm). Resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a critical issue in the planning area. The Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Zuni Tribe and the San Juan Southern Piaute Tribe have been negotiating with non-Indian water users in the Little Colorado River Plateau basin, the State of Arizona and the federal government for several years in a settlement committee appointed by the Little Colorado General Stream Adjudication Court. The non-Indian parties reached agreement with the Zuni Tribe over protection of its Zuni Heaven lands in Arizona, resulting in congressional approval in 2003. Talks in a less formal setting have continued with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe about possible settlement of the Little Colorado River Basin claims. Additionally, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit in April of 2003 against the Secretary of the Interior over the operation of the Colorado River. A Federal judge has entered a stay in that case to allow negotiations with the State of Arizona and non-Indian water users about possible Navajo Nation claims to the Colorado River. Draft 96 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING A Abruzzi, W.B., 2005, The social and ecological consequences of early cattle ranching in the Little Colorado River Basin, Arizona: http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Research. ACC, 2005, Annual reports for years 1990 to 2005 for small water providers: ACC Utilities Division, July 2005. ADEQ, 2005, ADEQSWI Database: ADEQ data file, received September 2005. ADEQ, 2005, ADEQWATP Database: ADEQ data file, received August 2005. ADEQ, 2005, Azurite Database: ADEQ data file, received September 2005. ADEQ, 2005, Database of active dairy farms and feedlots: ADEQ data file, received October 2005. ADEQ, 2005, GIS cover of impaired lakes and reaches: Received January 2006. ADEQ, 2005, Database of surface water sources for providers: ADEQ data file, received June, 2005. ADEQ, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files received July 2005. ADEQ, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: ADEQ data file, received August 2004. ADEQ, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: ADEQ data file, received June 2004. ADEQ, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: ADEQ data file, received September 2004. ADWR, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River Adjudications: ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. ADWR, 2005, Databases of Assured and Adequate water supply determination: ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply. ADWR, 2005, Database of flood warning gages: ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ADWR, 2005, Database of inspected dams: ADWR Office of Dam Safety. ADWR, 2005, Database of non-jurisdictional dams: ADWR Office of Dam Safety. ADWR, 2005, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ADWR, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): ADWR Hydrology Division. ADWR, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. ADWR, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. ADWR, 2005, Wells55 database. ADWR, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report, October 2004. ADWR, 1999, Pinal AMA Third Management Plan, 2000-2010. ADWR, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I. Inventory and Analysis ADWR, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ADWR, July 1994, Little Colorado River Settlement Committee Group “A” –In-Basin Negotiating Committee Inventory of Irrigation, Reservoirs, and Stockponds in the Upper Little Colorado River Watershed, In Re the General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. ADWR, July 1994, Little Colorado River Settlement Committee Group “A” –In-Basin Negotiating Committee Inventory of Irrigation and Reservoirs in the Lower Little Colorado River Watershed, In Re the General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. ADWR, 1990, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Silver Creek Watershed. Draft 97 Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, GIS cover of Springs: Accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ALRIS, 2005, GIS cover of Streams: Accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ALRIS, 2005, GIS cover of water features: Accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ALRIS, 2004, GIS cover of land ownership: Accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. Anderson, T.A., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of ground-water flow in alluvial basins in southcentral Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D, 77 p. Anning, D.W., and Duet, N.R., 1994, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona, 1987-1990: USGS Open File Report 94-476. Arizona Agricultural Statistic Service (AASS), 2005, Historic swine demand in Navajo County for years 1991, 1996, 2000, 2002: Accessed September 2005 at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Arizona/index.asp. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Database of active mines in Arizona: Accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase 1, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. Arizona Game and Fish (AZG&F), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file received April 28, 2005. AZG&F, 1997 & 1993, GIS cover, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project. AZG&F, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study: AZ Game & Fish Planning Department. Arizona Meterological Network (AZMET), 2005, Evaporation data from climatological stations: Accessed December, 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. B Bartholomew Engineering, Inc., 1986, Amended water adequacy study for Vernon Valley II, Apache County, Arizona. Bills, D.J. and Flynn M.E., 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai Counies, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 02-265. Bills, D.J., Truini, M., Flynn, M.E., Pierce, H.A., Catchings, R.D., and Rymer, M.J., 2000, Hydrology of the regional aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona 1994-97: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4122. Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., 1984, Report on assured water supply for proposed Heber Associates Development. Brown and Caldwell, 1997, Hydrologic study for city of Show Low Arizona in support of designation of adequate water supply. C Covington et.al., 2005, Restoring Ecosystem Health in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Southwest: Accessed at http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Research. D Dickens, C. M., 2004, Hydrologic study: water adequacy report- Foxboro Ranch Estates, Coconino County, Arizona. Draft 98 Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004-integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ. E Environmental and Earth Science Consultants Ltd., 2000, Hydrologic study for demonstrating an adequate water supply- Silver Creek Waterfront Estates, White Mountain Lake Estates Water Company, White Mountain Lake, Navajo County, Arizona. Environmental and Earth Science Consultants Ltd., 1998, Hydrologic study for demonstrating an adequate water supply- Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Cedar Grove Water Company, Apache County, Arizona. EPA, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey databases: Accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. EPA, 2005, Surf Your Watershed reports: Accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. F Feth, J.H., 1954, Preliminary report of investigations of springs in the Mogollon rim region of Arizona: USGS Open file report 54-339. Flora, Stephan, 2004, Hydrological characterization and discharge variability of springs in the middle Verde River watershed, central Arizona: Northern Arizona University M.S. thesis. Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1. Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas. G Gillespie, E.L., 1983, Demonstration of hydrologic ground water evaluation of the Star Light Pines subdivision, Coconino County, Arizona. H Hart, RJ, Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J. and Flynn, M.E., 2003, Generalized hydrology and ground water budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and Salt River basins, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026. Heffernon, R. and Muro, M, 2001, Growth on the Coconino Plateau, Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region, Morrison Institute for Public Policy. HKM Engineering, Hopi Ranch Acquisitions: Accessed September 2005 at www.hkminc.com/Hopi.htm. Hopi Tribe, 2005, Water resource and miscellaneous information: Accessed December 2005 at www.hopi.nsn.us. Hollis, 2005, swine water requirements: Accessed October 2005 at http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/archives/experts/swine/1997archive/0031.html. HydroSystems, Inc., 2004, Physical availability demonstration analysis for Flagstaff Meadows in Coconino County Arizona. Draft 99 K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54. L LeChee Water Supply Project Alternatives, 2003, Prepared for USDOI, TETRA TECH RMC, summary report. Littin, G.R., Results of groundwater, surface water and water quality monitoring, Black Mesa area, Northeastern Arizona, 1991-1992: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4111. M Manera, P. A., 1988, Ground water evaluation in preparation for an application for adequacy of water supply, Flagstaff Ranch Water Company. McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1. N Northern Arizona University (NAU), 2005, Canyons, Cultures and Environmental Change: Accessed at http://cpluhna.nau.edu. Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources (NDWR), 2002, Navajo Nation Irrigation Rehabilitation Strategy Draft: Department of Agriculture, white paper. NDWR, USBOR and US Indian Health Service, 2002, White Paper, Navajo Nation Municipal Water Development Strategy, Draft. Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources, 2001, Navajo Nation Land Plan Draft: Navajo Soil and Water conservation Districts, and Navajo Resource Conservation and Development NDWR, Water Management Branch, 1999, Hydrologeology of the Little Colorado River alluvial aquifer, Bird Springs Study Area; US Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs, final report. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) station data: Accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. NRCS, 2005, Snow Course Data Network data file: Accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), 2004, Data file of NTUA wells and yields. O Oregon State University, 1998, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS): www.ocs.orst.edu/prism, PRISM map – Arizona P PMCL and Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002, North Central Arizona Water Demand Study, Phase 1 Report. Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. Price, D., and Arnow, T., 1974, Summary appraisals of the nation’s groundwater resources, Upper Colorado region: USGS Professional Paper 813-C. Draft 100 S Soil Conservation Service (SCS) & USFS, 1981, Little Colorado River Basin, AZ-New Mexico, Coop Study, Appendix II – Water Resources, and Appendix IV - Recreation, Fish & Wildlife and Timber: USDA report. Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc., 1998, Hydrologic study in support of an application for a water adequacy report, Pine Canyon Estates near Starlight Pines, Arizona. Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc., 2001, Application for water adequacy report, Hidden Meadow Ranch (Formerly Aspen Meadow Ranch), Apache County, Arizona. Southwest Ground-water Consultants Inc., 2005, Hydrologic investigation, Sundance Springs Community, Snowflake, Arizona. Spangler, L.E., and Johnson, M.S., 1999, Hydrology & water quality of the Oljato Alluvial Aquifer: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4074. SRP, 2006, Information on C.C. Cragin Reservoir: Accessed April 2006 at www.srpnet.com/water/dams/blueridge.aspx. Stone, N., 2004, Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site Superintendent: electronic communication, November 9, 2004. Sundie, D.W., 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293. Tellman, B., Yarde, R., and Wallace, M., 1997, Arizona’s Changing Rivers: How People Have Affected Rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. TerraSpectra Geomatics, 2000, Abandoned uranium mines project, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah-Navajo Lands, 1994-2000: EPA & Corps of Engineers joint report. Thomas, B., 2003, Water quality data for Navajo National Monument, Northeastern AZ, 2001-2002: USGS Open file report 03-287. Thomas, B., 2003, Water quality data for Walnut Canyon and Wupatki National Monuments, Arizona2001-02: USGS Open File Report 03-286. Truini, M., Macy, J.P., and Porter, T.J., 2005, Groundwater, surface water and water chemistry data, Black Mesa area, Northeastern Arizona, 2003-2004: USGS Open file report 2005-1080. Truini, M., and Thomas, B.E., 2004, Groundwater, surface water, and water chemistry data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona -2002-03: USGS Open file Report 03-503. Truini, M., Longsworth, S.A., 2003, Hydrogeology of the D aquifer and movement and ages of groundwater determined from geochemical and isotopic analysis, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations 2003-4189. U USGS, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. USGS, 2006, Database of springs and spring discharges through 2005: Received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. USGS, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Draft 101 USGS, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study-land cover descriptions: Accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. USGS, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams-Arizona: Accessed http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm. November 2004 to April 2005 at V Vitale, Jenny, 2003, Water adequacy report for Linden Trails, Linden, Navajo County, Arizona. W Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets received July, 2005. WIFA, 2005, Water and Wastewater Residential Rate Survey for the State of Arizona. Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resource Investigation Report, 90-4179. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature station data: Accessed December 2005 at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. WRCC, 2005, Pan Evaporation Station data: Accessed December 2005 at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westevap.final.html. Y Young, 2006, Holbrook Public Works Department, personal communication, 1/5/2006. Supplemental Reading Allen, C., 1995, Analysis of the Hydrogeologic Conditions Present Within Fort Valley, Coconino County, AZ: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 136 p. Andersen, Mark, 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, 1997, Preliminary hydrographic survey reportof Indian lands in the Little Colorado River basin: Arizona Department of Water Resources Report. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1990, Hydrographic survey report for theSilver Creek watershed, volumes 1-5: The general adjudication of the Little Colorado River system and source. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991, Holbrook levees, Little Colorado River basin, Little Colorado River at Holbrook, Arizona: US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angles District, Report. Berghoff, K., Boobar, L., and Ritenour, J., 1998, The effects of land use on water quality at the beaches of Lake Powell: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona. Bills, D.J., Truini, M., Flynn, M.E., Pierce, H.A., Catchings, R.D., and Rymer, M.J., 2000, Hydrology of the regional aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994-1997: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00 - 4122, 143 p. Draft 102 Bills, D.J. and Hjarlmarson, H.W., 1990, Estimates of groundwater flow components forLyman Lake, Apache County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4151. Blakemore, T.E., 2003, Water quality data for Navajo National Monument, Northeastern Arizona, 20012002: USGS Open File Report 03-287. Bowman, S. N., 2000, Nutrioso Creek TMDL-for turbidity: ADEQ draft report. Brian, N.J., 1992, Historical review of water flow and riparian vegetation at Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona: NPS Technical Report NPS/WRUA.NRTR-92/44. Bureau of Reclamation and the GOES Office in Flagstaff, Arizona, 1990, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Phase II, Draft Integrated Research Plan Volume I. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Appraisal level study of Water Delivery System Analyses: North Central Arizona Regional Water Supply Project. Carpenter, T.L., 2001, The origin of isotopically anomalous waters of the Mogollon Rim region of Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. Thesis, 107 p. City of Show Low, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted July 2003. Cherry, D., and Cullom, C., 1996, A discussion of the vulnerability of Blue Springs to the impacts of well withdrawals in the Little Colorado River watershed: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p.3. Cooley, M.E., Harshbarger, J.W., Akers, J.P., and Hardt W.F., 1969, Regional hydrology of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, Arizona , New Mexico and Utah: USGS Professional Paper 521A, 61 p. Craig, S.D., Dam, W.L., Kernodle, J.M. and Thorn, C.R., 