ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 5 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Arizona Department of Water Resources DRAFT June 2007 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 5 - CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA CONTENTS PREFACE SECTION 5.0 Overview of the Central Highlands Planning Area 5.0.1 Geography 5.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 5.0.3 Climate 5.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Unique and Other Managed Waters 5.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 5.0.6 Water Supply Central Arizona Project Water Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 5.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand  Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 5.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Central Highlands Planning Area Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups and Studies Issue Surveys 5.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES 1 3 5 5 10 16 20 20 23 23 26 28 28 30 34 35 36 38 41 42 42 45 46 47 51 53 55 55 56 58 60 63 SECTION 5.1  Water Resource Characteristics of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.1 Geography of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.2 Land Ownership in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.3 Climate of the Agua Fria Basin 69 70 72 75 DRAFT 1 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.7 Water Quality of the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Agua Fria Basin 5.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 5.0 SECTION 5.2  Water Resource Characteristics of the Salt River Basin 5.2.1 Geography of the Salt River Basin 5.2.2 Land Ownership in the Salt River Basin 5.2.3 Climate of the Salt River Basin 5.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Salt River Basin 5.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Salt River Basin 5.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Salt River Basin 5.2.7 Water Quality of the Salt River Basin 5.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Salt River Basin 5.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 5.0 SECTION 5.3  Water Resource Characteristics of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.1 Geography of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.2 Land Ownership in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.3 Climate of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.7 Water Quality of the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tonto Creek Basin 5.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin References and Supplemental Reading  Index to Section 5.0 SECTION 5.4  Water Resource Characteristics of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.1 Geography of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.2 Land Ownership in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.3 Climate of the Upper Hassayampa Basin ii 78 84 87 92 96 100 103 109 111 112 114 117 122 129 132 140 145 150 153 164 165 166 168 170 173 178 181 187 190 194 198 204 205 206 208 210 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.7 Water Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Hassayampa Basin 5.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 5.0 SECTION 5.5  Water Resource Characteristics of the Verde River Basin 5.5.1 Geography of the Verde River Basin 5.5.2 Land Ownership in the Verde River Basin 5.5.3 Climate of the Verde River Basin 5.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Verde River Basin 5.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Verde River Basin 5.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Verde River Basin 5.5.7 Water Quality of the Verde River Basin 5.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Verde River Basin 5.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 5.0 213 220 223 228 232 236 239 244 245 246 248 251 256 265 273 289 301 308 325 340 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 341 Appendix A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Central Highlands Planning Area through 2005 343 Appendix B: Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Central Highlands Planning Area 346 DRAFT iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 FIGURES Figure 5.0-1 Figure 5.0-2 Figure 5.0-3 Figure 5.0-4. Figure 5.0-5 Figure 5.0-6 Figure 5.0-7 Figure 5.0-8 Figure 5.0-9 Figure 5.0-10 Figure 5.0-11 Figure 5.0-12 Figure 5.0-13 Figure 5.0-14 Figure 5.1-1 Figure 5.1-2 Figure 5.1-3 Figure 5.1-4 Figure 5.1-5 Figure 5.1-6 Figure 5.1-7 Figure 5.1-8 Figure 5.1-9 Figure 5.1-10 Figure 5.1-11 Figure 5.2-1 Figure 5.2-2 Figure 5.2-3 Figure 5.2-4 Figure 5.2-5 Figure 5.2-6 Figure 5.2-7 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Central Highlands Planning Area 4 Central Highlands Planning Area USGS Watersheds 11 SRP Reservoir System Capacity 14 Average temperature and total precipitation in the Central Highlands Planning area from 1930-2002 17 Average monthly precipitation and temperature in the Central Highlands Planning Area 1930-2002 18 Arizona NOAA Climate Divisions 3 & 4 winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average 19 Location of Major Wildfires in the Central Highlands Planning Area, 2002-2005 22 Central Highlands Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 25 Communities with a 2000 Census Population of Greater than 1,000 in the Central Highlands Planning Area 33 Water Supplies Utilized in the Central Highlands Planning Area in acre-feet (average annual use 2001-2003) 36 Water Stored in Salt River System Reservoirs, 1980-2005 39 Central Highlands Planning Area Contamination Sites 44 Central Highlands Planning Area average cultural water demand by sector, 2001-2003 in acre-feet 46 Agua Fria Basin Geographic Features 71 Agua Fria Basin Land Ownership 74 Agua Fria Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 77 Agua Fria Basin Surface Water Conditions 83 Agua Fria Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 86 Agua Fria Basin Groundwater Conditions 89 Agua Fria Basin Hydrographs 90 Agua Fria Basin Well Yields 91 Agua Fria Basin Water Quality 95 Agua Fria Basin Cultural Water Demands 99 Agua Fria Basin Adequacy Determinations 102 Salt River Basin Geographic Features 113 Salt River Basin Land Ownership 116 Salt River Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 121 Salt River Basin Surface Water Conditions 128 Salt River Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 131 Salt River Basin Groundwater Conditions 136 Salt River Basin Hydrographs 137 iv DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.2-8 Figure 5.2-9 Figure 5.2-10 Figure 5.2-11 Figure 5.3-1 Figure 5.3-2 Figure 5.3-3 Figure 5.3-4 Figure 5.3-5 Figure 5.3-6 Figure 5.3-7 Figure 5.3-8 Figure 5.3-9 Figure 5.3-10 Figure 5.3-11 Figure 5.4-1 Figure 5.4-2 Figure 5.4-3 Figure 5.4-4 Figure 5.4-5 Figure 5.4-6 Figure 5.4-7 Figure 5.4-8 Figure 5.4-9 Figure 5.4-10 Figure 5.4-11 Figure 5.5-1 Figure 5.5-2 Figure 5.5-3 Figure 5.5-4 Figure 5.5-5 Figure 5.5-6 Figure 5.5-6A Figure 5.5-6B Figure 5.5-7 Figure 5.5-8 Figure 5.5-9 Figure 5.5-9A Figure 5.5-10 Salt River Basin Well Yields Salt River Basin Water Quality Conditions Salt River Basin Cultural Water Demands Salt River Basin Adequacy Determinations Tonto Creek Basin Geographic Features Tonto Creek Basin Land Ownership Tonto Creek Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Tonto Creek Basin Surface Water Conditions Tonto Creek Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Tonto Creek Basin Groundwater Conditions Tonto Creek Basin Hydrographs Tonto Creek Basin Well Yeilds Tonto Creek Basin Water Quality Conditions Tonto Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand Tonto Creek Basin Water Adequacy Determinations Upper Hassayampa Basin Geographic Features Upper Hassayampa Basin Land Ownership Upper Hassayampa Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Upper Hassayampa Basin Surface Water Conditions Upper Hassayampa Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Upper Hassayampa Basin Groundwater Conditions Upper Hassayampa Basin Hydrographs Upper Hassayampa Basin Well Yields Upper Hassayampa Basin Water Quality Conditions Upper Hassayampa Basin Cultural Water Demand Upper Hassayampa Basin Water Adequacy Determinations Verde River Basin Geographic Features Verde River Basin Land Ownership Verde River Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Verde River Basin Surface Water Conditions Verde River Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Verde River Basin Groundwater Conditions Big Chino Sub-basin Groundwater Level Changes Verde Valley Sub-basin Groundwater Level Changes Verde River Basin Hydrographs Verde River Basin Well Yields Verde River Basin Water Quality Conditions Verde River Basin Water Quality Conditions Verde River Basin Cultural Water Demand DRAFT 139 144 149 152 167 169 172 177 180 184 185 186 189 193 197 207 209 212 219 222 225 226 227 231 235 238 247 250 255 264 272 277 278 279 280 288 299 300 307 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-11 Figure 5.5-11A Verde River Basin Adequacy Determinations Verde River Basin Adequacy Determination vi 322 324 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 TABLES Table 5.0-1 Table 5.0.2 Table 5.0-3 Table 5.0-4 Table 5.0-5 Table 5.0-6 Table 5.0-7 Table 5.0-8 Table 5.0-9 Table 5.0-10 Table 5.0-11 Table 5.0-12 Table 5.0-13 Table 5.0-14 Table 5.0-15 Table 5.0-16 Table 5.0-17 Table 5.0-18 Table 5.1-1 Table 5.1-2 Table 5.1-3 Table 5.1-4 Table 5.1-5 Table 5.1-6 Table 5.1-7 Table 5.1-8 Table 5.1-9 Instream flow claims in the Central Highlands Planning Area Listed threatened and endangered species in the Central Highlands Planning Area Wilderness Areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Central Highlands Planning Area Communities in the Central Highlands Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Central Highlands Planning Area as of 5/2005 CAP Subcontractors and Transferred Entitlements in the Central Highlands Planning Area Active contamination sites in the Central Highlands Planning Area Estimated Water Demand on the Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations Average annual municipal water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area (2001-2003) in acre-feet Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2003 in the Central Highlands Planning Area Golf course demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area (c.2006) Agricultural Demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area  Industrial demand in selected years in the Central Highlands Planning Area Water resource issues ranked by 2003 survey respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area Groundwater level trends reported by 2004 survey respondents by groundwater basin  Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area  Number of 2004 survey respondents, by groundwater basin, that ranked the survey water resource issues a moderate or major concern  Climate Data for the Agua Fria Basin Streamflow Data for the Agua Fria Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Agua Fria Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Agua Fria Basin Springs in the Agua Fria Basin Groundwater Data for the Agua Fria Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Agua Fria Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Agua Fria Basin Effluent Generation in the Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 24 26 29 31 32 35 37 43 47 48 49 51 52 54 58 59 59 60 76 80 81 82 85 88 93 97 98 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-10 Table 5.2-1 Table 5.2-2 Table 5.2-3 Table 5.2-4 Table 5.2-5 Table 5.2-6 Table 5.2-7 Table 5.2-8 Table 5.2-9 Table 5.2-10 Table 5.3-1 Table 5.3-2 Table 5.3-3 Table 5.3-4 Table 5.3-5 Table 5.3-6 Table 5.3-7 Table 5.3-8 Table 5.3-9 Table 5.3-10 Table 5.4-1 Table 5.4-2 Table 5.4-3 Table 5.4-4 Table 5.4-5 Table 5.4-6 Table 5.4-7 Table 5.4-8 Table 5.4-9 Table 5.4-10 Table 5.5-1 Table 5.5-2 Table 5.5-3 Table 5.5-3a Table 5.5-4 Table 5.5-5 Table 5.5-6 Table 5.5-7 Table 5.5-8 Table 5.5-9 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fri Basin Climate Data for the Salt River Basin Streamflow Data for the Salt River Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Salt River Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Salt River Basin Springs in the Salt River Basin Groundwater Data for the Salt River Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Salt River Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Salt River Basin Effluent Generation in the Salt River Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin Climate Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Surface Water Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tonto Creek Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tonto Creek Basin Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin Groundwater Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Tonto Creek Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Tonto Creek Basin Effluent Generation in the Tonto Creek Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin Climate Date for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Streamflow Date for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Groundwater Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Effluent Generation in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Climate Data for the Verde River Basin Streamflow Data for the Verde River Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Verde River Basin SRP Low Flow Gages in the Verde River Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Verde River Basin Springs in the Verde River Basin Groundwater Data for the Verde River Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Verde River Basin Effluent Generation in the Verde River Basin Water Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin viii 101 119 124 126 127 130 134 141 147 148 151 171 174 175 176 179 183 188 191 192 195 211 215 216 218 221 224 229 233 234 237 253 258 260 262 263 266 275 290 303 304 309 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 5 –CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Draft Preface Volume 5, the Central Highlands Planning Area, is the fifth in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 5.0-1). 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 (Department). 5.0 Overview of the Central Highlands Planning Area The Central Highlands Planning Area is composed of five groundwater basins oriented east-west in central Arizona. This planning area contains areas of higher elevation compared to many other parts of the state and is characterized by narrow valleys separated by steep mountain ranges. Elevation ranges from 1,500 feet to over 12,600 feet. Parts of nine counties are located within the planning area including parts of Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Pinal, and Yavapai counties. There are four Indian reservations within the planning area including the Fort Apache, San Carlos Apache, Tonto-Apache, and Yavapai-Apache Indian Reservations. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 145,850. Basin population ranged from about 7,500 in the Tonto Creek Basin to over 88,000 in the Verde River Basin. Payson is the largest metropolitan area with about 13,600 residents in 2000. Other population centers include Camp Verde, Cottonwood/Verde Village/Clarkdale, Globe/Miami and Sedona. An average of about 77,700 acre-feet of water is used annually in the planning area for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand). Of this total, approximately 61% is groundwater, 38% is surface water and 1% is effluent. The agricultural demand sector is the largest with approximately 38,000 acre-feet of demand a year - 49% of the total demand. The municipal sector demand is about 22,600 acre-feet a year and industrial demand is about 17,100 acre-feet a year. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 KAIBAB Page Kayenta NAVAJO HAVASUPAI NAVAJO COUNTY HOPI (MOENKOPI) COCONINO COUNTY Kykotsmovi HUALAPAI MOHAVE COUNTY Bullhead City APACHE COUNTY Window Rock HOPI Peach Springs Flagstaff Kingman FORT MOJAVE YAVAPAI COUNTY Lake Havasu City HUALAPAI Sedona PRESCOTT AMA YAVAPAI-APACHE YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT JOSEPH CITY INA Holbrook ZUNI Saint Johns Prescott Pine Parker LA PAZ COUNTY CA P COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES Payson Springerville TONTO-APACHE FORT APACHE MARICOPA COUNTY HARQUAHALA INA PHOENIX AMA GILA COUNTY FORT MCDOWELL SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA Phoenix Globe SAN CARLOS APACHE CA GREENLEE COUNTY P GILA RIVER YUMA COUNTY FORT YUMA (QUECHAN) GILA BEND AK-CHIN Gila Bend Clifton Florence Safford PINAL COUNTY Yuma COCOPAH GRAHAM COUNTY CA PINAL AMA P TOHONO O'ODHAM Tucson PIMA COUNTY 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 SANTA CRUZ AMA County Indian Reservation Nogales Irrigation Non-Expansion Area Arizona Planning Area Active Management Area SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 0 50 COCHISE COUNTY Sierra Vista Bisbee DOUGLAS INA Douglas 100 Miles Central Highlands Eastern Plateau Lower Colorado River Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Western Plateau 2 Figure 5.0-1 Arizona Planning Areas c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.0.1 Geography The Central Highlands Planning Area encompasses about 13,900 square miles and includes the Agua Fria, Salt River, Tonto Creek, Upper Hassayampa and Verde River basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 5.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the Coconino Plateau Basin in the Western Plateau Planning Area, on the east by the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, on the south by the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area and the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA), and on the west by the Prescott AMA and the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (Figure 5.0.1). The planning area includes all or part of three watersheds, which are discussed in section 5.0.2. Within the planning area, the Fort Apache Indian Reservation encompasses about 2,500 square miles and the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, most of which is within the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, encompasses about 500 square miles. The two other reservations are relatively small, totaling only about 740 acres or 1.2 square miles. Most of the planning area is within the Central Highlands physiographic province, characterized by rugged mountains of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. This province is the smallest in terms of area in Arizona and is a transition zone between the Basin and Range Lowlands and Plateau Uplands Provinces (See Volume 1, Figure 1-2). The extreme southwestern part of the planning area extends into the Basin and Range Lowlands physiographic province, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys. The southern portions of the Agua Fria and Upper Hassayampa basins are indicative of this province. The northwestern part of the planning area falls within the Plateau Uplands physiographic province which is characterized by high desert plateaus and incised canyons. Included in this province are the northern part of the Verde River Basin, and the northern edge of the Tonto Creek and Salt River basins. Elevation ranges from 1,500 feet at Saguaro Lake in the Salt River Basin to 12,633 feet at Humphreys Peak in the San Francisco Mountains at the northeastern edge of the Verde River Basin. High-elevation mountains are also found in the White Mountains in the eastern portion of the Salt River Basin where Mt. Baldy, at 11,403 feet is the highest point. A unique geographic feature of the planning area is the Mogollon Rim, an escarpment that defines the southern boundary of the Colorado Plateau. The rim is approximately 7,000 feet in elevation with sheer drops of 2,000 feet at some locations. The rim stretches for over a hundred miles and forms much of the northeastern boundary of the planning area. The planning area contains diverse topography and a large elevational range, resulting in a wide diversity of vegetation types and ecosystems, the greatest of any planning area in the state. Topography varies from desert basins in the Hassayampa Basin to deeply incised canyons along the Mogollon Rim and high mountain peaks. Because of the high elevations and associated higher rainfall and snowfall, this planning area contains the state’s most important water producing watersheds, the Salt River and the Verde River. These watersheds contain the greatest concentration of perennial streams found in the state, which in turn support extensive riparian habitat. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 3 4 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.0.2 Hydrology1 Groundwater Hydrology The Central Highlands Planning Area is characterized by a band of mountains consisting of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. High elevations, steep topography, and extensive bedrock result in relatively small water storage capabilities and high runoff in the planning area as compared to the alluvial basins in the State. Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992) divided the alluvial basins in south-central Arizona into five categories based on similar hydrologic and geologic characteristics. One of these, the “Highland Basins”, covers most of the planning area with the exception of the Upper Hassayampa Basin, categorized as a “West” basin, and the southern half of the Agua Fria Basin, categorized as a “Central” Basin. Highland Basins The Highland basins include the Salt River, Tonto Creek and Verde River basins, and the northern half of the Agua Fria Basin. Basin fill aquifers in the highlands are limited in areal extent and are hydrologically-connected with stream alluvium. Consolidated rock aquifers surround and underlie the basin fill aquifers and contribute underflow. Basin fill aquifers also receive inflow from stream infiltration and mountain front recharge. Where the basin fill aquifers are discontinuous, underflow between them may be restricted (Anderson, et al., 1992) Agua Fria Basin (northern half) Groundwater occurs in four geologic units in the Agua Fria Basin: basin fill sands and gravels, volcanic rocks, conglomerates and igneous and metamorphic rocks. Groundwater occurs in volcanic rocks in the northeastern section of the basin that yield relatively small volumes of water. Conglomerates are found throughout the basin and contain the largest volumes of groundwater of any of the rock units. Due to faulting, this unit is separated into smaller discrete basins separated by low permeability crystalline rocks. Salt River Basin The Salt River Basin is bounded on the west and southwest by the Sierra Ancha and Superstition Mountains, on the south by the Natanes Plateau and on the east by the White Mountains (see Figure 5.2-1). The Mogollon Rim, a 2,000-foot high escarpment, forms a natural groundwater divide along much of the basin’s northern boundary. The Salt River Basin contains four subbasins: Salt River Lakes, Salt River Canyon, Black River and White River. Figures 5.2-6 and 5.2-8 show the location of the sub-basins. Principal aquifers differ between the sub-basins, with basin fill and alluvial aquifers found in the western portion of the basin and limestone and volcanic aquifers in the eastern portion. Groundwater conditions in each sub-basin, from west to east, are discussed below. 1 Except as noted, much of the information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume II, ADWR August, 1994. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • Salt River Lakes Sub-basin The Salt River Lakes Sub-basin occupies the western part of the Salt River Basin. Within the sub-basin groundwater is found in igneous granitic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. A basin fill aquifer underlies a large part of the sub-basin including the area around Globe, lower Tonto Creek, the Salt River reservoirs and Pinto Valley west of Miami. Unconsolidated sands and gravels within the floodplains of streams and washes form an alluvial aquifer that is generally the most productive aquifer. Along the Salt River and around Roosevelt Lake, the basin fill is up to 2,000 feet thick (ADWR, 1992). Recharge to the basin fill aquifer occurs primarily along mountain fronts and from streams and lake infiltration. In the Globe-Miami area the Gila Conglomerate, composed of semi-consolidated to consolidated basin fill sediments, forms a local aquifer. The Gila Conglomerate is up to 4,000 feet thick in this area and provides most of the area’s municipal and industrial water supply. A limestone aquifer also supplies water in the Globe-Miami area, and west of Globe several small basin fill deposits form isolated groundwater aquifers (ADWR, 1992). Well yields are generally low in the southeast part of the sub-basin near Globe, and higher north of Globe. Igneous granitic rocks provide small amounts of water for domestic and stock use in the sub-basin. Mining activities in the Globe-Miami area have impacted water quality in the alluvial aquifer along Pinal Creek and Miami Wash including elevated concentrations of sulfate and metals. Drinking water standards for cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, other metals and for total dissolved solids have been equalled or exceeded in a number of wells in the area. • Salt River Canyon Sub-basin In the western portion of the Salt River Canyon Sub-basin, sedimentary and igneous granitic rocks are found similar to those in the adjacent Salt River Lakes Sub-basin. The groundwater flow system is complex with disconnected recharge areas and many water-bearing zones located beneath sedimentary and igneous rocks (USGS, 2005a). The rest of the sub-basin is composed primarily of sedimentary rocks, including limestones, sandstones, siltstones, shales and thin conglomerates. These rocks are exposed along the Mogollon Rim and at other locations in the sub-basin. The Natanes Plateau, located along the southern boundary of the sub-basin, is composed of volcanic rock. There is little aquifer data for the area, but based on similar rock units in other areas, there may be useable amounts of water in the Supai Formation, Redwall Limestone, Coconino Sandstone and the undivided sandstones in the sub-basin. These formations may yield moderate amounts of water, up to 100 gpm, however yields can vary widely depending on sub-surface geology (ADWR, 1992). Recharge to the sedimentary rocks occurs mainly along the Mogollon Rim. Significant basin fill and floodplain alluvial deposits are present along Cherry Creek near the western boundary of the sub-basin. The depth of basin fill deposits in this sub-basin was estimated to be less than 400 feet thick (ADWR, 1992). • White River Sub-basin The eastern portion of the White River Sub-basin is covered with volcanics and the western portion contains consolidated sedimentary rocks similar to those found in the Salt River Canyon 6 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Sub-basin. Groundwater occurs in fracture zones and the various volcanic flows, including cinder beds. Groundwater flow in the volcanic aquifer is discontinuous and well yields and water levels may vary widely over short distances. Precipitation in the area is relatively high and recharges the volcanic aquifer through infiltration into the fractured rock. Groundwater discharged from the volcanic aquifer contributes to the baseflow of the White River. • Black River Sub-basin The Black River Sub-basin is covered almost entirely by volcanics that include basalt flows, rhyolitic ash flows, tuffs and tuffaceous agglomerates that form layers over 3,000 feet thick in some areas. Wells in this area are low-yield and well depths of 400 to 800 feet are common. As in the White River Sub-basin, the volcanic aquifer is recharged through infiltration of precipitation. Discharge from the aquifer contributes to baseflow in the Black River. Tonto Creek Basin In the Tonto Creek Basin, groundwater is found in stream alluvium, basin fill sands and gravel, Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and Precambrian igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. The primary aquifer occurs in basin fill which underlies a large portion of the basin, from near Rye to the southern basin boundary. The basin fill consists of coarse-grained conglomerate in the lower part of the basin and along the basin margins and locally is overlain by fine-grained mudstone in the center of the basin. The conglomerate may be up to 500 feet thick. Groundwater is also found in the floodplain alluvium which may be as much as 65 feet thick along Tonto Creek. Along the Creek, the basin fill and alluvial aquifers are recharged primarily by stream infiltration. A limestone aquifer is utilized along the Mogollon Rim where groundwater movement and well yield are dependent on faults, fractures and solution cavities. Wells in the limestone aquifer generally yield less than 100 gpm. The aquifers within the sedimentary rocks are recharged from precipitation on the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau (USGS, 2005a). Fractured bedrock yields small volumes of water to wells east of Payson (ADWR, 1992). Since most of the land in the basin is National Forest land, there has been little groundwater development and aquifer characteristics are not well defined. Groundwater quality is generally good although drinking water standards for arsenic, radionuclides, nitrate/nitrite and organics have been equalled or exceeded in some wells. Verde River Basin The Verde River Basin encompasses part of the Coconino Plateau in its northern portion while the Mogollon Rim defines its eastern boundary. It is characterized by steep canyons, rugged mountains and broad alluvial valleys in the north and west-central portions of the basin. The basin is divided into the Big Chino, Verde Valley and Verde Canyon sub-basins, which are discussed from north to south below. A number of hydrogeologic studies of the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins, and to a lesser extent the Verde Canyon sub-basin, have been conducted and are briefly referenced here. These studies, many of them very recent, contain detailed information about the groundwater system as well as the surface water system of the Verde River Basin. Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-8 show the locations of the sub-basins. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • Big Chino Sub-basin The Big Chino Sub-basin has an area of about 1,850 square miles. The principal aquifer consists of basin fill sediments interbedded with volcanic rocks of Cenozoic age that fill the sub-basin. This basin fill aquifer is commonly referred to as the Chino Valley Unit and is the major source of water for irrigation and domestic purposes. Chino Valley runs northwest to southeast from Seligman to Paulden. Well yields in Chino Valley wells are commonly greater than 1,000 gpm to greater than 2,000 gpm. A carbonate aquifer comprised of Paleozoic rocks underlies most of the Big Chino Valley Sub-basin and the area north of the Verde River near Paulden. It is assumed that there is a hydraulic connection between the two aquifers in the Big Chino Valley and the Williamson Valley, which runs north-south along the southeastern subbasin boundary. In the basin fill aquifer, groundwater occurs under unconfined and confined (artesian) conditions. Artesian conditions occur primarily where buried lava flows and coarse-grained sediments are interbedded with clays and volcanic ash. Recharge occurs from mountain front recharge and from runoff in major washes. In the northwesternmost part of the sub-basin, basin fill deposits may be as much as 2,500 feet thick. Further south and west of Paulden in the Williamson Valley, the thickness of the alluvium is estimated at 2,000 feet. In the eastern part of the Big Chino Sub-basin, the carbonate aquifer is the primary regional aquifer. This aquifer is dry west of the Mesa Butte Fault and between Williams and the Big Chino Valley (USGS, 2006). Alluvial sands and gravels along the major washes also yield water to wells and are utilized as a local water supply in the sub-basin. Water quality is generally good in the sub-basin with some occurrence of arsenic at levels that equal or exceed the drinking water standard in wells in the Paulden area. Aquifer recharge occurs along the Juniper and Santa Maria Mountains on the west side of the sub-basin, from Granite Mountain on the south and from Big Black Mesa and Bill Williams Mountain on the east side of Chino Valley. Recharge also occurs via groundwater inflow from the Little Chino Sub-basin (Prescott AMA) north of Del Rio Springs. In 1999, this inflow was estimated at 1,800 acre-feet per year (Nelson, 2002). Groundwater outflow from the Big Chino Sub-basin occurs as base flow in the Verde River and is currently estimated at about 17,700 acre-feet/year. Base flow at the Verde River near Paulden (gage number 9503700, see Figure 5.5-4) has declined at an annual rate of about 380 acre-feet per year since the mid-1990s (USGS, 2006). • Verde Valley Sub-basin The Verde Valley Sub-basin has an area of about 2,500 square miles. The principal aquifer in the sub-basin is the Verde Formation, which consists of a thick sequence of limestones and sandstones. The estimated depth of the formation is 4,200 feet based on aeromagnetic and gravity data (USGS, 2006). Other aquifers include the carbonate aquifer and an alluvial aquifer located along the Verde River. Groundwater occurs primarily under unconfined conditions although confined conditions occur locally within the Verde Formation. All three aquifers are hydraulically connected. The main groundwater supply for Sedona is in sandstone of the Supai Formation and the underlying Redwall and Martin limestones (carbonate aquifer). Locally perched groundwater in fractured or decomposed granite and in volcanic rocks provide 8 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 small amounts of water in many locations. Groundwater is generally of good quality at most locations, although the drinking water standard for arsenic has been equaled or exceeded in several wells (see Table 5.5-7). Most groundwater enters the sub-basin from the Coconino Plateau. Groundwater moves through the carbonate aquifer and discharges at springs and seeps along tributaries of the Verde River, or flows into the Verde Formation and stream-channel alluvium (USGS, 2006). The Oak Creek Fault system is an important influence on the transmission of water between aquifers and to the surface, as evidenced by the large number of major springs along Oak Creek (see Figure 5.5-5). Groundwater primarily flows toward the Verde drainage and exits the sub-basin in the southeast through alluvium and volcanic rocks along the river. Recharge to the Verde Formation aquifer is from high elevation precipitation along the Mogollon Rim and on the Coconino Plateau with additional contributions from stream infiltration. The carbonate aquifer also receives recharge from high altitudes along the Mogollon Rim, and from an area between the San Francisco Peaks and Bill Williams Mountain (USGS, 2006). Most recharge comes from winter precipitation. • Verde Canyon Sub-basin There is relatively little groundwater development in the Verde Canyon Sub-basin. Basalt flows, conglomerates and semi-consolidated silt units cover a large part of the sub-basin. The groundwater system is complex with disconnected recharge areas and multiple water-bearing zones. Because of its complexity our understanding of the groundwater system is often limited to local analysis of spring and well data. Recharge to the groundwater system originates primarily along the crest of the Mogollon Rim where precipitation and snowmelt percolate through permeable volcanic, limestone or sandstone units (USGS 2005a). Spring discharge and stream base flow appear to be the largest components of aquifer outflow. Water quality is generally good in the sub-basin although the drinking water standards for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, selenium and organics have been equaled or exceeded in wells in the Payson area and for arsenic in Pine. In Payson, groundwater is withdrawn primarily from fractured and faulted granite. Most wells are shallow, although the town of Payson has conducted exploratory drilling north of the town where deep water-bearing zones were found. A recent study suggests that a segment of the Diamond Rim fault system northeast of Payson may have groundwater supply potential (Gæaorama, 2006). The shallow water-bearing zones around Payson depend on winter recharge and are therefore very sensitive to drought. Water in deeper fracture systems in the area may be fed from the Mogollon Rim and less affected by droughts. Well yields in the area are typically less than 500 gpm. In Strawberry, most wells are completed in the Schnebly Hill Formation, a sandstone unit that is the major component of the “Red Rocks” of Sedona. Well yields in the area typically range from 20 to 80 gpm. An exploratory well drilled near Strawberry in 2000 encountered water in the Redwall Limestone at about 1,380 feet (Corkhill, 2000). At nearby Pine, most wells are completed in the Supai Formation, which is composed of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 with some interbedded limestone. Well yields in Pine are typically lower than Strawberry and range from 10 to 30 gpm. These relatively low well yields suggest a more localized groundwater system (USGS, 2005a). There is little water use in the southern half of the subbasin where unconsolidated sediments are found. West Basins The Upper Hassayampa Basin was defined by Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992) as a “West” basin. These basins are generally arid and groundwater inflow and outflow are relatively small with little or no stream baseflow. The main aquifer in the Upper Hassayampa Basin is basin fill deposits found along valleys between the mountains. These deposits consist of gravel, sand, silt and clay. In the mountainous portions of the basin, fractured crystalline and consolidated sedimentary rocks yield small amounts of water to wells. North of the Vulture Mountains in the southwestern part of the basin, the basin fill varies from a few tens of feet thick to over 1,000 feet thick near the middle of the valley. Near Wagoner, stream deposits overlying crystalline rock are up to 135 feet thick. Groundwater quality is generally good in the basin although drinking water standards for arsenic and other metals have been equaled or exceeded in wells near Wickenburg. Central Basins The southern half of the Agua Fria Basin was categorized by Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992) as a central basin. Central basins are characterized by deep alluvial sediments with small to moderate amounts of mountain front recharge and streamflow infiltration. The principal aquifers in the Agua Fria Basin are upper basin fill, which occurs under unconfined conditions, and sedimentary rock (conglomerate), which is found throughout the basin and contains the largest volume of groundwater. Castle Hot Springs, located in the southwest part of the basin, discharge 340 gpm from Precambrian rocks. By comparison, wells in Precambrian schist near Black Canyon City have relatively low yields. Arsenic and fluoride concentrations at levels that equal or exceed drinking water standards have been detected in springs and wells near Black Canyon City and in Castle Hot Springs. Surface Water Hydrology The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides and subdivides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units based on hydrologic features. These units are classified into four levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level in the system is used to identify any hydrologic area (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. There are portions of three watersheds in the planning area at the accounting unit level; the Agua Fria RiverLower Gila River, the Salt River and the Verde River. (Figure 5.0-3). The Agua Fria-Lower Gila River The Agua Fria-Lower Gila River watershed extends from near Prescott to south of Gila Bend in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. It includes the drainage areas of the Agua Fria River, the Hassayampa River and the Gila River from below its confluence with the Salt River Basin to Painted Rock Dam. Within the planning area, this watershed covers the Agua Fria Basin and the 10 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Upper Hassayampa Basin. The Agua Fria River drains an area of about 2,700 square miles with elevations ranging from 7,800 feet in the Bradshaw Mountains, which define part of its western boundary, to 1,570 feet at Lake Pleasant, which is impounded by New Waddell Dam at the southern boundary of the Agua Fria Basin. The Agua Fria River only flows below the dam when water is released during major flood events. It is tributary to the Gila River a short distance downstream of the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers near Goodyear in the Phoenix AMA. The Agua Fria River is perennial at several reaches within the Agua Fria Basin: above Lake Pleasant south of Black Canyon City; through portions of the Agua Fria National Monument; and in the northern part of the basin (see Figure 5.1-5). Tributaries to the Agua Fria River with perennial reaches include Little Ash, Sycamore, and Silver creeks. Other tributaries to the river are generally intermittent or ephemeral. The Hassayampa River originates in the northern Bradshaw Mountains and flows through the Upper Hassayampa Basin and the Phoenix AMA to its confluence with the Gila River. The river drains a total of about 1,470 square miles. It is perennial in the northern portion of the Upper Hassayampa Basin in the vicinity of Groom Creek, and in the reach south of Wickenburg. A major fault crosses the river seven miles downstream from Wickenburg at “the Narrows”, which forms the southern boundary of the basin. At this point, the entire flow of the river sinks into the streambed. The only other perennial reaches within the basin are short reaches of Minnehaha, Ash, Weaver and Antelope creeks (AGFD, 1993). There are three currently operating streamflow gages in the watershed, all located in the Agua Fria Basin. These include real-time gages on the Agua Fria River near Humboldt, Mayer and Rock Springs. The maximum recoded annual flow in the watershed was 360,541 acre-feet at the Rock Springs Gage in 1992. The median annual flow at this location is 19,692 acre-feet and the minimum annual flow was 1,528 acre-feet in 1975 (see Table 5.1-2). There are currently no operating streamflow gages in the Hassayampa River drainage of the watershed. The gage with the longest record (35 years), was located north of Wickenburg and was discontinued in 1982. During its period of operation, the highest annual flow recorded was 123,076 acre-feet in 1980, and its median flow was 7,457 acre-feet (see Table 5.4-2). There are approximately 460 total springs located in the watershed. Only five springs with a discharge of 10 gpm or greater have been reported and all are located in the Agua Fria Basin. Discharges from those springs were last measured during or prior to 1982, therefore these rates may not be indicative of current conditions. The largest spring is Castle Spring, with a reported discharge of 340 gpm