1990, Hydrology of the Point Lookout sandstone in the San Juan structural basin, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Utah: USGS 1990 report, 2 sheets. Dixson, E.C., 1990, Hydrologeology and groundwater quality in the Sanders area, western Puerco basin, Arizona: University of Nevada, M.S. thesis. Dohm, S., 1995, Hydrogeology and ground-water availability of the Bird Springs alluvial aquifer, Navajo Indian Reservation: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 133 p. Downum, C.E., Harper, L., and Boston, R., 1995, Walnut Canyon and Water: Capture, storage, and use during the Sinagua period of occupation, CA. A.D. 1100-1300: NAU Archeological Report No. 1125. Dulaney, A.R., 1991, Water chemistry of the Navajo-Lukachukai aquifer system, Black Mesa basin and vicinity, Arizona: Proceedings from the 4th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium. Fisk, G.G., Ferguson, S.A., Rankin, D.R., and Wirt, L., 1994, Chemical, geologic, and hydrological data from the Little Colorado River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Open File Report 94356. Flynn, M., Hornewer, N., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Garrett, L.D., and Garrett, P.J., 2001, LCR-MOM/ADWR cooperative project on forest restoration- a work plan for forest restoration and monitoring activities on the Billy Creek /Thompson Creek subwatershed area - Apache Sitgreaves National Forest: M3 Research, final report. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Geotrans Co, 1993, Investigation of the N and D aquifer geochemistry and flow characteristics using major ion and isotope chemistry, petrology, rock stress analysis, and dendrochronology in the Black Mesa area, Arizona: Peabody Western Coal Co., report. Draft 103 Geo V. Sabol Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1993, Little Colorado River geomorphology and river stability study, Navajo County, Arizona: 2 vol. Godwin, T. N., A.E. Springer, and L.E. DeWald, 1999, Restoration of a degraded perennial spring-fed riparian system on the Colorado Plateau: EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol. 80. Godwin, T.N., Springer, A.E., DeWald, L.E., 1998, Anthropogenic influences on spring-dominated, high elevation riparian ecosystems in a semi-arid region: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 30, p. A120. Graf, J.B., Wirt, Laurie, Swanson, E.K., Fisk, G.G., and Gray, J.R., 1996, Stream-flow transport of radionuclides and other chemical constituents in the Puerco and Little Colorado River basins, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water-Supply Paper 2459, 89 p. Gray, J.R. and Webb, R.H., 1991, Radionuclides in the Puerco and Lower Little Colorado River basins, New Mexico and Arizona: in Radon in Water: USGS Bulletin 1971, p.297-311. Gray, J.R., 1990, Water quality in uranium mine pits and groundwater in the Cameron Uranium Mining Belt, Arizona: in Minimizing Risks to the Hydrologic Environment: Abstracts from the American Institute of Hydrology Meeting, March 1990, Las Vegas, Nevada, p.19. Grecu, V., 1995, Structural and Hydrologic Analysis of Coconino-Supai Aquifer, Lake Mary Watershed, Coconino County Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 143 p. Griffith, S., 1993, Geochemistry and reaction path modeling of the N-aquifer system, Hopi Reservation Northeastern Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 107 p. Harms, R., 2005, Canyon De Chelly National Park springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. Harms, R. 2005, Navajo National Monument springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. Harms, R., 2005, Petrified Forest 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., Assessment of spring chemistry along the south rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet 096-02. Hart, R.J., 1992, Comparison of water quality characteristics of Lake Powell and the Colorado River: in Lake Reservoir, and Watershed Management in a Changing Environment: Abstracts from the 11th annual International Symposium of the North American Lake Management Society, November 1991, Denver Colorado, p.70. Hart, H.E., and others, 2004, Physical and chemical characteristics of Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui canyons and the effects of recreational use on water quality, Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5120, 40 p. Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J., and Flynn M.E., 2002, Generalized hydrology and groundwater budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin, and parts of Verde and Salt River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026, 47 p. Hart, R.J. and Sherman, K.M., 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the forebay and outflows of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p. Higgins, D.P., 1999, Leakage simulations from a perched mountain aquifer in the inner basin, San Francisco Mountains, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 141 p. Draft 104 Hinchman, V.H., 1993, Relationships between riparian vegetation and alluvial channel deposits, Little Colorado River Arizona: Arizona State University, M. S. thesis. Johnson, M.S., and Sorrell, J.D., 1998, Hydrogeology of the Bird Springs alluvial aquifer Navajo nation: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 139. Johnson, M.S., and Spangler, L.E., 1996, Hydrogeologic investigation of the Oljeto Wash aquifer, Monument Valley, Arizona and Utah: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p. 159. Kelly, S.E., 2000, Ground water flow simulation and recharge sources for a fractured sandstone aquifer, Coconino County, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis 145 p. Kelly, S., Springer, A., and Vanderbilt, M., 1999, Recharge mechanisms for the Coconino- Schnebly Hill aquifer in the Lake Mary area, Coconino County, Northern Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Kennard, M., 