and a temperature of 131°F. It is located northwest of Lake Pleasant at Castle Hot Springs, reportedly Arizona’s first resort which opened in 1896. The four other large springs have discharge rates less than 100 gpm and are located in the northeastern portion of the basin (see Figure 5.1-5). There are 14 minor springs (discharge of 1-10 gpm) in the watershed, also located in the Agua Fria Basin. While there are no large or small springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin, there are approximately 164 to 166 springs with a discharge of less than 1gpm. Within the watershed, reaches of Turkey Creek in the Agua Fria Basin, and Cash Mine Creek, French Gulch and the Hassayampa River in the Upper Hassayampa Basin have surface waters with 12 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 impaired water quality. Parameters of concern include cadmium, copper, zinc, pH and lead due to mining activities in the area. The Salt River The surface water characteristics of the Salt River watershed are influenced by precipitation patterns, topography and geology. The Salt River and Tonto Creek basins comprise most of the watershed with the exception of the westernmost part, which extends to the confluence of the Salt and Gila rivers in the Phoenix AMA. The Salt River is the largest tributary of the Gila River, with a drainage area of about 5,980 square miles. Its headwaters are the White and Black rivers that originate in the high elevations of the Salt River Basin where winter snow accumulation is critical to downstream water supplies. This area is the most prolific producer of surface water in Arizona with unit runoff values of as much as 674 acre-feet/square mile (12.6 inches) in the drainage of the East Fork of the White River (ADWR, 1992) (See Figure 5.2-4). By comparison, the Tonto Creek Basin has a unit runoff of about 165 acre-feet/square mile (3.1 inches). Within the planning area, the elevation of the watershed ranges from near 11,400 feet in the White Mountains to 1,500 feet at Saguaro Lake. There are many perennial streams in the watershed, particularly in the Salt River Basin (see Figures 5.2-5 and 5.3-5). The Salt River and Tonto Creek are both perennial throughout their lengths in the planning area. Numerous small streams that begin along the Mogollon Rim and the White Mountains feed tributaries of the Salt River and Tonto Creek. Perennial flow in these streams is primarily due to geologic features (e.g. joints and fractures) that cause groundwater to surface and discharge to streams. Surface water from the watershed flows into Theodore Roosevelt Lake, and is subsequently released to a series of three downstream reservoirs along the Salt River; Apache Lake, Canyon Lake and Saguaro Lake. These reservoirs and their associated dams are operated by the Salt River Project (SRP) for the benefit of agricultural, municipal and industrial users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Figure 5.0-4 shows the capacity of the SRP reservoir system on both the Salt and the Verde systems. Also shown is C.C. Cragin Reservoir, formerly known as Blue Ridge Reservoir. Water stored at C.C. Cragin, located in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, is diverted by pipeline to the East Verde River in the Verde Watershed. Surface water stored in this reservoir and in the Salt and Verde system is not generally available for use in the Central Highlands Planning Area. The Salt River system dams were constructed beginning in 1911 with completion of Roosevelt Dam. Mormon Flat Dam was completed in 1926, followed by Horse Mesa in 1927 and Stewart Mountain in 1930. Prior to dam construction, the flow in the Salt River was heaviest in the spring and early summer. Flow is now regulated in response to flood control and downstream water demand. As a result, flows below the reservoirs are generally highest during June-August when water demand is greatest in the Phoenix metropolitan area or when high inflow to the reservoirs necessitates release of water from the dams. In February 1980, a wet winter combined with a storm that dropped up to ten inches of rainfall on the watershed resulted in the largest controlled flood ever to go down the Salt River. Releases from Roosevelt Dam peaked at 180,000 cfs and the water level behind the dam was inches from overflowing the crest (SRP, 2007). Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 13 SRP Reservoir System Capacity inCapacity Acre-Feet Figure 5.0-4. SRP Reservoir System C.C. Cragin Dam 6720’ 6720’ - Horseshoe - 2000’ 109,217 AF 1798’ Roosevelt Dam 2218’ Top of Safety of Dams East Clear Creek Storage: 15,000 AF C.C. Cragin 15,000 AF Horseshoe Dam 2026’ Bartlett Dam Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 2151’ Top of Conservation 2100’ - Horse Mesa Dam 1914’ Mormon Flat Dam 1660.5’ Mountain 1610.5’ Dam 1529’ Roosevelt Lake 1,653,043 AF Apache Lake 245,138 AF Bartlett - 1748’ Stewart 178,186 AF Verde River Storage: 287,403 AF VERDE CONSERVATION STORAGE: 302,403 AF 1506’ - Canyon Lake 57,852 AF Saguaro Lake 69,765 AF Total SRP Storage: 2,328,201 AF SALT CONSERVATION STORAGE: 2,025,798 AF 01/09/07 REF/SVRSCIAF-2 Figure Courtesy of SRP Annual streamflow of the Salt River fluctuates widely. The nearest gage upstream from Roosevelt Lake, with a contributing drainage area of 4,306 mi2, has been in operation since 1913. The maximum annual flow was over 2.4 maf in 1916, median annual flow has been 518,499 acre-feet and mean annual flow 644,942 acre-feet. In 2002, an extreme drought year, flow into Roosevelt Lake was at its minimum, about 153,000 acre-feet (Table 5.2-2). Except for changes due to timber harvesting and beaver removal, the upstream reaches of the river have not been significantly altered (Tellman et al., 1997). Typically, timber harvesting and fire in mature forests increases watersehd yields due to elimination of the plant cover. As woody and herbaceous vegetation becomes established, streamflows decline. Recent severe fires in the basin resulted in significant increases in peak flow at several locations. (Neary, et al., 2003) In the Tonto Creek Basin there is one currently operating, real-time gage located near the community of Roosevelt north of Gun Creek. The maximum annual flow at this point was more than 469,000 acre-feet in 1978. The median annual flow has been about 66,000 acre-feet. Similar to the record low flow in the Salt River, the minimum annual flow was about 2,900 acre-feet in 2002 (Table 5.3-2). There are a relatively large number of major springs in the Salt River watershed. In the Tonto Creek Basin, several major springs are located below the Mogollon Rim where groundwater is discharged from southward dipping rocks of a limestone aquifer. Tonto Spring at the headwaters of Tonto Creek is the largest spring in the Tonto Creek Basin with a measured discharge of 1,291 gpm. Its flow has been relatively stable, and its isotopic and specific-conductance data are similar to those for Fossil Springs in the Verde River Watershed. This suggests that the same limestone aquifer supplies both springs, which are located approximately 20 miles apart (USGS, 2005b). In the Salt River Basin, there is a high concentration of major springs near McNary, where springs emanate from fractured basalt. Alchesay Spring, which issues from the Supai Formation along the 14 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 North Fork of the White River, has the greatest reported discharge measurement in the watershed (over 9,000 gpm). Travertine deposition due to high concentrations of calcium carbonate in source waters occurs at this spring and at Warm Spring along the Salt River (ADWR, 1992). Several lakes and streams in the watershed have impaired water quality. Reaches of Tonto Creek and Christopher Creek in the Tonto Creek Basin have exceeded standards for E. coli and nitrate/ nitrite. The entire reach of Pinto Creek in the Salt River Basin has exceeded the standard for copper due to mining activities in the area. Two lakes in the Salt River Basin have impaired waters including Canyon Lake (dissolved oxygen) and Crescent Lake (high pH) (see Tables 5.2-7 and 5.3-7). Verde River Most of the Verde River watershed, and its major watercourse, the Verde River, is located within the boundaries of the Verde River Basin. Within the planning area, the elevation of the Verde River watershed ranges from about 12,600 feet at Humphrey’s Peak to about 1,750 feet at Bartlett Dam. The entire watershed encompasses about 6,188 square miles and extends into the Phoenix AMA to the confluence of the Verde River with the Salt River. The upper parts of the watershed include Big Chino Wash, which originates east of the Aubrey Cliffs northwest of Seligman, and Oak Creek which originates on the Coconino Plateau in the northeastern part of the watershed. Big Chino Wash is an ephemeral stream that flows southeasterly to Sullivan Lake while Oak Creek is a perennial stream that merges with the Verde River south of Cottonwood. The Verde River originates in a steep-walled volcanic rock canyon near Paulden below Sullivan Lake Dam (now almost entirely filled with sediment). Springs feed the headwaters near the upper end of Stillman Lake. The lake has been formed from sediment deposited in the river at the Granite Creek confluence, which causes the river to back-up in its channel. The lake is a narrow, 3,900 feet-long, 20-acre impoundment (USFWS, 2007). Just below the confluence with Granite Creek, a large diffuse spring network, including Big Chino Spring and Sullivan Lake Spring, sustain perennial flow in the river. A USGS study found that discharge from the springs below Sullivan Dam are derived from three groundwater sources; the western part of the Coconino Plateau, the Big Chino Sub-basin and the Little Chino Sub-basin (the Prescott AMA) (USGS, 2006). Another USGS study used geochemistry and tracer-study data to estimate the various base flow contributions to the Verde River. It reported that 80-86% of the base flow is from the Big Chino Sub-basin, 14% from the Little Chino Sub-basin, 10-15% from the Devonian-Cambrian zone of the regional carbonate aquifer and <6% from the Mississippi-Devonian sequence of the regional carbonate aquifer (USGS, 2005c). Below Granite Creek, the Verde River flows eastward to Perkinsville, southeastward to Fossil Creek, then southward through two reservoirs, Horseshoe and Bartlett, before its confluence with the Salt River. Bartlett Dam was constructed between 1936-1939 to store water for irrigation and other uses in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Ten miles upstream, Horseshoe Dam was completed in 1946 by Phelps Dodge for the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association under a water exchange agreement. Both reservoirs are operated by SRP. The Verde River is perennial throughout its length from just below Sullivan Lake Dam. Almost Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 all the major perennial tributaries to the river drain areas to the north and east. In addition to Oak Creek, other major tributaries are Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, Sycamore Creek (at Fort McDowell) and East Verde River. Stream flows in the watershed can be substantial given the high elevation and associated high rainfall and snowfall. Several stream gages on the Verde and its tributaries have reported annual maximum flows exceeding one million acre-feet a year. These gages are the Oak Creek gage near Cornville, the Verde River below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam, and the Verde River at Bartlett Reservoir near Cave Creek. The median flows at these gages are about 531,000 acre-feet, 131,000 acre-feet and 245,000 acre-feet, respectively (see Table 5.5-2). The lowest flow reported at the Oak Creek gage was about 214,500 acre-feet in 1956. There are many major and minor springs in the Verde River Basin (see Table 5.5-5) including Fossil Springs, near Strawberry, with a total discharge of 21,647 gpm. Fossil Springs consist of several dozen discharge points with most of the flow emanating from about a half dozen points. The largest of the springs reportedly issues from the Fossil Springs fault while other springs issue from the Naco Formation near the contact with the underlying Redwall limestone (Gæaorama Inc., 2006). The Naco Formation consists of interbedded grayish limestone and limey claystone and is located between the overlying Supai Formation and the Redwall limestone in this area (Corkhill, 2000). The chemistry of the springs below the Mogollon Rim is characteristic of water from the Coconino Aquifer, suggesting its source. Fossil Springs contain elevated concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate as well as chloride and sulfate (USGS, 2005a). Calcium carbonate precipitates out below the springs and forms travertine dams along Fossil Creek. Major springs also occur along upper and lower Oak Creek. In the north half of Oak Creek Canyon, water moves along fractured rock of the Oak Creek fault zone to discharge at springs along the creek (Owen-Joyce, 1983). Concentrations of springs are also found along lower Oak Creek, south of Camp Verde and below the Mogollon Rim north of Payson. Here, water infiltrating through sedimentary rocks discharges at springs along the face of the rim at fractures or at the interface of permeable and less permeable rocks. Impaired surface waters in the Verde Watershed occur along the East Verde River (selenium), Oak Creek (E. coli), Pecks Lake (dissolved oxygen, high pH and nutrients), Stoneman Lake (dissolved oxygen, high pH and nutrients), Whitehorse Lake (dissolved oxygen) and along reaches of the Verde River (turbidity). (See Table 5.5-7 and Figure 5.5-9). 5.0.3 Climate2 The high country of the Mogollon Rim is a significant topographic barrier to regional airflow, making the climate of the Central Highlands Planning Area wetter and cooler than the rest of the state. The area-weighted average of water-year precipitation for Arizona Climate Divisions 3 and 4 (Yavapai and Gila counties, respectively) is 16.8 inches, which is significantly wetter than the statewide average of 12.1 inches. A climate division is a region within a state that is generally 2 Information in this section was provided by Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, May, 2007. 16 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 climatically homogeneous. Arizona is divided into seven climate divisions. The area-weighted average water-year temperature is 59.3°F (Figure 5.0-5), which is slightly cooler than the statewide average of 59.9°F. While average temperatures are slightly cooler than the statewide average, they have been warming during the last 70+ years (Figure 5.0-5). Recent studies show an observed increase, throughout much of the West, in the fraction of winter precipitation falling as rain, rather than snow, at low-tomiddle elevations (up to around 8000’). If this trend continues, the timing, amount and distribution of spring runoff is likely to be affected. Figure 5.0-5 Average temperature and total precipitation in the Central Highlands Planning area from 1930-2002 64 30 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 63 25 62 Precipitation (in) Temperature ( o F) 61 60 20 15 59 58 10 57 56 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Time (year) 1980 1990 2000 5 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Time (year) 1980 1990 2000 Horizontal lines are average temperature and precipitation, respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values, Data are from U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS Precipitation in the Central Highlands has a bi-modal pattern (both winter and summer precipitation peaks) characteristic of Arizona (Figure 5.0-6); however, the planning area receives a greater fraction of its precipitation during the winter months than, for example, southeastern Arizona. During winter, precipitation comes during the passage of frontal storm systems moving westto-east guided by the jet stream, typically located north of Arizona, but occasionally traversing the state. As moist air masses encounter the Mogollon Rim they are lifted and cooled, which Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 condenses water vapor and enhances precipitation along the Rim. Winter precipitation stored as snow is important for planning area water resources. Cooler temperatures and less intense sunlight during winter combine to reduce evaporation, and, in most years, allow snow cover to persist until spring, when gradually melting snow replenishes surface water supplies. Figure 5.0-6 Average monthly precipitation and temperature in the Central Highlands Planning Area 1930-2002 3 80 Temperature 75 Precipitation 2.5 70 2 1.5 60 Temperature o F Precipitation (in) 65 55 1 50 0.5 45 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 40 Data are from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS During the summer monsoon thunderstorm season, atmospheric circulation shifts and brings moisture from the south and east to the planning area. Storms during this season are driven primarily by convection (heat-driven upward motion), aided by topography, which can force air parcels upward to heights where water vapor condenses. Summer convective thunderstorms tend to occur in spatially scattered cells. Many storms originate over the high elevations in the Central Highlands Planning Area and move downwards and outwards over the deserts. The planning area receives over 37% of its annual precipitation during July-September, which helps replenish streamflow and recharge groundwater aquifers, especially in the shallow fractured aquifers near Payson. However, summer precipitation is generally less hydrologically effective than winter precipitation because of greater evaporation rates and the spatial discontinuity of the storms. 18 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 An area-weighted average of tree-ring reconstructed winter (November-April) precipitation for Arizona Climate Division 3 (Yavapai County) and Arizona Climate Division 4 (Gila County) is representative of multi-year winter precipitation variations across the area (Figure 5.0-7). The record shows recurrent drought in each century, with notable winter dry periods in the mid-1100s, late 1500s, late 1670s, and late 1770s. Notable winter wet periods include the early 1200s, the late-1800s, and early 1900s. Precipitation variability on time scales of 10-30 years is likely related to shifts in Pacific Ocean circulation patterns, though recent research also points to the influence of the North Atlantic Ocean. Shorter-term variations (Figure 5.0-5) can be attributed to oceanatmosphere variations related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. During El Niño episodes, there are greater chances for above-average winter precipitation, as storm tracks across North America are shifted farther south than normal. La Niña conditions are reliably associated with belowaverage winter precipitation. Figure 5.0-7 Arizona NOAA Climate Divisions 3 & 4 winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988, reconstructed from tree rings 150 Precipitation anomaly (inches) 100 50 0 −50 −100 −150 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Year Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Data: Fenbiao Ni, The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: Ben Crawford, CLIMAS Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions reflect the impacts of geography, climate and cultural activities and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development. Discussed in this section is vegetation, riparian protection through the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program, instream flow claims, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected from development as national monuments, wilderness areas and preserves and unique and other managed waters. Vegetation3 Three of Arizona’s five ecoregions are included in the planning area: the Apache Highlands (north), which covers most of the area, the Sonoran Desert in the south, and the Arizona-New Mexico Mountains ecoregion stretching east-west at higher elevations along the Mogollon Rim, White Mountains and Flagstaff area. Because of the wide elevation range in the planning area, there are many biotic communities, ranging from Mohave desertscrub in the Upper Hassayampa Basin to subalpine grassland and subalpine conifer forest in the high elevations of the Salt River Basin and a very small area of alpine tundra above 12,000 feet on the San Francisco Peaks in the Verde River Basin. Much of the planning area is covered by interior chaparral and by great basin conifer woodlands. The high elevation subalpine and montane conifer forests, consisting of dense stands of fir, spruce and aspen trees, receive much of their annual precipitation as snow. Because of the forest density, sunlight reaches the ground and snow melts slowly, releasing snowmelt gradually to streams. Snowfall accumulations in this area of the state are critical to the Phoenix metropolitan area water supply. Annual precipitation amounts are about 25 to over 30 inches a year in these areas. Conifer woodlands consisting primarily of ponderosa pine occur at elevations between 6,000 and 9,000 feet that receive about 18 to 26 inches of annual precipitation. Piñon-juniper woodlands cover large areas below the ponderosa pine forest at elevations between 5,500 and 7,000 feet that receive 12 to 20 inches of precipitation. Below 6,800 feet there are more junipers than piñon pine and they may occur in pure stands. Great Plains grasslands occur in several parts of the planning area at elevations between 5,000 and 7,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches of annual precipitation. These areas are located primarily in Chino Valley and in small areas on the Fort Apache Indian reservation south of Fort Apache. The piñon-juniper woodland is often intermixed with this grassland. At lower elevations (4,000-6,000 feet), interior chaparral is found in areas that receive 13 to 23 inches of annual precipitation. Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Chaparral communities typically are a mix of several shrubby species such as mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and manzanita and commonly include cactus, agave, and yucca. Chaparral plants are well adapted to drought conditions. Semi-desert grasslands occur in valleys between the desert and woodlands or chaparral at elevations 3 Except as noted, information in this section is from Brown, D. and Lowe, C., 1980 and from AZGF, 2004. 20 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 between 3,500 and 5,000 feet that receive annual precipitation of 10 to 15 inches. Semi-desert grasslands are found in the Upper Hassayampa and Agua Fria basins and south of Payson in the Tonto Creek Basin. Desert grasslands often contain a mixture of grasses, shrubs and small trees. Upper Sonoran desertscrub covers parts of the planning area below about 3,500 feet in the Upper Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Tonto Creek and Salt River basins. Typical vegetation includes palo verde, mesquite, creosote, and cacti, including Saguaro cacti. There are extensive reaches of riparian vegetation throughout the planning area. Along the Verde River and several tributary streams, riparian vegetation is composed of mixed broadleaf, cottonwood-willow, mesquite and strand vegetation (riparian obligate plants adapted to periodic flooding, scouring, or soil deposition). Conifer-Oak riparian obligate habitat is found at higher elevations in West Clear Creek and the East Verde River. Mixed broadleaf, mesquite and strand vegetation is found along the three perennial reaches of the Agua Fria River. Two tributaries to the Agua Fria River, Little Ash Creek and Sycamore Creek contain significant amounts of mixed broadleaf vegetation (NEMO, 2006). In the high elevation headwaters area of the Black River, riparian habitat is composed of wet meadow, mountain scrub and conifer-oak vegetation. Mixed broadleaf and strand vegetation are found along the Black River at lower elevations. Along the Salt River, riparian vegetation is composed of mesquite, strand and tamarisk at Roosevelt Lake. In the Tonto Creek Basin, mixed broadleaf, cottonwood-willow, strand and mesquite vegetation are found along Tonto Creek. Along the Hassayampa River at Wickenburg, riparian vegetation consists of cottonwood-willow, mesquite and strand while conifer-oak and mixed broadleaf are found at the Hassayampa River headwaters. Several years of drought combined with high tree densities resulted in the largest outbreak of pine bark beetle populations ever recorded in Arizona during 2002 – 2004. This outbreak has killed millions of piñon and ponderosa pine trees. In 2003, bark beetle mortality was detected on about 763,000 acres in Arizona and New Mexico, with most of the mortality occurring in Arizona (USFS, 2003). Areas most affected were trees at the lower end of their elevational range. Drought conditions improved in 2004 and 2005, and mortality decreased substantially as a result of both higher precipitation and because many of the trees in the most susceptible areas were already dead. Based on aerial surveys conducted in 2004 by the U.S. Forest Service, there were several areas of ponderosa pine infestation in the planning area. Areas with substantial bark beetle-caused ponderosa pine mortality occurred on parts of the Fort Apache Indian reservation, on lands west and north of the reservation, areas southwest of Bellemont, and areas west of Interstate 17 in the vicinity of Crown King. Data from aerial surveys recorded 2.1 million acres of piñon-juniper woodland and 1.3 million acres of ponderosa pine were affected in Arizona and New Mexico during 2002 – 2004 (USDA, 2007). Wildfire risk increases with the number of dead trees in the landscape, which provide fuel for fires. There were several major wildfires in the Central Highlands Planning Area during the severe drought years between 2002 and 2005 (see Figure 5.0-8). The Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002, Arizona’s largest-ever, consumed about 462,600 acres, much of it in the north-central part of the Salt River Basin. The Willow Fire (2004) burned almost 120,000 acres southwest of Payson in the Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 21 22 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Tonto Creek and Verde River basins and the Cave Creek Complex (2005) burned 243,800 acres in the east-central part of the Agua Fria Basin and adjacent areas in the Verde River Basin and Phoenix AMA. In the Southwest, fire can be among the most significant watershed disturbance agents, particularly to peak stream flows. In areas severely burned by the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire, peak flows were as much as 2,350 times greater than previously measured peak flows, the highest known post-fire peak flow in the Southwest. Increased peak flows can degrade stream channels and make them unstable, increase sediment production and cause flood damage. (Neary, D. et al, 2003) Drought, wildfire and long-term climate change involving warmer temperatures with earlier Springs and less snow cover could result in vegetative changes in the planning area with implications on runoff, infiltration and water supplies. Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs The objective of the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program (AWPF) program is to provide funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. Twenty-six riparian restoration projects in the Central Highlands Planning Area have been funded by the AWPF through 2005. Seventeen of these projects were funded in the Verde River Basin, primarily involving research, fencing and stream restoration on the Verde River. Four projects were funded in the Salt River Basin including restoration projects on Cherry Creek, Canyon Creek and at Lofer Cienega. Two stream restoration projects in the Agua Fria Basin on Ash Creek and Lynx Creek, and an erosion research and fencing and revegetation project in Dakini Valley in the Tonto Creek Basin have also been funded. In the Upper Hassayampa Basin, one project has been funded involving a constructed wetland. A list of projects and project types funded in the Central Highlands 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. Instream Flow Claims An instream flow water right is a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. Thirty-six applications for instream flow claims have been filed in the Central Highlands Planning Area. The applications are listed in Table 5.0-1 and shown on Figure 5.0-9. Claims have been filed in all the basins in the planning area and eight certificates have been issued. Certificates have been issued for claims on Ash Creek in the Agua Fria Basin, Christopher Creek in the Tonto Creek Basin, the East Verde River, Sycamore Creek near Sunflower and the Verde River in the Verde River Basin, the Hassayampa River in the Upper Hassayampa River Basin, and Pinto Creek and Reynolds Creek in the Salt River Basin. Some of the certificates cover extensive reaches of rivers and streams as shown on Figure 5.0-9. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-1 Instream flow claims in the Central Highlands Planning Area Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 1 Apache Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96801.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 2 Ash Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-96411.0 96411 96411 1/5/1995 3 Big Bug Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96802.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 4 Canyon Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96816.0 Pending Pending 9/30/2005 5 Cherry Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96609.0 Pending Pending 6/30/1999 6 Christopher Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96575.0 96575 96575 4/23/1998 7 Cienega Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96803.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 8 Coon Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96742.0 Pending Pending 6/18/2003 9 East Verde River Tonto National Forest 33-90310.0 90310 90310 11/26/1985 10 Fossil Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96622.0 Pending Pending 12/1/1999 11 Foster Creek Coconino National Forest 33-95370.0 Pending Pending 2/2/1990 12 Haigler Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96571.0 Pending Pending 10/31/1997 13 Hassayampa River Nature Conservancy 33-92304.0 92304 92304 1/20/1987 14 Jones Creek Coconino National Forest 33-95371.0 Pending Pending 2/2/1990 15 Oak Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90106.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 16 Pinto Creek Tonto National Forest 33-89109.0 89109 89109 12/14/1983 17 Rarick Canyon Coconino National Forest 33-90109.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 18 Red Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96743.0 Pending Pending 6/18/2003 19 Reynolds Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96570.0 96570 96570 10/31/1997 20 Sheepshead Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90111.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 21 Spring Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90114.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 22 Spring Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96815.0 Pending Pending 9/28/2005 23 Sycamore Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90113.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 24 Sycamore Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96509.0 96509 96509 5/15/1996 25 Sycamore Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96804.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 26 Tonto Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96684.0 Pending Pending 11/15/2000 27 Turkey Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96708.0 Pending Pending 1/29/2002 29 Verde River Tonto National Forest 33-90309.0 90309 90309 11/26/1985 30 Verde River Prescott National Forest 33-94374.0 Pending Pending 12/2/1988 28 Verde River Phelps Dodge Corp. 33-96760.0 Pending Pending 6/3/2004 31 Walker Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90108.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 32 Walnut Creek Prescott National Forest 33-96800.0 Pending Pending 7/22/2005 33 West Clear Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90110.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 34 West Clear Creek Johnson, James A. 33-96178.0 Pending Pending 3/20/1992 35 Wet Beaver Creek Coconino National Forest 33-90112.0 Pending Pending 7/29/1985 36 Workman Creek Tonto National Forest 33-96618.0 Pending Pending 10/26/1999 24 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Threatened and Endangered Species A number of listed threatened and endangered species may be present in the Central Highlands Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of May 2006 are shown in Table 5.0-2.4 Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development in a particular area. The USFWS should be contacted for details regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), designated critical habitat and current listings. Table 5.0.2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Central Highlands Planning Area Common Name Apache (Arizona) Trout Threatened Endangered X Elevation/Habitat >5000 ft./cold mountain streams Arizona Agave X 3,000 ft, steep, rocky granite slopes, or level hilltops, near chaparral; New River and Sierra Ancha Mountains Arizona Cliff-rose X <4,000 ft./white soils of tertiary limestone lakebed deposits Arizona hedgehog cactus X 3,700-5,200 ft./ecotone between interior chapparal and madrean evergreen woodland Bald Eagle X California Brown Pelican Chiricahua Leopard Frog Varies/large trees or cliffs near water X Varies/lakes and rivers 3,300-8,900ft./streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds stock tanks X Desert pupfish X <5,000 ft./shallow springs, small streams and marshes. Tolerates saline and warm water Gila Chub X 2,000-5,500 ft./pools, springs, cienegas and streams Gila topminnow X <4,500 ft./small streams, springs and cienegas vegetated shallows 4 An “endangered species” is defined by the USFWS as “an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” while a “threatened species” is “an animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 26 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0.2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Central Highlands Planning Area (Con’t) Common Name Gila trout Threatened X Mexican Spotted Owl X San Francisco Peaks groundsel X X Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Spikedace <6,000 ft./riverine and lacustrine areas, not in fast moving water >10,900 ft./Alpine tundra X <8,500 ft./cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams <6,000 ft./moderate to large perennial streams with gravel cobble substrates X Yuma Clapper Rail 4,000-12,000 ft. /chapparal, woodland, forests 4,100-9,000 ft./canyons, dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure X Razorback sucker <6,000 ft./desert scrub with agave and columnar cacti <8,000ft./benthic species of small to large perennial streams X Mexican Gray Wolf Elevation/Habitat 5,000-10,000 ft./small, high mountain streams X Lesser long-nosed bat Loach Minnow Endangered X <4,500 ft./Fresh water and brackish marshes Source: USFWS 2006, CPC, 2007 In the Salt River watershed, SRP has developed the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) to minimize and mitigate the impacts of operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake to the southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, Yuma clapper rail, and western yellow-billed cuckoo (a candidate for ESA protection). Under the plan, SRP will acquire and protect at least 1,500 acres of riparian habitat in perpetuity along the San Pedro, Verde, and Gila rivers, or other river systems in Arizona, and implement other conservation measures to protect up to 750 additional acres of habitat. The Plan also includes rescue of bald eagle eggs and nestlings whose nests are threatened by inundation, monitoring of the species and habitat at Roosevelt Lake and in the mitigation areas, and other measures. Following SRPs commitment to implementation of the Plan, the U.S. Fish 27 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 and Wildlife Service issued a 50-year permit to SRP to “take” endangered southwestern willow flycatchers, threatened bald eagles, endangered Yuma clapper rails, and candidate yellow-billed cuckoos incidental to operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake. SRP is also working on a Habitat Conservation Plan for operation of Horseshoe and Bartlett dams and reservoirs but the plan is still in production and under negotiation. National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Four national monuments that protect prehistoric dwellings are located in the planning area. Montezuma Castle, Tonto and Tuzigoot National Monuments are small sites containing cliff dwellings or pueblos. Tonto National Monument is located along Tonto Creek in the Salt River Basin while the others are located in the Verde Valley in the Verde River Basin. Agua Fria National Monument, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, covers 71,700 acres in the Agua Fria Basin (see Figure 5.1-2). It contains at least 450 prehistoric sites, four major settlement areas, and the Agua Fria River canyon, which contains a perennial reach of the river. All or portions of 21 Wilderness Areas, encompassing 788,000 acres, are found within the planning area. Wilderness Areas are designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect the designated area in its natural condition. Designated areas, their size, basin location and a brief description of the area are listed in Table 5.0-3. All wilderness areas are located on National Forest Service lands with the exception of the Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Most of the wilderness areas protect riparian habitat, rivers and streams and are located in the Verde River Basin. The Hassayampa River Preserve in the Upper Hassayampa Basin just south of Wickenburg, was established in 1986 by The Nature Conservancy. The preserve protects spring-fed Palm Lake, a four-acre pond and marsh habitat that attracts water birds and provides habitat for endangered fish. The Hassayampa River is perennial within the preserve and supports lush streamside habitat. Unique and Other Managed Waters Several “unique waters”, designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) pursuant to A.C.C. R18-11-112, as having exceptional recreational or ecological significance and/ or providing habitat for threatened or endangered species, have been identified in the planning area. These include: • Oak Creek, including the West Fork of Oak Creek in the Verde River Basin • Snake Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River in the Salt River Basin • Hay Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River in the Salt River Basin • Stinky Creek, from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River in the Salt River Basin • Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to the boundary of the San Carlos Indian Reservation in the Salt River Basin. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 28 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-3 Wilderness Areas in the Central Highlands Planning Area Wilderness Area Acres Basin Description Three springs and important riparian area including Apache Creek Apache Creek 5,488 Verde River Bear Wallow 11,336 Salt River (part) Castle Creek 25,536 Agua Fria Cedar Bench 16,127 Verde River Fossil Creek 10,400 Verde River Granite Mountain 9,747 Verde River Hassayampa River Canyon 11,840 Mountain characterized by granite boulders, some the size of a house, stacked one atop the other to elevations that exceed 7,600 feet. Includes several miles of the Hassayampa River Upper Hassayampa and riparian habitat. Hellsgate 37,399 Tonto Creek Juniper Mesa 7,708 Verde River Mazatzal 250,053 Verde River, Tonto Creek Munds Mountain 18,069 Verde River Pine Mountain 20,100 Agua Fria, Verde River Red Rock Secret Mountain 48,263 Verde River Salome 18,515 Salt River Salt River Canyon 32,088 Salt River Sierra Ancha 21,007 Salt River Superstition 160,135 Salt River (part) Sycamore Canyon 57,916 Verde River West Clear Creek 15,267 Verde River Wet Beaver Creek 6,178 Verde River Woodchute 5,553 Agua Fria Total Acres in Planning Area Alpine forest of mixed conifers and aspens. Bear Wallow drainage with rich streamside habitat. Bradshaw Mountains, prominent granite peaks, vegetation range from saguaro to pine Located along Verde Rim, borders portion of Verde Wild and Scenic River Extremely diverse riparian area, 1,600 foot deep canyon, travertine deposits, springs Major canyon, Tonto Creek with deep pools of water and impassable falls Flat topped mesa, great variety of wildlife Mazatzal mountains, chaparral and pine vegetation with narrow, vertical walled canyons. Includes portion of Verde Wild and Scenic river Munds and Lee mountains, Jacks, Woods and Rattlesnake canyons, Courthouse Butte and Bell Rock Island of tall timber, surrounded by brush-covered desert mountains with hot, dry mesas and deep canyons. Red rock pinnacles, arches and slot canyons, rock art and prehistoric dwellings Upper/perennial reaches of Salome Creek and Workman Creek Portions of the Salt River and spectacular canyon Box canyons, high cliffs, prehistoric dwellings Rugged mountains, rock formations, large vegetation range, prehistoric dwellings, riparian habitat. Large canyon with desert riparian area. Extends from near Williams to Verde Valley Deep, narrow canyon with many pools of water Major canyon in red rock rim country Views, ponderosa pine, pinon and juniper 788,000 Source: BLM 2006, USFS 2007 29 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 In 2004, Arizona Public Service Company surrendered a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to operate hydroelectric power plants at Irving and Childs on Fossil Creek in the Verde River Basin near Strawberry. As part of the decommissioning they agreed to remove project features and restore the landscape. These two historic power plants were constructed beginning in 1908 and operated by turbines driven by water diverted from Fossil Creek. This diversion captured most of the natural spring fed flow of the creek and fundamentally changed the character of the stream. The springs that supply the base flow of Fossil Creek are rich in calcium carbonate that precipitates out and forms travertine dams. Absent the natural flow and travertine deposition, the stream was no longer a series of pools impounded by travertine dams. Following restoration of flow, native fish were removed and non-native fish eradicated from the stream in order to reestablish fish native to the system. Stillman Lake is a narrow 20-acre impoundment located above a natural sediment dam at the headwaters of the Verde River south of Paulden and below Sullivan Dam in the Verde River Basin. The Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation are working together to manage Stillman Lake for native fish by eliminating nonnative species. Arizona Game and Fish currently owns and manages several parcels of river bottom land downstream from Sullivan Dam to maintain habitat for sensitive species of fish and wildlife (USFWS, 2007). Congress adopted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in October 1968 to preserve selected rivers that possess “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values” in their free-flowing condition for the benefit of present and future generations. About 40 miles of the 170-mile long Verde River has been designated a National Wild and Scenic River, the only one in Arizona. The Scenic River Area begins about six miles south of Camp Verde and extends to the boundary of the Mazatzal Wilderness in T11N, R6E; a reach of 18.3 miles. The Wild River Area begins below the Scenic River Area and continues for 22.2 miles to its confluence with Red Creek within section 34, T9½N, R6E (see Figure 5.5-4). Under the Act the river area must be managed in a manner that protects and enhances its “outstandingly remarkable values” (NWSR, 2007) 5.0.5 Population Census data for 2000 show about 145,850 residents in the Central Highlands Planning Area. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections forecast that the planning area population will almost double by 2050, to about 264,600 residents. Historic, current and projected basin population is shown in the basin cultural water demand tables. The most populous basin by far as reported in the 2000 Census is the Verde River Basin with more than 88,000 residents or 62% of the planning area total. The 2003 estimated population of the Verde River Basin is over 93,000 residents. The 2000 Census populations for each basin and Indian reservation, listed from highest to lowest, are shown in Table 5.0-4. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 30 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-4 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Central Highlands Planning Area Basin/Reservation Verde River 2000 Census Population 88,242 Yavapai-Apache Salt River 743 31,381 Fort Apache 10,385 San Carlos Apache Unk 1 Upper Hassayampa 10,479 Agua Fria 8,210 Tonto Creek 7,537 Tonto Apache 132 1 Almost the entire San Carlos Apache Reservation population is located in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Shown in Table 5.0-5 are incorporated and unincorporated communities in the planning area with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 and growth rates for two time periods. Communities are listed from highest to lowest population in 2000 and their location is shown on Figure 5.0-10. The planning area population grew by 35% between 1990 and 2000. A number of communities lack data for 1990, but it appears that there has been considerable growth in smaller communities in the planning area. Of note is the large number of communities in this planning area with populations between 1,000 and 5,000. Many of these smaller communities are “satellite” communities of nearby incorporated areas; e.g. Kachina Village, Munds Park, Parks and Mountainaire are all located near Flagstaff, just outside of the planning area. There were eight incorporated communities within the planning area in 2000. The community of Star Valley, east of Payson, incorporated in 2005 due to concerns that the Town of Payson would take water from the Star Valley area to serve new developments (Payson Roundup, 2005). Payson is the largest community in the planning area with 13,620 residents, followed by Sedona, Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Globe, Wickenburg, and Miami. Rapid growth is occurring in several areas including near Prescott and Flagstaff, Sedona, Payson and the Verde Valley communities of Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale and Cornville. The Verde Valley area population represents about 32% of the population of Yavapai County (Dava & Associates, 2003). Between 2000 and 2005, the community of Wickenburg grew by 30%, the fastest growth rate reported in the planning area. Population projections for 2050 are not currently available for a number of communities, including Wickenburg, however, the population of the planning area is projected to increase by at least 85% by 2050. The median age in many 31 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-5 Communities in the Central Highlands Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Percent Change 1990-2000 2005 Pop. Estimate Percent Change 2000-2005 Projected 2050 Pop. Payson* Verde River 8,377 13,620 63 15,430 13 29,444 Cottonwood-Verde Verde River Village 7,037 10,610 51 NA NA 10,905 Sedona* Verde River 7,720 10,192 32 10,935 7 19,591 Camp Verde* Verde River 6,243 9,451 51 10,730 14 19,300 Cottonwood* Verde River 5,918 9,179 55 10,860 18 24,109 6,062 7,486 23 7,495 0 9,827 3,034 5,245 73 NA NA 11,363 Salt River 3,775 5,220 38 NA NA 9,181 Upper Hassayampa 4,515 5,082 13 6,590 30 NA Clarkdale* Verde River 2,144 3,422 60 3,680 8 6,571 NA 3,420 NA NA NA NA 1,841 3,344 82 NA NA 4,969 2,089 3,335 60 NA NA 7,300 Communities Globe* Basin Salt River Big Park Verde River Whiteriver Wickenburg* Paulden Verde River Lake Montezuma Agua Fria Cornville Verde River Black Canyon City Agua Fria 1,811 2,697 49 NA NA 4,939 Central Hts./Midland City Salt River 2,969 2,694 -9 NA NA 4,339 1,711 2,664 56 NA NA 4,397 Kachina Village Verde River Cordes Lakes Agua Fria NA 2,058 NA NA NA NA Miami* Salt River 2,018 1,936 -4 1,955 NA 2,196 NA 1,931 NA NA NA NA Pine Verde River Claypool Salt River 1,942 1,794 -8 NA NA 2,226 Congress Upper Hassayampa NA 1,717 NA NA NA NA Agua Fria NA 1,408 NA NA NA 2,286 NA 1,536 NA NA NA NA 1,254 1,331 6 NA NA 2,873 Munds Park Verde River NA 1,250 NA NA NA 2,802 Parks Verde River NA 1,137 NA NA NA 2,701 857 1,092 27 NA NA 1,299 NA 1,028 NA NA NA NA NA 1,019 NA NA NA NA NA 1,014 NA NA NA 1,646 Total >1,000 71,317 117,912 65 NA --- Other 34,110 24,938 -27 NA --- Total 105,427 142,850 35 NA --- Mayer Sun Valley Tonto Creek Cibecue Canyon Day Salt River Salt River Strawberry Verde River Spring Valley Agua Fria Mountainaire Verde River 264,648 Source: DES, 2005: www.workforce.az.gov, U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Notes: 2005 population estimates not available for unincorporated communities NA = not available * = incorporated communities Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 32 33 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 communities is considerably older than the state average of 34.2 years. Sedona, Congress, Big Park, Black Canyon City, and Clarkdale have median ages of over 45. Population Growth and Water Use The state has limited mechanisms to address the connections between land use, population growth and water supply. A legislative attempt to link growth and water management planning is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) which requires that counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) include planning for water resources in their comprehensive plans. Yavapai, Maricopa and Pinal counties fit the population criteria. There is relatively little population or water development within the Maricopa and Pinal county sections of the planning area. About 4,800 square miles (35%) of Yavapai County is located within the planning area, the largest area of any of the nine counties located within it. The Yavapai County water resources element includes an overview of the watersheds in the county, a statement of goals and objectives regarding water supply, water quality and protection of water resources, and an evaluation of existing water use data. Also included is a discussion of the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee (WAC), a group tasked with development of a regional water management strategy which helps support the water resource goals in the general plan. (Dava & Associates, Inc., 2003). The Act also requires that twenty-three communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. In the Central Highlands Planning Area this requirement applies to the communities of Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Globe, and Sedona. As of June, 2007, all communities but Globe had completed a water resource element. Plans must consider water demand and water resource availability in conjunction with growth, land use and infrastructure. References to completed plans are listed in basin references in this volume and may contain useful information for water resource planning. Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state are required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. In addition, the information will allow the State to provide regional planning assistance to help communities prepare for, mitigate and respond to drought. An Annual Water Use Report will be submitted each year by the systems, beginning June 1, 2007, and include information on water pumped or diverted, water received, water delivered to customers, and effluent used or received. The System Water Plan will be updated and submitted every five years and will consist of three components, a Water Supply Plan, a Drought Preparedness Plan and a Water Conservation Plan. Systems that serve populations greater than 1,850 were required to submit plans by January 1, 2007. Systems that serve populations less than 1,850 are required to submit plans by January 1, 2008. Plans have been submitted by most of the larger systems in the planning area and were used to prepare this document. The Department’s Water Adequacy Program also connects water supply and demand to growth to some extent, but does not control growth. Developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 34 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 available for 100 years. If the supply is inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. Legislation adopted in June, 2007 (SB 1575), authorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a provision, by unanimous vote, which requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy. Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water Adequacy Reports), including the reason for the inadequate determination, are provided in the basin sections of this volume and are summarized for each basin in Table 5.0-6. Table 5.0-6 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Central Highlands Planning Area as of 5/2005 Number of Subdivisions Number of 1 Lots Adequate Inadequate Approx. Percent Inadequate Agua Fria 15 >1,177 >973 204 17% Salt River 17 >968 106 >862 89% Tonto Creek 54 >3,686 >352 >3,334 90% Upper Hassayampa 26 >1564 >1,225 339 22% Verde River 375 >29,505 >22,578 >6,927 23% TOTAL 487 >36,900 >25,234 >11,666 48% Basin Source: ADWR 2006a Notes: 1 Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions; actual number is larger The service areas of six water providers in the planning area have been designated as having an adequate water supply. If a subdivision is served by one of these designated water providers, a separate adequacy determination is not required. As of January 1, 2007 these included: • City of Globe • Town of Wickenburg • Little Park Water Company-Village of Oak Creek • Big Park Water Company-Village of Oak Creek • American Ranch Domestic Water Improvement District – American Ranch Development near Prescott • Verde Santa Fe Water Company-Verde Santa Fe Development at Cornville 5.0.6 Water Supply Water supplies in the Central Highlands Planning Area include groundwater, surface water and effluent. Central Arizona Project (CAP) water diverted from the Colorado River via the CAP canal is stored in the planning area but is not utilized within it. Groundwater is the primary water 35 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 supply, accounting for about 61% of the demand. Surface water is used extensively for agricultural irrigation in the Verde River Basin and to some extent in the Salt River Basin where it is also used to meet mining demand. It is estimated that about 38% of the total water demand is met with surface water. Effluent is utilized for golf course irrigation in the Tonto Creek and Verde River basins, contributing 1% of the planning area’s water supply. For purposes of the Atlas, water diverted from a watercourse or spring is considered surface water and if it is pumped from wells, it is accounted for as groundwater. This is reflected in the cultural water demand tables in each basin section. Figure 5.0-11 Water Supplies Utilized in the Central Highlands Planning Area in acre-feet (average annual use 2001-2003) Effluent 1,030 Surface Water 29,750 Groundwater 46,870 Central Arizona Project Water New Waddell Dam, located on the Agua Fria River in the Phoenix Active Management Area, stores Central Arizona Project (CAP) water in Lake Pleasant located in the Agua Fria Basin. This water is not a direct supply for the planning area. The dam also stores Agua Fria River water and provides flood control. In the winter, water is pumped from the CAP canal to Lake Pleasant. When demand increases in the summer, water is released through the same canal to downstream CAP contractors within the Central Arizona Water Conservation District service area, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties. Six municipal and industrial water providers and/or water users and three Indian tribes located in the Central Highlands Planning Area, listed in Table 5.0-7, were allocated an entitlement of CAP Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 36 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 water. To physically acquire water under their respective subcontracts, it was anticipated that subcontractors located outside of the CAP service area would exchange their CAP entitlement for a locally available surface water supply that was held by a downstream senior water right holder located within the CAP service area. The CAP entitlements held by Indian Tribes could also be included in any future, potential water settlement. Due to environmental issues associated with the potential exchange of its CAP entitlement for East Verde River water rights held by SRP, the town of Payson chose to sell its CAP entitlement to the City of Scottsdale. The transfer process was completed in 1994. The money acquired from the sale was deposited into a trust fund managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of developing alternative water supplies for Payson. In response to the proposed transfer of Payson’s CAP subcontract to Scottsdale, the Department developed a transfer policy to govern the transfer of a CAP entitlement from a subcontractor located outside of the CAP service area. Subsequent to the adoption of this policy, Camp Verde Water System, Inc., Cottonwood Water Works, Inc., and the Mayer Domestic Water Improvement District decided to transfer their subcontracts to Scottsdale. Monies resulting from the sale of these entitlements were also placed in separate trust fund accounts for each entity. Table 5.0-7 identifies the entitlement volumes that were eventually transferred to Scottsdale and the gross proceeds that resulted from the respective transactions. Table 5.0-7. CAP Subcontractors and Transferred Entitlements in the Central Highlands Planning Area CAP Subcontractor CAP Entitlement (Acre-Feet) Camp Verde Water System, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works Inc. Mayer Domestic Water Improvement District Town of Payson 1 CAP Entitlement Gross Proceeds from Transfered Transfer1 1,443 1,443 1,443,000 1,789 1,789 1,789,000 332 332 332,000 4,995 4,995 4,995,000 Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc. Pine Water Co. 2,916 San Carlos Apache Tribe Tonto Apache - Indian Tribe Yavapai-Apache Tribe 61,645 161 128 1,200 Does not reflect the reduction associated with equivalency charges and capital costs due to CAWCD or other fees associated with the entitlement transfer actions. 37 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 In accordance with each trust fund agreement, the Department provides oversight regarding expenditures from these accounts to ensure that trust fund monies are used to defray expenses associated with “designing, constructing, acquiring and/or developing an alternative water supply in an amount which may include, but is not limited to, a combined net increase” in the subcontractor’s “water system capacity to replace the CAP allocation” that it sold. Plans regarding the CAP entitlements held by Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc and Pine Water Company are not known. The San Carlos Apache Tribe leases a portion of its CAP allocation to the City of Scottsdale and as exchange water for use by Phelps Dodge at Morenci in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. The Tonto-Apache Tribe and the Yavapai-Apache have no current uses or exchanges. Of interest to the Central Highlands Planning Area are the CAP entitlements held by Prescott and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe that were transferred to Scottsdale under the YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1994 (Act). The proceeds acquired from the entitlement transfer actions were deposited into the Verde River Basin Fund. In accordance with Section 106.c of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is directed to make payments from the fund to Prescott “for the exclusive purpose of acquiring, investigating and developing an alternative water supply consistent with the goal of the Prescott AMA and preservation of the riparian habitat, flows and biota of the Verde River and its tributaries”. Section 107.a of the Act states that monies can be used by Prescott “for purposes of defraying expenses associated with the investigation, acquisition or development of alternative source of water to replace the CAP water relinquished under this title. Alternative sources shall be understood to include, but not be limited to, retirement of agricultural land and acquisition of associated water rights, development of groundwater resources outside of the PAMA [Prescott AMA] and artificial recharge…”. Surface Water The Salt and Verde Rivers, and the Gila River to the south, are the primary in-state sources of surface water in Arizona. Relatively high elevations along the Mogollon Rim and in the White Mountains with associated high amounts of rainfall and snowfall make the Salt and Verde watersheds extremely productive. However, because flows in the Salt and Verde Rivers are strongly influenced by precipitation and topography, surface water flows and water levels in reservoirs along the rivers can fluctuate widely due to climate variations. Surface water is an important supply for cultural water uses in the Salt River, Tonto Creek and Verde River basins where it also supports extensive riparian habitat. The Salt and Verde River reservoirs and dams are operated by SRP to store and release water for the benefit of agricultural, municipal and industrial users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. These supplies are generally not available for use in the planning area except for small amounts used for recreation and other purposes at each reservoir. The water stored in the Salt River reservoir system illustrates the relationship between downstream water demand and precipitation and snowfall in the watershed. As shown in Figure 5.0-12, storage has fluctuated widely over the past ten years as water is collected or released to meet water demands. Shown is the impact of severe drought Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 38 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 conditions during 2002 and storage recovery in 2005 following a wet winter. As of June 1, 2007, storage in the Salt system was 60% of capacity. Figure 5.0-12 Water Stored in Salt River System Reservoirs, 1980-2005 100% 90% 80% Percent of Capacity 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 0% Water Year Source: USGS 2007 Upstream of the reservoirs, surface water is primarily diverted for irrigation from Tonto Creek and its tributaries and along the Salt River. At elevations above 4,000 feet, surface water from springs and streams supply small irrigated parcels (ADWR, 1992). It is not known if surface water availability has been an issue for surface water users upstream of Roosevelt Dam during periods of drought. A relatively small amount of surface water is diverted from Pinal Creek for operations at the Miami Mine in the Salt River Basin. Surface water may be diverted from Pinto Creek to support future mining operations at the nearby Pinto Valley Mine, slated to reopen in Fall, 2007. The Carlota Mine located north of the Pinto Valley Mine along Pinto Creek is projected to open in 2008. It is not known whether surface water will be used to supply the operation. Pursuant to complex exchange agreements with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, SRP and the Central Arizona Project, Phelps Dodge diverts surface water from the Black River in the Salt River Basin for use at the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. To compensate downstream water users for diversions from the Black River, Phelps Dodge historically diverted water into the 39 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Central Highlands Planning Area from two locations in the Little Colorado River Basin, Show Low Lake and Blue Ridge Reservoir (now C.C. Cragin). Water demand tables in Volume 5 take into account both the water removed from and replaced into the Salt River Basin. Because water diverted from Blue Ridge Reservoir passes through the Verde River Basin (via East Verde River) and is not used in the basin, it is not reflected in the surface water use estimated for the Verde River Basin. The Phelps Dodge surface water diversions to the Morenci Mine are located at the Black River Pump Station and conveyed over the Natanes Plateau and into Willow Creek. In 2003, approximately 6,450 acre-feet were diverted from the Black River for this purpose. C.C. Cragin reservoir, located in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area approximately 25 miles north of Payson, was acquired by SRP from Phelps Dodge Corporation in February 2005 as part of the Arizona Water Settlement Act (Act). The reservoir satisfies obligations to the Gila River Indian Community, and will be used to supplement SRP’s water supply and to assist in improving the water supply situation in northern Gila County in accordance with the Act (SRP, 2007). The Town of Payson is pursuing a long-term agreement with SRP to utilize a portion of the water stored at C.C. Cragin Reservoir as a water supply for the town. This will require construction of a pipeline and a water storage mechanism. The Verde River system reservoirs are smaller that those on the Salt with average annual inflows exceeding their storage capacity. Consequently, the reservoirs are managed to minimize the potential for spill during the winter months, with releases of water during the fall, winter and spring (Ester and Reigle, 2001). Storage volumes in the Verde River reservoirs, particularly in Horseshoe Lake, have been reduced to almost zero at times during recent drought years. As of June 1, 2007, storage in Horseshoe Lake was 3% of capacity and storage in the total Verde system was 27% of capacity. Surface water is diverted from the Verde River for agricultural use primarily in the Verde Valley Sub-basin of the Verde River Basin. Most farming occurs within the younger alluvium along the river. There are currently about 30 irrigation diversions in the Verde Valley. During periods of drought, surface water shortfalls are met by groundwater pumping. Reportedly, a small volume of surface water is utilized at higher elevations in the Big Chino Valley. (ADWR, 2000) Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. 45-555) allow the transportation of groundwater pumped from the Big Chino Sub-basin into the Prescott AMA. There are concerns that increased groundwater withdrawals in this sub-basin may contribute to reduced flows in the headwaters of the Verde River and affect availability of surface water as a supply. The relative contribution of the proposed pumping to Verde River flow is the matter of considerable debate (see Groundwater section below). The location of surface water resources are shown on surface water condition maps and maps showing perennial and intermittent streams and major springs for each basin, and in basin tables that contain data on streamflow, flood ALERT equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs in the Water Resource Characteristics sections for each basin. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 40 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Groundwater Compared to the deep alluvial basins found in the southern part of Arizona, high elevations, steep topography and extensive areas of bedrock in the Central Highlands Planning Area translate into relatively minimal groundwater storage capabilities and high runoff. These conditions result in limited, drought-sensitive water supplies for some communities, such as Pine, Strawberry, Payson, Black Canyon City and Mayer. Areas of unconsolidated sediments are relatively limited as shown on the groundwater conditions maps for each basin in sections 5.1-5.5. Many basin fill aquifers in the planning area are narrow and surrounded by low water yielding consolidated rocks. Areas of relatively high water yield include basin fill deposits in the Big Chino Sub-basin, Verde Valley Sub-basin, north of Globe in the Salt River Lakes Sub-basin, and near Wickenburg in the Upper Hassayampa Basin. In much of the northern half of the Agua Fria Basin, parts of the Salt River Basin including the entire eastern portion, and the Verde Canyon Sub-basin, groundwater occurs in volcanic rocks that yield relatively small volumes of water. These conditions pose groundwater supply challenges for Payson and other communities in the planning area. In Pine, Strawberry and near Globe, groundwater is found in relatively low yield sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks with moderate yields are found in the southern half of the Agua Fria Basin, while Precambrian schist near Black Canyon City yields relatively small volumes of water to wells. Although groundwater supplies may be limited in some areas, it is the primary water supply in the planning area. Groundwater pumpage averaged about 46,700 acre-feet a year during the period 2001 to 2003. In order to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data are lacking, the Department has established automated groundwater monitoring sites that record water levels in wells. This information is available through an interactive map on the Department’s website to allow access to local information for planning, drought mitigation and other purposes. (www. azwater.gov/dwr/). These devices were located based on areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, proximity to river/stream channels, proximity to water contamination sites or areas affected by drought. Figure 1-18 of Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of automatic water-level recording sites as of 2005. At that time there were 13 sites in the planning area, ten of which were USGS sites. There are currently five automated Department-operated sites in the planning area (three in the Verde River Basin, one in the Agua Fria Basin and one in the Upper Hassayampa Basin) for which current water level data are available. Index well hydrographs, which display historic water level behavior in more than 150 index wells in the planning area (particularly in the Verde River Basin) are also available at the same web location through an interactive map. Information on major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, aquifer flow direction, and water level changes are found in groundwater data tables, groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and well yield maps for each basin in the Water Resource Characteristics sections. Transportation of groundwater between groundwater basins is prohibited in Arizona unless 41 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 allowed in statute. In 1991, the Arizona statutes recognized a volume of groundwater that can be transported into the Prescott AMA from the Big Chino Sub-basin. Under A.R.S. 45-555(E), the City of Prescott can withdraw an amount not to exceed 14,000 acre-feet per year. The Director of ADWR has issued an advisory opinion that the amount that may be withdrawn by the City of Prescott is 8,717 acre-feet5. Additionally, the statute allows for cities and towns to withdraw groundwater associated with historically irrigated acres (HIA) for transportation into the Prescott AMA. The Department has currently identified 3,307.58 acres of HIA in the Big Chino Subbasin6. The Department will make a determination regarding the volume of water that can be transported from HIA lands after a request is submitted. In general, the allotment associated with HIA is 3 acre-feet per acre per year (ADWR, 2006). An important issue facing the Central Highlands Planning Area is the potential for additional groundwater withdrawals from the Big Chino Sub-basin to reduce flows in the headwaters area of the Verde River, and environmental impacts associated with reduced flows and impacts associated with construction of pipelines and other infrastructure to transport groundwater. Although a number of studies have been conducted to investigate the connection of Big Chino Sub-basin groundwater with the headwaters of the Verde River, the relative contribution of the various potential sources is still a matter of speculation (McGavock, 2003). Effluent Effluent is a water supply for golf course irrigation in the Tonto Creek Basin and the Verde River Basin, totaling 1,030 acre-feet within the planning area. The Town of Clarkdale wastewater treatment plant discharges effluent onto mine tailings for dust control (USBOR, 2003). Effluent used in the Tonto Creek Basin is actually generated in the Verde River Basin. The volume of effluent generated by every facility in the planning area was not available to the Department, as shown on the effluent generation tables in each basin section. From data that were available it appears that limited volumes of effluent are produced in the Agua Fria and Tonto Creek basins. Approximately 2,600 acre-feet are generated in the Salt River Basin, primarily on the White Mountain Apache reservation and at Globe and Miami. In the Upper Hassayampa Basin, the Wickenburg wastewater treatment plant generates about 560 acre-feet of effluent a year. About 6,650 acre-feet of effluent is generated annually in the Verde River Basin, primarily at facilities located in Cottonwood, Munds Park, Payson and Sedona. In total, about 9,900 acre-feet of effluent are generated annually within the planning area. Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, state designated sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking 5 6 This volume is not a final determination and may be adjusted. See the Department’s report “Identification of Historically Irrigated Acres in the Big Chino Sub-basin and Discussion Regarding Transportation of Groundwater into the Prescott AMA” Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 42 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. Of these various contaminated sites, DOD, LUST, RCRA, VRP and WQARF sites are found in the planning area. Table 5.0-8 lists the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of each site except LUST sites. The location of all contamination sites is shown on Figure 5.0-13. There is one DOD site, Camp Navajo, located near Bellemont in the Verde River Basin. This site was used for over 50 years for land disposal of excess, obsolete and unserviceable munitions where they were destroyed by burning or by detonation. The site is being cleaned up according to RCRA standards under the DOD’s Installation Restoration Program. There is also a RCRA site at Bellemont. The RCRA program regulates the management of hazardous waste handlers which includes generators, transporters and facilities for treatment, storage and disposal (ADEQ, 2002). The Pinal Creek WQARF Site, located in the vicinity of Miami-Globe, is contaminated from mining and mineral processing in the area that began in 1878. Groundwater contamination was first observed in the 1930s in the alluvial aquifer of Miami Wash. By the time the first area-wide investigation of groundwater and surface water was conducted in 1979-81, there was widespread contamination. As of April 2006, approximately 105 million pounds of heavy metals had been removed from area aquifers. Site-wide monitoring is on-going including monthly sampling of 80100 wells, four surface water sites and treated effluent at the Lower Pinal Creek treatment plant (ADEQ, 2006c). Table 5.0-8 Active contamination sites in the Central Highlands Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT GROUNDWATER BASIN Department of Defense Sites/Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) Sites Camp Navajo, Bellemont Soil, Groundwater - Metals, Volatile Organic Compounds, Solvents, White Phosphorous, Unexploded Ordnance Verde River WQARF Sites Payson PCE Groundwater - Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Verde River Tonto/Cherry Groundwater - Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Verde River Pinal Creek Groundwater, Surface Water - Metals, Radiochemicals, TDS, Acidity Salt River Voluntary Remediation Sites APS Globe Manufactured Gas Plant Former Bunker C AST Location Soil, Groundwater - Hydrocarbons, Cyanide, Arsenic, Lead Soil - Total petroleum hydrocarbons, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Salt River Verde River Former Shell Service Station Soil, Groundwater - Total petroleum hydrocarbons, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Ethyl Benzene, Total Xylene, Metals Verde River Iron King Copper Chief Mine Surface Water - Metals Verde River Sources: ADEQ 2002, ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b 43 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 There are also two WQARF sites in the Payson area. At the Payson PCE site, groundwater is contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE). Two groundwater treatment systems capture and treat the contaminated water, which following treatment is delivered to the town as drinking water. The treated water comprises about a sixth of the town’s total drinking water supply. PCE also contaminates groundwater at the Tonto and Cherry site but cleanup procedures will not commence until a Remedial Investigation Report is completed. A number of assessments and response actions have been conducted at this site including well monitoring and soil gas surveys (ADEQ, 2007). Four active VRP sites are located in the planning area with hydrocarbon and metal contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water. The VRP is a state administered and funded voluntary cleanup program. Any site that has soil and/or groundwater contamination, provided that the site is not subject to an enforcement action by another program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a single point of contact for projects that involve more than one regulatory program (Environmental Law Institute, 2002). There are 143 active LUST sites in the planning area. Thirty one sites are located near Globe in the Salt River Basin, 22 sites are located in and around Wickenburg in the Upper Hassayampa Basin, 21 sites occur in the vicinity of Payson and Star Valley in the Verde River and Tonto Creek basins, and there are ten sites near Clarkdale and Cottonwood in the Verde River Basin. Ash Fork, Black Canyon City, Camp Verde, Munds Park, Sedona and Seligman each contain between 5 and 10 sites. 5.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Total cultural water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area averaged approximately 77,650 acre-feet per year during the period from 2001-2003. In 2003, total demand was about 79,100 acre-feet. As shown in Figure 5.0-14, the agricultural demand sector is the largest use sector with approximately 38,000 acre-feet of demand, 49% of the total. Most agricultural demand is located in the Verde River and Salt River basins. About 61% of the agricultural demand is met by surface water diverted primarily from the Verde and Salt Rivers and from Tonto Creek. Municipal demand represents about 29% of the total planning area demand with an average of 22,580 acre-feet during the period 2001-2003. Municipal demand is primarily met by groundwater and the municipal sector is apparently the only sector that utilizes effluent. Industrial demand, mainly related to mining, accounted for 17,070 acre-feet, 22% of the total demand during this period. However, almost all the surface water diverted for industrial purposes, about 5,500 acrefeet on average during 2001-2003, was transported out of the planning area for use at the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 45 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.0-14 Central Highlands Planning Area average cultural water demand by sector, 2001-2003 in acre-feet 40,000 35,000 acre-feet 30,000 25,000 23,400 1,030 750 20,000 15,000 5,600 20,800 10,000 14,650 11,500 5,000 0 Agricultural groundwater Municipal surface water Industrial effluent Note: effluent demand is from 2006 Several recent studies provide detailed information on irrigation and other water uses in the Verde River Basin. The Verde River Watershed Study Report (ADWR, 2000) contains information on water demand for most of the Basin. The Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee (WAC) completed a water use study of the Big Chino Sub-basin in 2004 and participated in a USBOR study of the Verde Valley in 2003 that are valuable sources of information. Tribal Water Demand The largest Indian reservation in the planning area is the Fort Apache, the fourth largest reservation in terms of size in Arizona. The northern part of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation is also within the planning area and directly south of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, however almost all its population and water demand is in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (see discussion in Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3, Section 3.0.7). 46 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Water demand on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is associated with domestic and agricultural uses as well as a number of tribal enterprises including timber industries, a ski resort, and a casino/ hotel at Hon-dah. There are approximately 12,000 tribal members residing on the reservation with about 2,500 residents at Whiteriver, the tribal capital. Other residents reside in smaller communities and on rural lands. Water service is provided to an unknown number of customers by the Whiteriver Regional System. Water demand on the San Carlos Apache Reservation portion within the planning area is assumed to be primarily due to agricultural irrigation of orchard crops (ADWR, 1992). Using agricultural and industrial demand estimates in the Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed, and per capita assumptions derived from a 2005 study by Truini et al. on other reservations, it is estimated that the annual demand of the two largest tribes in the planning area is about 4,500 acre-feet (Table 5.0-9). Table 5.0-9 Estimated Water Demand on the Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations Fort Apache San Carlos Apache Total Agricultural Municipal (surface water) (groundwater/ surface water) 3,690 1 700/60 70 0 3,760 700/60 Assumes 94 gpcd at Whiteriver and 40 gpcd elsewhere. Commercial demand outside of Whiteriver not included. Sixty acre-feet of surface water is used at Cedar Creek Sources: ADWR, 1992; Truini et al., 2005 1 The Tonto Apache and Yavapai-Apache Indian Reservations and tribal populations are relatively small and demand estimates were not available to the Department. The Tonto Apache Indian Reservation is the smallest land base reservation in Arizona at 85 acres. Principal water demands are associated with the Mazatzal Casino and restaurant, and tribal offices. Water service is provided by the Tonto Apache Water System. The 656-acre Yavapai-Apache Indian Reservation is located on five separate parcels with its tribal headquarters at Middle Verde. This parcel is served water by the Middle Verde Indian Water System while other parcels are served by private water companies that also serve adjacent, non-reservation lands. Tribal lands include irrigated farmland, residences and commercial businesses. The tribe operates the Cliff Castle Casino and motel north of Camp Verde (see Figure 5.5-2). (ITCA, 2003) Municipal Demand Municipal demand is summarized by groundwater basin and water supply in Table 5.0-10. Average annual demand from 2001 to 2003 was 22,580 acre-feet. Ninety-two percent of the municipal demand is met by groundwater. A small amount of surface water is used in the Salt River Basin at facilities located at the Salt River lakes and on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation at Cedar Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 47 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Creek, a small community located southeast of Carrizo. In the Verde River Basin surface water is used at several locations including by Beaver Valley Water Company, Bonita Water Company (Payson), Camp Navajo, Kohl’s Ranch, Pine Water Association, Stoneman Lake Water Company and the Town of Jerome, which uses about 400 acre-feet per year from Big and Little Allen Springs (USBOR, 2003). Effluent is used for turf irrigation in the Verde River and Tonto Creek basins and for dust control on mine tailings by the Town of Clarkdale. Table 5.0-10 Average annual municipal water demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area (2001-2003) in acre-feet Basin Groundwater Surface Water Agua Fria 1,800 <3002 Salt River 4,000 Tonto Creek 2,200 Upper Hassayampa 2,800 10,000 600 Verde River Total Municipal 20,800 750 Sources: USGS 2005d, ADWR 2005b 1 Effluent figures are for golf course and other turf irrigation in 2006 2 Assume 150 acre-feet for computation purposes Effluent1 200 830 1,030 Total 1,800 <4150 2,400 2,800 11,430 22,580 Primary municipal demand centers are located around Cottonwood, Globe-Miami, Payson, Sedona, and Wickenburg. Municipal demand in the Verde River Basin accounts for 51% of the total municipal demand in the planning area. There is relatively little municipal water demand in the Agua Fria Basin. It is estimated that about eleven percent of the planning area population is not served by a municipal water provider. Eight water providers in the planning area served 450 acre-feet of water or more in 2003. These providers and their demand in 1991, 2000 and 2003 are shown in Table 5.0-11. In 2003, municipal utilities served Globe, Payson and Wickenburg. Beginning in 2005, the City of Cottonwood began acquisition of the four private water companies serving the town; Clemenceau Water Company, Cordes Lakes Water Company, Cottonwood Water Works and the Verde Santa Fe Water Company. Municipally-owned systems have more flexible water rate-setting ability than private water companies, which are regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission. In addition, municipal utilities have the authority to enact water conservation ordinances. These authorities may enable municipal utilities to better manage water resources within water service areas. Water provider issues are discussed in section 5.0.8. The towns of Miami-Claypool are served by Arizona Water Company. About 87% of the approximately 3,250 connections are residential. The system also serves water for turf irrigation. The Miami water system is served by 17 wells and has a two-way emergency interconnection with the City of Globe. Water levels in wells ranged from 109 feet to 860 feet below land surface in 2006. (Arizona Water Company, 2007a) 48 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 The City of Globe has an adequate water supply designation and serves about 7,700 customers from five active wells. Four of these wells are located in the Safford Basin in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. About two-thirds of the water demand is residential and one-third is non-residential. The City has a water conservation plan that it credits with helping to keep water demand in check. Water levels in wells ranged from 40 feet to 650 feet below land surface in 2005. (City of Globe, 2005) The Wickenburg municipal water system serves groundwater to about 5,100 residents. Table 5.0-11 Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2003, excluding effluent, in the Central Highlands Planning Area Basin/Water Provider Salt River Arizona Water Company-Miami City of Globe Upper Hassayampa Town of Wickenburg Verde River Arizona Water Company - Sedona Big Park Water Company - Village of Oak Creek Cottonwood Water Works - Cottonwood & Clarkdale Cordes Lakes Water Company - Cottonwood Town of Payson 1991 (acre-feet) 2000 (acre-feet) 2003 (acre-feet) 1,031 1,446 1,194 1,558 1,068 1,550 1,249 1,717 1,774 1,764 2,816 3,375 539 799 873 1,321 590 1,089 2,065 1128 1,550 2,050 1,385 1,683 Sources: ADWR 2007 and 2004 Notes: Cordes Lakes Water Company also serves the community of Cordes Lakes; the amount shown here is for City of Cottonwood alone. City of Cottonwood purchased Cordes Lakes Water Company and Cottonwood Water Works after 2003. Arizona Water Company serves the town of Sedona. It has 14 active wells, and about 5,500 connections, 78% of which are residential. Sedona has a high percentage of seasonal residents, and daily visitors contribute to a relatively high gallons per capita per day (gpcd) rate of 244 (USBOR, 2003). The system serves commercial customers and turf facilities. The service area includes central Sedona from Red Rock Loop Road to east of downtown. The Valley Vista “sub-system” serves an area south of Verde Valley School Road, mostly west of Highway 179. Arizona Water Company maintains an emergency two-way interconnection with the Oak Creek Water Company. Groundwater depth is about 220 feet in utility wells. (Arizona Water Company, 2007b) Big Park Water Company serves the Village of Oak Creek, an unincorporated community south of Sedona along Highway 179. It has about 2,800 connections, of which 91% are residential, and a per capita rate of about 198 gpcd (USBOR, 2003). It does not serve turf facilities. Depth to water in the seven system wells is about 390 feet and water levels are reportedly stable. Big Park Water Company has an interconnection with Little Park Water Company. (BPWC and LPWC, 2007) Both companies have designations of Adequate Water Supply. Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 49 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Prior to 2005, Cottonwood Water Works and Cordes Lakes Water Company were the two large private water companies serving the City of Cottonwood. The Old Cottonwood Water Works system served the communities of Cottonwood and Clarkdale and consisted of about 4,600 connections of which 97% were residential. The combined Cordes Lakes Water Company Systems serve a population of almost 7,700 consisting of six separate systems in the Verde Village area. (A separate Cordes Lakes Water Company System serves the community of Cordes Lakes in the Agua Fria Basin). The estimated gpcd rate of Cottonwood is about 148 gpcd and Clarkdale is about 193 gpcd (USBOR, 2003). The four systems that are now owned by the City of Cottonwood (Clemenceau, Cordes Lakes, Cottonwood Water Works and Verde Santa Fe) pumped a total of about 3,150 acre-feet of water in 2006. The City of Cottonwood currently operates the Clarkdale system (formerly part of Cottonwood Water Works), which served about 3,000 people and pumped about 400 acre-feet in 2006. (Cottonwood Water Works, 2007) The Town of Payson pumps groundwater from the surrounding granite aquifer from 32 active wells to about 14,000 residents. Most wells are located in the Verde River Basin and some are in the Tonto Creek Basin. The town estimates that there are also about 300 to 400 domestic wells operating within its service area. It also supplies water to the Tonto Apache Indian Reservation. Because of the aquifer’s limited storage capacity, Payson is a drought-sensitive area dependent on sufficient rainfall and snowmelt for an adequate drinking water supply (City of Payson, 2007). Payson monitors water levels in its wells regularly to gauge water supply availability and has aggressive water conservation, effluent reuse and drought programs. Water levels in wells trigger the town’s drought response. Payson’s water demand declined by 7% between 2002 and 2003, which it attributes to conservation efforts including implementation of a water conservation ordinance, March 2003. (Maguire, 2005) About 80% of Payson’s population is connected to the Northern Gila County Sanitary District sewer system that provides wastewater treatment for Payson and much of the surrounding area. Current system inflows are about 800,000 gallons daily, or 50% of capacity. The District’s effluent is used for a variety of irrigation projects and ground water recharge, including the Green Valley Lake project. The 48-acre Green Valley Park was developed jointly by the Town of Payson Water Department and the Sanitary District. Treated effluent from the district’s water treatment plant fills a 10.5-acre lake used for boating and fishing and adjacent irrigated areas and recreational facilities. (Payson Regional Economic Development Corporation, 2006) Another effluent recharge project, Rumsey Park, is in the pilot phase. Municipal water providers served about 1,400 acre-feet of groundwater to golf courses in 2006. Most golf courses are located in the Verde River Basin. Golf courses with their own facility wells, considered “industrial users”, used about 2,200 acre-feet of groundwater and about 800 acre-feet of surface water in 2006. Most golf courses in the planning area are industrial facilities and their demand is included in the industrial category. A number of the industrial facilities also receive “municipal” effluent. Effluent is delivered to the Payson-area courses of Chaparral Pines, Rim and Payson. Pinewood Golf Course at Munds Park, Talking Rock, near Prescott and Verde Santa Fe at Cornville also use effluent for irrigation although no courses use 100% effluent. About 1,050 50 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 acre-feet of effluent, 19% of total golf course demand, is used for golf course irrigation. In total, golf course demand is about 5,400 acre-feet, about 7% of the total planning area demand. Golf course demand by municipal and industrial facilities, basin location and source of water is shown in Table 5.0-12. Table 5.0-12 Golf course demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area (c.2006) Facility Basin # of Demand Holes (acre-feet) Cobre Valley Country Club - Globe* Salt River 9 Chaparral Pines Golf Course - Payson Tonto Basin 18 Rim Golf Course - Payson Tonto Basin 18 Los Caballeros Golf Club - Wickenburg Upper Hassayampa 18 Wickenburg Country Club Upper Hassayampa 9 Beaver Creek Country Club - Lake Montezuma* Verde River 18 Canyon Mesa Golf Course - Sedona* Verde River 9 Oak Creek Country Club - Village of Oak Creek* Verde River 18 Payson Golf Course - Payson Verde River 18 Pine Shadows - Cottonwood* Verde River 9 Pinewood Country Club - Munds Park* Verde River 18 Poco Diablo Golf Course - Sedona* Verde River 9 Sedona Golf Resort - Sedona* Verde River 18 Seven Canyons Four Seasons Golf Course - Sedona Verde River 18 Talking Rock - Northwest of Prescott* Verde River 18 Verde River 18 Verde Santa Fe - Cottonwood* Source: ADWR 2000, ADWR 2005b Notes: * These golf courses are served by their own wells and considered to be industrial users 211 108/107 108/108 423 211 490 113 701 132/309 98 270/269 34 456 423 200/200 401/55 Water Supply Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater Surface Water/Effluent Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Agricultural Demand Agricultural demand in the planning area is about 38,000 acre-feet a year, or 49% of the total cultural demand. Most irrigation is for pasture. As shown in Table 5.0-13, there is agricultural demand in all basins but most (72%) is located in the Verde River Basin. An estimated 6,400 acres are in agricultural production in the Verde River Basin, primarily in the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins. The predominant crop grown is pasture, which is typically deficit irrigated. Groundwater is the primary supply in the Big Chino Sub-basin while surface water is predominantly utilized in the Verde Valley Sub-basin. Detailed maps showing current and historic irrigation in the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins and much of the Verde Canyon Sub-basin are found in the Verde River Watershed Study Report (ADWR, 2000). This study also includes a description of each of the irrigation associations including information on acreage, water supply and facilities. In addition, maps of irrigated lands are also found in the WAC/USBOR Reports. Most current irrigation in the Big Chino Sub-basin is located along Big Chino Wash about 15 miles northwest of Paulden, along Williamson Valley Wash and near Paulden. A smaller number of acres Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 51 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 are irrigated in the Walnut Creek area near the western sub-basin boundary. Irrigation methods are predominantly flood or sprinkler irrigation. Pasture is the most prevalent crop as well as alfalfa, small grains and corn. (Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee, 2004) Table 5.0-13 Agricultural Demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area Agua Fria Salt River 1991-1995 (acre-feet) Groundwater Total 1,300 1,300 1996-2000 (acre-feet) 2001-2003 (acre-feet) 1,300 1,300 Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 Surface Water 6,400 6,400 Total 6,900 6,900 Tonto Creek Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 Surface Water 1,000 1,000 Total 1,500 1,500 Upper Hassayampa Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 Total <1,000 <1,000 Verde River Groundwater 8,100 8,400 Surface Water 11,500 12,500 Total 19,600 20,900 Source: USGS 2005d, ADWR 2005d Notes: Volumes <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acre-feet for computational purposes 1,600 1,600 <1,000 6,400 6,900 <1,000 1,000 1,500 <1,000 <1,000 11,500 16,000 27,500 About 30 irrigation associations divert surface water in the Verde Valley Sub-basin. Most of the irrigated lands in the sub-basin are located along the Verde River or its major tributaries. During drought, approximately 1,200 irrigation wells in the Verde Valley may be used to meet irrigation demands. Agricultural lands are located primarily along the Verde River north and south of Camp Verde, where a number of ditch companies serve water to about 2,800 acres. Irrigated lands are also located near the communities of Cornville and Page Springs. Pasture is grown on about two-thirds of the irrigated land. Other crops include alfalfa, corn, wheat, vegetables and orchards. (ADWR, 2000) Small areas of irrigated acreage are located in the Agua Fria Basin north of Cordes Junction and in the Upper Hassayampa Basin north of Wagoner (see Figures 5.1-10 and 5.4-10). In the Tonto Creek Basin the Gisela Community Ditch Association delivers surface water diverted from Tonto Creek through a 3-mile long ditch to about 144 acres near the community of Gisela, east of Rye (see Figure 5.3-10). Reportedly, much more water is diverted than used due to system configuration but the excess is assumed to return to the creek. Agricultural lands consist of pasture and orchard. Some acreage may be supplemented with groundwater. (ADWR, 1992) A relatively small amount of groundwater-supplied irrigation occurs in the lower reaches of Tonto Creek. The 52 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 USGS estimates that about 270 acres are being actively farmed in the Tonto Creek Basin (USGS 2005d). Annual agricultural demand in the Salt River Basin is about 6,900 acre-feet primarily associated with pasture irrigation for livestock raising operations. Most of the irrigated areas are in Pleasant Valley near Young and near the community of Fort Apache. An estimated 3,200 acre-feet of demand is located on non-reservation lands with about 650 acres in production. Approximately 2,700 acre-feet of surface water and 500 acre-feet of groundwater are used. Historically, small tracts of irrigated land were located throughout the basin including along the Salt River upstream of Roosevelt Lake, north of Globe and in the White Mountains. Recent field investigations have not been conducted in this basin and the USGS National Gap Analysis Program did not identify irrigated acreage in these areas (see Figure 5.2-10). Agricultural demand on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is estimated to be about 3,600 acre-feet of surface water with 1,050 acres in production. Only about 20 acres are irrigated with surface water on the portion of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation located in the planning area, with an associated demand of about 70 acre-feet. (ADWR, 1992) Although agricultural demand estimates are uncertain in parts of the planning area due to a lack of reporting and recent field studies, it does appear that agricultural demand has declined in the Verde River Basin compared with demand prior to 1990. Agricultural demand may continue to decline in part due to groundwater transportation activities. In 2004, the City of Prescott, in partnership with the Town of Prescott Valley, purchased the JWK Ranch in the Big Chino Sub-basin for the anticipated purpose of retiring agricultural use and pumping groundwater to the Prescott Active Management Area pursuant to A.R.S.§ 45-555. The final determination of the allowable pumpage and transportation volume has not been made. Industrial Demand Industrial demand in the planning area averaged about 17,100 acre feet annually during the period 2001-2003. As shown in Table 5.0-14, industrial demand in the planning area consists of mining, golf course irrigation served by facility water systems and a dairy. These same use categories that are served by a municipal water system are accounted for as municipal demand. There is likely additional industrial demand in the planning area not reflected in Table 5.0-14. Most of the industrial demand is due to mining-related operations in the Salt River Basin and to surface water exported from the Black River to the Morenci Mine in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Mining demand increased from 2000 to 2003 due to an increase in surface water exports to the Morenci Mine. In 2003, groundwater use was approximately 6,400 acre-feet at the Phelps Dodge Miami Copper Mine, 350 acre-feet at the BHP Pinto Valley Copper Mine and 50 acre-feet at sand and gravel facilities. In 2003, about 100 acre-feet of surface water was used at the Miami mine and about 6,500 acre-feet was transported to the Morenci mine. In 1991 and 2000 all the surface water use was at the Morenci mine. Mining operations have ceased at the Miami Mine where current activity involves smelter operations, an electrorefinery, and a copper rod mill that produces continuous-cast copper rod used Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 53 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 as the feedstock for the wire and cable industry (Arizona Mining Association, 2006). With rising copper prices, Phelps Dodge is continuing to evaluate reopening the Miami Mine. Table 5.0-14 Industrial demand in selected years in the Central Highlands Planning Area 1991 2000 Water Use (acre-feet) Type Mining Total Salt River Verde River Groundwater Surface Water 2 2003 16,200 12,900 14,900 10,000 5,000 8,000 3,700 7,000 6,600 1,200 1,200 1,300 Groundwater Golf Course Total 2,400 2,600 2,800 Salt River Groundwater 200 200 200 Verde River 1 Groundwater 1,400 1,600 1,800 Surface Water 800 800 800 Dairy/Feedlot Total 800 800 800 Upper Hassayampa Groundwater 800 800 800 Source: ADEQ 2005, ADMMR 2005, ADWR 2000, ADWR 2005b, USGS 2005d 1 Three golf courses also receive effluent, see Table 5.0.9 for more information. 2 Most of the surface water diverted for mining in the Salt River Basin is water transported to the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area for use at the Morenci Mine. Full copper mining operations are expected to resume at the Pinto Valley mine in 2007. Also, there are plans to open the Carlota Copper Mine about six miles west of Miami in 2008. This project will involve open pit mining and a heap leach operation with a nine year mine life. Up to 75 million pounds per year of copper may be produced (Quadra Mining LTD., 2005). Mining activity has declined from historic levels but it continues to be an important industry in the planning area as it has been for many years. Historically significant mines include the Vulture Gold Mine near Wickenburg that was in production sporadically for about a hundred years beginning in 1864, and the United Verde Mine at Jerome/Clarkdale, which operated from 1876 to 1953. The United Verde Mine was at one time the largest copper mine in Arizona, producing 3 million pounds of copper per month. A number of smaller mining operations were located around Crown King and north of Castle Hot Springs in the Agua Fria Basin. While some existing mines have been out of production in recent years, mining may resume at some sites (e.g. Miami) if determined to be economically feasible. In addition to metal mining, sand and gravel and cement operations are included in the mining 54 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 category. In 2003 about 1,300 acre-feet of groundwater was used in the Verde River Basin by several sand and gravel operations and Phoenix Cement, a manufacturer of Portland Cement located near Clarkdale. A cement plant has been proposed near Drake, northwest of Paulden, that could use about 80 acre-feet of water per year (Wirt, 2005). Ten of the sixteen known golf courses in the planning area are “industrial” courses located primarily in the Verde River Basin. Industrial courses receive at least some water from facility wells and not from a municipal water provider. Industrial groundwater demand is about 2,800 acre-feet a year and three of the courses also use a total of about 524 acre-feet of municipal effluent a year. (See Table 5.0-12). The Parker Dairy, located east of Congress in the Upper Hassayampa Basin, commenced operation in 1987. It houses over 7,000 dairy cows with an estimated annual groundwater demand of about 800 acre-feet. 5.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Central Highlands Planning Area A number of complex water resource issues exist in the Central Highlands Planning Area. Issues have been identified in water resource studies, by community watershed groups, through the distribution of surveys, and from other sources. Issues and planning, conservation and research activities are discussed in this section. Planning and Conservation Many communities in the planning area are facing rapid population growth in a region of the state where physical and legal access to water supplies creates significant challenges. These challenges have resulted in the formation of several community watershed groups, water resource studies and planning, and drought response and water conservation efforts. Yavapai County is a major governmental entity in the planning area with the largest county land base. Because the County had a population of over 125,000 in the 2000 Census, it is required to include a water resource element in its General Plan. Its plan recognizes the need for public education and sees the county’s role as a facilitator of sound water resource management practices. The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, along with cities, towns, tribes and the Department of Water Resources created the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to provide a water management strategy for Yavapai County. The goals of the county’s general plan as they compare with the activities of the WAC are included in Yavapai County’s General Plan. By acquiring private water companies serving the town, Cottonwood is seeking more water resource management authority. The town is a participant in the WAC as are a number of communities in the Verde River Basin including Sedona, Clarkdale and Camp Verde. The Town of Payson is the largest community in the planning area. Because its water system is drought sensitive and the community faces rapid population growth, the Town has undertaken a variety of water resource management activities. It has adopted ordinances that place conservation and no-impact requirements on new developments including prohibitions on swimming pools, turf Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 55 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 and evaporative coolers in buildings over 3,000 square feet. It also imposes a water-development impact fee on new development. New residential subdivisions are limited to 20 lots and builders must provide their own sources of water without impacting Payson’s water supplies (Maguire, 2005). Payson has a conservation water rate structure, a water conservation education program and a drought plan. Supply augmentation activities include using effluent for turf irrigation and groundwater recharge, and development of a program to transport 3,000 acre-feet of water from C.C. Cragin reservoir to Payson as provided for under the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act. Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) are being formed in all counties across Arizona. LDIGs are voluntary groups that will coordinate drought public awareness, provide impact assessment information to local and state leaders, and implement and initiate local drought mitigation and response actions. These groups are coordinated by local representatives of Arizona Cooperative Extension and County Emergency Management and supported by ADWR’s Statewide Drought Program. To support the efforts of the LDIGs, professionals and residents are asked to provide monthly feedback on drought conditions throughout their county. Citizens may also participate with the LDIG by assisting with education and outreach efforts and recommending actions for drought mitigation and response. More information on LDIGs may be found at http://www.azwater.gov/ dwr/drought/LDIG.html. Watershed Groups and Studies Several groups have formed in the planning area to address water resource issues. The most active groups in the planning area are the Citizens Water Advocacy Group, Citizens for Responsible Development, Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership, Verde River Basin Partnership, Verde Valley Water Users Association, Inc., Verde Watershed Association and the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee. In 2005, Congress passed the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Partnership Act, but to date this partnership has not formed. A description of those groups that are part of the Department’s Rural Watershed Initiative Program, including participants, activities and issues, is found in Appendix B. Two of the groups listed in Appendix B encompass more than one planning area. Primary issues identified by these groups that pertain to the Central Highlands Planning area are summarized as follows: Growth: • Unregulated lot splits • Proposed growth in Mayer, Bensch Ranch and Spring Valley • 25,000 to 30,000 approved lots remain in Prescott AMA • Thousands of private domestic wells and more pending • Significant projected growth Water Supplies and Demand: • Limited and deep groundwater supplies • Access to water development on public lands • Limited groundwater data 56 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • • • • Limited supplies to meet projected demands Limited water resources to meet current demands Environmental, supply, treatment, transportation and financing costs associated with augmentation from C.C. Cragin reservoir Seasonal demand/peaking problems Potential impacts resulting from the transfer of Big Chino water to Prescott and Prescott Valley Legal: • Private water companies and domestic water improvement district conflicts • Interbasin transfer conflicts resulting from Payson’s ability to pump from two separate basins • Unresolved Indian Water Rights settlements • Subflow decision and impact on legal access to water • Yavapai Ranch land exchange and Title II implementation • Senior water right holders on the Verde River are landowners within the SRP boundaries Water Quality: • Water quality issues in Verde Valley • Potential impacts from septic systems • Ability to meet new Arsenic standard Funding: • Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies • High cost of water augmentation projects • Costs associated with hauling water • Infrastructure needs for private water companies Drought: • Drought sensitive groundwater and surface water supplies • Drought sensitivity in Mayer, Spring Valley, Black Canyon City Environmental: • ESA issues involving groundwater usage impacts on perennial streams • Environmental issues pertaining to Fossil Creek • Verde River Wild and Scenic River status • Proposed critical habitat area in Verde Valley for willow flycatcher • Invasive species Other: • Poorly constructed and maintained infrastructure in some areas • Political and philosophical differences between the Verde Valley and the Prescott AMA A number of studies have been conducted in parts of the planning area, particularly in the Verde Basin. Many of these studies were undertaken as a result of initiatives by watershed groups and communities. Some of the noteworthy regional studies have been mentioned in previous sections and an extensive list of studies are included in the references and suggested reading sections found at the end of each basin section in this volume. Not included are studies under development. The USBOR is in the process of drafting a report of findings for the Mogollon Rim Water Resource Appraisal Study, which covers the Payson, Pine and Strawberry area. Recently, Northern Arizona University used USGS geophysical data to construct a 3-D geologic model that represents the Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 57 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 subsurface geologic framework within the Big Chino Sub-basin and Prescott AMA. The model aids in understanding how groundwater flows within and between these areas. This work is being incorporated into a USGS numeric groundwater model being developed for the Verde Watershed and portions of the Coconino Plateau and Little Colorado River Watershed. Issue Surveys The Department conducted a rural water resources survey in 2003 to compile information for the public and help identify the needs of growing communities. This survey was also intended to gather information on drought impacts 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). There were 36 water provider and jurisdiction respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area, but only 24 numerically ranked issues. Respondents were asked to rank 18 issues, which can be grouped into three categories: infrastructure, water supply and water quality. In the planning area, issues related to water quality and infrastructure were ranked among the top five issues by a majority of respondents; 66% in both categories. Water supply issues were considered key issues by 46% of the respondents. Table 5.0-15 shows the four specific issues that ranked highest in the planning area. Table 5.0-15 Water resource issues ranked by 2003 survey respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area (19 water providers and 5 jurisdictions) Issue Ranked as one of the top Percent of respondents 5 issues (out of 18) Lowering water tables near wells 6 25 Ability to meet new arsenic standards 8 33 Aging infrastructure in need of replacement 5 21 Inadequate captial for infrastructure improvement 8 33 Source: ADWR 2004 The Department conducted another, more concise survey of water providers in 2004. This was done to supplement the information gathered in the previous year in support of developing the Arizona Water Atlas, and to reach a wider audience by directly contacting each water provider. Through this effort, 74 water providers in the Central Highlands Planning Area, with a total of approximately 60,600 service connections, were willing to participate and provide information on water supply, demand, and infrastructure and to rank a list of seven issues. In regard to the question of groundwater level trends in their service area, 59 respondents reported as follows: 25 stable, 21 falling, 9 did not know the condition of water levels in their service area, 58 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 3 reported variable water levels and 1 respondent in the Verde River Basin reported rising water levles. Responses are shown by basin with the number of respondents in Table 5.0-16. Table 5.0-16 Groundwater level trends reported by 2004 survey respondents by groundwater basin (59 respondents) Basin Rising Stable Falling Agua Fria 1 5 Salt River 3 Tonto Creek Variable Don't Know 1 Upper Hassayampa Verde River 2 6 1 15 15 3 7 Source: ADWR 2005c As part of the 2004 survey, water providers were asked to rank 7 issues from 0 to 4 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. Of the 74 water providers that responded to the survey, 66 ranked issues. Water quality was not included as an issue in this survey. 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, infrastructure issues ranked high, similar to the 2003 survey. In addition, concerns about drought related water supplies and supplies to meet future needs also rated high as shown in Table 5.0-17. Table 5.0-17 Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Central Highlands Planning Area (66 water providers) Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate supplies to meet current demand Inadequate supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Source: ADWR 2005c Section 5.0 DRAFT Moderate concern Major concern Total Percent of respondents reporting issue was a major or moderate concern 6 3 9 13 5 7 12 18 4 6 10 15 4 17 21 32 12 12 24 36 6 19 25 38 6 19 25 38 Central Highlands Overview 59 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.0-18 shows how respondents to the 2004 survey within individual basins ranked issues. Inadequate capital for infrastructure improvements was a moderate or major concern for most respondents in all the basins while drought related water supply problems were identified as key issues for respondents in the Agua Fria and Verde River basins. Table 5.0-18 Number of 2004 survey respondents, by groundwater basin, that ranked the survey water resource issues a moderate or major concern (66 water providers total) Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate supplies to meet current demand Inadequate supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Source: ADWR 2005c (4) Tonto Creek (5) Upper Hassayampa (8) 2 1 2 Agua Fria Salt River (7) 1 Verde River (42) 7 2 1 10 1 1 12 3 1 5 2 18 3 2 3 3 16 4 2 4 3 21 4 2 25 5 5.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics Sections 5.1 through 5.5 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the groundwater basins in the Central Highlands Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Section 1.3 of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes general information that applies to all of the basins and the purpose of the information. This information is organized in the order in which the characteristics are discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.5. Geographic Features Geographic features maps are included to present a general orientation to principal land features, roads, counties and cities, towns and places in the groundwater basin. Land Ownership The distribution and type of land ownership in a basin has implications for land and water use. Large amounts of private land typically translate into opportunities for land development and associated water demand, whereas federal lands are typically maintained for a purpose with little associated water use. State owned land may be sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing and farming. 60 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 The extent of state owned lands is due to a number of legislative actions. 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 for specified purposes, which are identified for each basin (Arizona State Land Department, 2006). Climate Climate data including temperature, rainfall, evaporation rates and snow are critical components of water resource planning and management. Averages and variability, seasonality of precipitation and long term climate trends are all important factors in demand and supply planning. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be a potential supply in a basin. Stream gage, flood gage, reservoir, stockpond and runoff contour data provide information on physical availability of this supply. Seasonal flow information is relevant to seasonal supply availability. Annual flow volumes provide an indication of potential volumetric availability. Criteria for including stream gage stations in the basin tables are that there is at least one year of record, and annual streamflow statistics are included only if there are at least three years of record. There are different types of stations and those that only serve repeater functions were not included. Flood gage information is presented to direct the reader to sources of additional precipitation and flow information that can be used in water resource planning. Large reservoir storage information provides data on the amount of water stored in the basin, its uses, and ownership. Because of the large number of small reservoirs, and less reliable data, individual small reservoir data is not provided. The number of stockponds is a general indicator of small scale surface water capture and livestock demand. Runoff contours reflect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication of the amount of runoff that can be expected at a particular geographic location. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major Springs A map of perennial and intermittent streams is provided for each basin. For some basins, more than one source of information was used. Stream designations may not accurately reflect current conditions in some cases. Spring data was compiled from a number of sources in an effort to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. Spring data is important to many researchers and to the environmental community due to their importance in maintaining habitat, even from small discharges. Groundwater Conditions Several indicators of groundwater conditions are presented for each basin. Aquifer type can be a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield information for large diameter wells is provided and is generally measured when the well is drilled and reported on completion reports. It was assumed that large diameter wells were drilled to produce a maximum amount of water and, therefore, their Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 61 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 reported pump capacities are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield water to a well. However, many factors can affect well yields including well design, pump size and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity and specific information is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. Natural recharge is typically the least well known component of a water budget. Many of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from studies of larger geographic areas and all deserve further study. Similarly, estimates of storage are based on rough estimates and considerably more studies are needed in most basins. Components of storage include aquifer depth and specific yield. Water level data is from measured wells, usually collected during the period when the wells were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown on mapped wells if there was a measurement taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs show water-level trends for selected wells over the 30-year period from January 1975 to January 2005. Not all basins have a sufficient number of representative hydrographs. The flow directions that are shown generally reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. However, flow directions in some basins indicate how localized pumping has altered regional flow patterns. Water Quality Water quality conditions impact the availability of water supplies. Water quality data was compiled from a variety of sources as described in Volume 1 Section 1.3. The data indicate areas where water quality exceedences have previously occurred, however additional areas of concern may currently exist where water quality samples have not been collected or sample results were not reviewed by the Department (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It is important to note also that the exceedences presented may or may not reflect current aquifer or surface water conditions. Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand is an important component of a water budget. However, without mandatory metering and reporting of water uses, accurate demand data is difficult to acquire. Municipal demand includes water company and domestic (self-supplied) demand estimates. Basin demand information is from several sources in order to prepare as accurate an estimate as possible. Annual demand estimates have been averaged over a specific time period. This provides general trend information without focusing on potentially inaccurate annual demand estimates due to incomplete data. Locations of major cultural water uses are primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study using older satellite imagery that may not represent recent changes. The cultural demand maps provide only general information about the location of water users. Effluent generation data was compiled from several sources to provide an estimate of how much of this renewable resource might be available for use. However, effluent reuse is often difficult both logistically and economically since a potential user may be far from the wastewater treatment plant. 62 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the necessary information to the Department. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. In addition to these subdivision determinations for which a water adequacy report is issued, water providers may apply for adequacy designations for their entire service area. There are six Designations of Adequate Water Supply in the planning area. (See Section 5.0.5). If a subdivision is to be served water from one of these water providers, then a separate adequacy determination is not required. (See Appendix A, Volume 1 for more information about the Adequacy Program). Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 63 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 REFERENCES Anderson, T.W., Freethey, G.W. and Tucci, P, 1992, Geohydrology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States-Regional AquiferSystem Analysis: USGS Professional Paper 1406.B. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Accessed August 2005 at www.workforce.az.gov Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2007, Site Update, Payson PCE/Tonto and Cherry Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Sites – March 2007; Publication Number FS 07-09 _____, 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.html. _____, 2006c, Pinal Creek Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) factsheet; Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/state.html _____, 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2002, The Status of Water Quality In Arizona – 2002: Volume 1. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(b) Listing Report Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Database of active mines in Arizona: Available at www.admmr.state.az.us Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2007, Cultural Water Demand in the Central Highlands Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by Office of Resource Assessment Planning _____, 2006a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Water Management Division _____, 2006b, Identification of Historically Irrigated Acres in the Big Chino Sub-Basin and Discussion Regarding Transportation of Groundwater into the Prescott AMA _____, 2005a, Database of instream flow applications: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005b, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. 64 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005c, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005d, Agricultural surface water use estimates: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005e, Water Protection Fund database: ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 2000, Verde River Watershed Study _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I. Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1992. Preliminary HSR for the Upper Salt River Watershed Volume 1: Assessment In Re: The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source Arizona Game and Fish (AZGF), 2004, Explore Arizona: Accessed January 2007 at http://explore.azgfd.gov _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Mining Association, 2006, AZCU Profile: Phelps Dodge Mining Company; Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.azcu.org/viewNews.php?item=2 Arizona State Land Department, 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Arizona Water Company, 2007a, System Water Plan Miami Water System, submitted to ADWR Arizona Water Company, 2007b, System Water Plan Sedona Water System, submitted to ADWR Big Park Water Company (BPWC) and Little Park Water Company (LPWC), 2007, Water Supply Plan, submitted to ADWR Brown, D. and Lowe, C., 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS Cover digitized by Arizona Game and Fish Department: Accessed in 2007 at http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/ gis/maps/mapguide Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), 2007; Plant species information: Accessed April, 2007 at www.centerforplantconservation.org Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 65 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 City of Globe, 2005, ADWR Designation of Adequate Water Supply Annual Report City of Payson, 2007; Payson Water System: Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.ci.payson.az.us/ Departments/water/system.htm Corkhill, 2000, Report on the Drilling of an exploratory Borehole near Strawberry, Arizona (May 18-June 2, 2000. A Hydrogeologic Investigation for the Northern Gila County Water Plan Alliance. Cottonwood Water Works, 2007, Community Water System Report, submitted to ADWR. Dava & Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan, Section VI. Water Resources Element Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Ester, Charlie and Reigle, Dallas, 2001; The Role of the SRP Verde Reservoirs in Water