1990, Water supply aspects of the Navajo-Lukachukai aquifer system, Black Mesa and vicinity, Arizona: Geological Society of America annual meeting, Dallas Texas, 11 p. LCR-MOM Program Coordinating Committee, 2000, Strategic plan of the Little Colorado River watershed multiple objective management group, LCR-MOM. Leake, S.A., Hoffmann, J.P., and Dickinson, J.E., 2006, Numerical ground-water change model of the C Aquifer and effects of ground-water withdrawals on stream depletion in selected reaches of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek and the Little Colorado River, Northeastern Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5277, 27 p. Littin, G.R., Baum, B.A., and Truini, M. 1999, Groundwater, surface water and water chemistry data, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona-1997: USGS Open–File Report 98-653, 27 p. Longsworth, S.A., 1994, Geohydrology and water chemistry of abandoned uranium mines and radiochemistry of spoil-material leachate, Monument Valley and Cameron areas, Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigation 93-4226. Lombard, J. P., Anderson, T. W., Montgomery, E. L., Blainer-Fleming, J. K, 1992, Aquifer systems of the southern Colorado Plateau: in Proceedings of Arizona Water 2000: Commission on the Arizona Environment and Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1992, p. 287303. Lopes, T.J., and Hoffman, J.P., 1996, Geochemical analysis of groundwater ages, recharge rates and hydraulic conductivity of the N aquifer, Black Mesa area, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations 96-4190. Marley, B., 2004, C aquifer exploration near Moenkopi, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Marley, B., Newcomer, B. and Morgan, R., 1999, Inter-aquifer leakage or inadequate annular well seals: What is the origin of poor groundwater quality in the N Aquifer in the southeastern part of the Black Mesa basin?: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. McCulley, B., 1995, Marble Canyon Spring Sampling Investigation: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute. McGavock, E., 2004, Challenge of water supply in northern Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Misseri, P.E., 1998, The Upper Colorado River comprehensive water plan: Town of Eager report. Draft 105 Montgomery, Errol, L., and Associates, 1996, Assessment of hydrologic conditions and potential effects of proposed groundwater withdrawal for Canyon Forest Village, Coconino County, Arizona: report June 1996. Montgomery, Errol, L., and Associates, 1996, Hydrogeologic monitor program February 1, 1995 through January 31, 1996, Springerville Generating Station area, Apache County, Arizona: Tucson Electric & Power Report. Montgomery, Errol, L., and Associates, 1993, Results of 90-day aquifer test and ground water flow model projections for long term water yield of the Coconino-Supai aquifer Lake Mary well field, Coconino County, Arizona: Tucson, Arizona, Errol L. Montgomery and Associates report prepared for the city of Flagstaff, 1885 p. Montgomery, Errol, L., and Associates, 1993, Projections for composite draw down impact for the Kaibab-Coconino aquifer based on revised projected groundwater withdrawals for the Springerville and Coronado generation stations, Apache County Arizona: Tucson Electric Power report. Montgomery, E.L., McGavock, E.H., and Victor, W.R., 1999, The R-Aquifer system in northern Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Moody, T., Valencia, R., Wirtanen, K., Wirtanen, M., 2001, Upper Little Colorado River Concept Plan: a road map and resource guide to riparian enhancement for private landowners: Northern Arizona University, College of Engineering and Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Morgan, J., 2000, A new look at the structure of the Coconino aquifer of northeastern Arizona: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p.67. Morgan, R., 1995, Draft progress report on the characteristics of the Little Colorado River basin of northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico: Bureau of Reclamation contract no. 1-FC40-10560. Mullen, G., Springer, A., Kolb, T., and Ament, A., 2002, Restoration of wet meadows: Influence of burning herbaceous communities on groundwater recharge: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. National Park Service, 1999, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Canyon De Chelly National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-99/228. National Park Service, 1999, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Navajo National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR98/196. National Park Service, 1999, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Walnut Canyon National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-99/224, 203 pp. National Park Service, 1996a, Baseline water quality inventory and analysis, Sunset Crater National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR96/90, 161 pp. National Park Service, 1996b, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Wupatki National Monument: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR96/82, 229 pp. Draft 106 National Park Service, 1997, Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site: Water Resources Division, Ft Collins, CO., NPS Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97/144, 177 pp. Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, 2004, Appraisal Study - Ganado Irrigation Water Conservation Project, 3 Volumes of Appendices: U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Native American Affairs Office, Phoenix AZ, September 30, 2000. Northwest Economics Associates, 1993, Garden and livestock water use in the N aquifer basin: Report for regional Native American communities. O’Day, C. M., and Leake, S. A., 1995, Ground water availability in the Flagstaff area of the Colorado Plateau, Arizona: in Water Use in Arizona: Cooperation or Conflict?: Proceedings from the 8th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1995, Tucson, Arizona, p. 2-3. Parker, J.T.C., 1998, Low and zero discharge control on the morphology of tributaries in the East Dinnebito Wash drainage basin, Black Mesa, northeastern Arizona: in Supplement to EOS Transactions from the American Geophysical Union fall meeting, November 1998, p. F305. Parsons Brinckerhoff Value Engineering, 2002, Show Low Creek reservoir system evaluation: final report for Northern Arizona University and Navajo County, 02-09. Roessel, R.J., 1994, Hydrogeology of the Chinle Wash watershed, Navajo Nation Arizona, Utah and New Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990-1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Scott, P.W., 1994, Hydrogeological-structural analysis of the Woody Mountain well field area with geophysical interpretations: Northern Arizona M.S. thesis. Schlinger, C. and Janecek, J. 2002, Lone Pine Dam groundwater recharge evaluation: Northern Arizona University report for Navajo County. Sottillare, J.P., Bills, D.J. and Brown, J.G., 1992, Results of groundwater, surface water and water quality monitoring, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 92-4008. Springer, A.E., Gavin, A.J., Godwin, T.N., Higgins, D.P., Wilkinson, R.W., 1998, Characterization and ecological restoration of perched aquifers in the Flagstaff, Arizona, area: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 30, p. 37. Springer, A.E., Bills, D., 1998, Exploration for and ecological importance of shallow and deep groundwater around San Francisco Mountain: in Duebendorfer, E.M., ed., Geologic excursions in northern and central Arizona, p. 27-33. Strength, D., Parnell, R.A., Jr., and Bennett, J.B., 1996, Rates of travertine deposition: comparison of laboratory and field rates in the Little Colorado River, Arizona: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 47, no. 46. Stumpner, P., 2004a, Data report for survey of Heiser and Peshlaki springs, Wupatki National Monument; NPS unnumbered report. Stumpner, P., 2004b. Hydrolgeological investigations and water table monitoring recommendation Deadman Wash and Little Colorado River confluence area, Wupatki National Monument: NPS unnumbered report. Rowlands, P.G., Avery, C.C., Brian, N.J., and Johnson, H., 1995, Historic flow regimes and canyon bottom vegetation dynamics at Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona: National Park Service report. Tecle, A., Wagner, M.R., and Avery, C. C., 1993, The effect of pulp mill wastewater irrigation on soil salinity: in Emerging Critical Issues in Water Resources of Arizona and the Southwest: Draft 107 Proceedings from the 6th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1993, Casa Grande, Arizona, p. 268. Tetra Tech, 1999, Rainbow Lake-total maximum daily load study: Draft report prepared for ADEQ. Thomas, B.E., 2003, Water quality data for Navajo National Monument, northeastern Arizona-20012002: USGS Open File Report 03-287. Thomas, B.E., 2003,Water quality data for Walnut Canyon and Wupatki National Monuments, Arizona2001-2002: USGS Open – File Report 03-286, 13 p. Thomas, B.E., 2002, Groundwater, surface-water, and water-chemistry data, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona-2001-02, and performance and sensitivity of the USGS 1988 numerical model of the N aquifer: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02 - 4211, 75 p. Thorstenson, D.J., and Beard, L.S., 1998, Geology and fracture analysis of Camp Navajo, Arizona Army National Guard, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 98-242, 42 p. Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneousdischarge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted March 2001. Town of Snowflake, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted 2003. Town of Taylor, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted December 2003. Towne, D.C., Yu, W.K., and Emrick, S., 1996, The impacts of septic systems on water quality of shallow aquifers: a case study of Fort Valley, Arizona: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p.191. Tso, E., 1995, Hydrogeologic Evaluation of a Proposed Solid Waste Landfill Site, Located Ten Miles North East of Cameron, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 116 p. Truini, M., and Longsworth, S.A., 2003 Hydrology of the D aquifer and movement and ages of ground water determined from geo-chemical and isotopic analysis, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03 - 4189, 38 p. Truini, M., and Thomas, B.E., 2003, Ground-water, surface-water, and water-chemistry data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona--2002-03: USGS Open-File Report 03-503. United Sates Department of the Interior, 2004, Analysis of Little Colorado River stability between Holbrook and Winslow, Arizona: In Little Colorado River Sediment Study, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, May 23, 2003. United States Department of the Interior, 2000, Water delivery system analysis of the North Central Arizona Regional Water Supply Project: Bureau of Reclamation, draft, September 2000. United States Department of the Interior, 2000, Western Navajo Water Supply Project-Lake Powell Arizona to Cameron, Arizona: Bureau of Reclamation, April, 2000. Upper Little Colorado River Watershed Partnership, 2001, Watershed action and management plan, draft. Van Metre, P.C., 1990, Flow and water quality relations between surface water and groundwater in the Puerco River basin near Chambers, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Van Metre, P.C, Wirt, L., Lopes, T.J. and Ferguson, S.A., 1997, Effects of uranium mine releases on groundwater quality in the Puerco River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Supply Paper 2476,73 p. Weber, D.S. and Montgomery, E.L., 1994, Projections for long-term groundwater yield from the Coconino - Supai aquifer, Lake Mary area, Northern Arizona: in the Approaching MillenniumEvolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 311-326. Draft 108 Wickham, M., 1992, The geochemistry of surface water and ground water interactions for selected Black Mesa drainages, Little Colorado River basin, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Wirt, L., Van Metre, P.C. and Favor, B, 1991, Historical water-quality data, Puerco River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Open File Report 91-196. Woodward – Cline Consultants, 1992, Cholla ash ponds – groundwater interpretive report, Navajo County, Arizona: Arizona Public Service Report June 1992. Zhu, Chen, Waddell, R.K., Star, I., and Ostrander, M., 1998, Responses of ground water in the Black Mesa Basin, northeastern Arizona, to paleoclimatic changes during the late Pleistocene and Holocene; Geology, vol. 26, no.2, 127-130. Draft 109 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A.R.S. ADEQ AF AGFD ALERT ALRIS AMA ASLD AWPF AWS AZMET BIA BLM BOR CAP CDP CLIMAS CODE COE Department/ADWR ENSO EPA ESA ft bls GPCD gpm HSR ID INA LCR LUST maf mg/l mgd NDEQ NDWR NHA NOAA NPS NRA NRCD NRCS NTUA NWS Pan ET P.L. Draft Arizona Revised Statutes Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Acre-feet Arizona Game and Fish Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Arizona State Land Department Arizona Water Protection Fund Assured Water Supply Arizona Meteorological Network Bureau of Indian Affairs (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (U.S.) Central Arizona Project Census Designated Place Climate Assessment for the Southwest Arizona Groundwater Management Act - A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq. Corps of Engineers (U.S.) Arizona Department of Water Resources El Nino/Southern Oscillation Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) Endangered Species Act - 7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. Feet below land surface Gallons Per Capita Per Day Gallons per minute Hydrographic Survey Report Irrigation District Irrigation Non-expansion Area Little Colorado River Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Milligrams per liter Million gallons per day Navajo Department of Environmental Quality Navajo Department of Water Resources Navajo Housing Authority National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service (U.S.) National Recreation Area Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service Navajo Tribal Utility Authority National Weather Service Pan evaporation Public Law 110 RCD RVID SLD SNOTEL SRP TDS TEPCO TNC USDA USFS USFWS USGS VOC WIFA WQARF WRCC WWTP Draft Resource Conservation District Round Valley Irrigation District Arizona State Land Department SNOwpack TELemetry Salt River Project Total dissolved solids Tucson Electric Power Company The Nature Conservancy U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Volatile organic compound Water Infrastructure Funding Authority Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Plant 111 APPENDICES Draft 112 APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area Through 2005 Project Title/Grant # Project Category Lake Mary Watershed Streams Restoration/00-108 Channel Restoration Little Colorado River Riparian Restoration Project/99-079 Talastima (Blue Canyon) Watershed Restoration Project/97-037 Continued Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site/00-104 Saffell Canyon and Murray Basin Watershed Restoration/96-0022 Feasibility Study Town of Eager/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design/99-089 Feasibility Study Town of Eagar/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design – Additional Mapping for Water Quality Improvements in the Watershed/00-112 Feasibility Study Completion Phase: Hi-Point Well Project/96-0002 Fencing EC Bar Ranch Water Well Project/98-046 Brown Creek Riparian Restoration/99-095 Upper Fairchild Draw Riparian Restoration/00-110 Polacca Wash Grazing Management/00-113 Wet Meadows for Water Quality and Wildlife – A Riparian Restoration Project/03-119 EC Bar Ranch Wildlife Drinker Project/99-067 Draft Constructed Wetland & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Fencing Exotic Species Control & Stream Restoration Fencing & Water Developments Fencing & Water Developments Fencing & Revegetation Fencing & Exotic Species Control w/ Revegetation Fencing & Habitat Protection Livestock & Wildlife Water Developments Evaluation of Carex Species for Use in Riparian Restoration/98-051 Research Assessments of Riparian Zones in the Little Colorado River Watershed/99084 Research 113 Project Title/Grant # Project Category Hubbell Trading Post Riparian Restoration with Treated Effluent/00-105 Revegetation Wilkins’ family Little Colorado River Riparian Enhancement Project/05125 Stream Restoration X Diamond Ranch LCR Riparian Enhancement Project/05-126 Stream Restoration Hoxworth Springs Riparian Restoration Project/96-0003 Demonstration Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post/97-029 Little Colorado River Enhancement Demonstration Project/99-092 EC Bar Ranch Reach 8 Water Well and Drinker Project/05-127 Draft Stream Restoration Stream Restoration & Revegetation Stream Restoration Water Developments Tsaile Creek Watershed Restoration Demonstration/96-0025 Watershed Restoration Murray Basin and Saffell Canyon Watershed Restoration Project/00-101 Watershed Restoration 114 Draft APPENDIX B: Watershed Partnerships in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area (2005) MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Watershed Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments Partnership Flagstaff Williams Page 115 Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council Coconino County Sedona Tusayan • TNC Grand Canyon Trust Doney Park Water Co. • Navajo Nation Havasupai Tribe Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe • • • ADWR State Land NAU ADEQ NRCD USBoR USGS USFS BLM Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon NRA NRCS • • • • • • 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 groundater. Flagstaff purchased Red Gap Ranch for possible future development of groundwater. Hopi HSR initiated. Conducting Water Appraisal Study to identify current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. Developing numeric model • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues Excessive growth throughout entire plateau Limited and deep groundwater supplies. Drought sensitive surface water supplies of Williams, Flagstaff and others Unsafe dam issues in Williams 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 means of additional supply ESA issues with groundwater usage and impacts on perennial streams Potential limitation of groundwater usage 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 Extremely high cost of water augmentation projects Draft MULTI-PLANNING AREA – Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands (continued) Watershed Partnership Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) Projects & Accomplishments Primary Participants Prescott Flagstaff Cottonwood Sedona Chino Valley 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. Issues ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 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 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 EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA 116 Watershed Partnership Little Colorado Watershed Coordinating Council (Formerly Little Colorado River Multi-Objective Management Partnership (LCRMOM)) Projects & Accomplishments Primary Participants Winslow Holbrook Navajo County NRCD/RCD NAU USBoR COE ? ? Development and Ecosystem Restoration Program study for the Montane Forest Regimes completed. Watershed reconnaissance study Issues ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Potential impacts on groundwater system from power plants Water quality issues involving arsenic and TDS Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Limited groundwater data for entire region Invasive species (Tamarisk) ESA issues Drought impacts on surface water supplies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Draft EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (continued) Watershed Partnership Primary Participants NDWR NDEQ Projects & Accomplishments NTUA NHA ? ? ADWR Navajo Nation USBoR BIA ? ? ? COE HIS Survey of agricultural lands in Upper Basin Groundwater elevation survey of NTUA wells Water Quality ATLAS Navajo Drought Report Western Navajo Water Supply Study Issues ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 117 Show Low Creek Watershed Partnership Show Low Lakeside-Pinetop Navajo Cty Show Low Creek Irrigation District Local Citizenry ADWR AZ Game & Fish ? ? ? ? Groundwater elevations study GPS survey of agricultural lands Development of a water resources management plan initiated. Development of a water budget initiated. ? ? ? ? ? ? Silver Creek Watershed Partnership Snowflake Taylor Holbrook Winslow Show Low Navajo County Silver Creek ID Show Low Creek Watershed Partnership ADWR NAU ? ? ? Silver Creek channel and riparian restoration study completed. Value Engineering Analysis of Unsafe Dams completed Silver Creek HSR Development of a water budget initiated. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Lack of technical groundwater data Limited groundwater supplies to meet projected demands Water quality issues Prone to impacts from drought Unresolved water right claims to LCR and Colorado R. Upper Basin/Lower Basin issues with Colorado River Gallup to Window Rock Pipeline in jeopardy (financial, upper/lower basin issues, ESA and others) Drought impacts on surface water supplies and springs resulting in impacts on agriculture and cattle ranching Seasonal demands impacting peak demands Growth Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Limited groundwater data Potential impacts on groundwater system from Cholla Power plant Drought impacts on surface water supplies for agriculture Several high hazard unsafe dams Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Perception of no real supply problem Water quality concerns in some areas (salinity) Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Draft EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (continued) Watershed Partnership Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments Springerville Eagar Greer Nutrioso Apache County ? Round Valley Irrigation District Local Citizens and Special Interest Groups ? Upper Little Colorado ADWR River Watershed AZG&F Partnership NRCS/RCD USBoR ADEQ ? ? ? USFS ? ? 118 Aerial mapping survey and GIS coverage of the Little Colorado River (LCR) and its tributaries completed. Geomorphic and biological assessment of the LCR completed. Stream riparian restoration project Round Valley Irrigation Delivery System partially upgraded. Preliminary water budget completed Reconstruction of River Reservoir Dam completed. The interconnection of Springerville and Eagar’s wastewater treatment facilities is being pursued. Issues ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Limited groundwater data Potential impacts to the groundwater system from TEPCO generating station. Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Proposed development in Greer and impacts on Little Colorado River Drought impacts on forage for grazing and surface water availability for agriculture Potential impacts on tourism due to drought Funding issues for water delivery infrastructure Political differences between Springerville and Eagar Perception of no real supply problem Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies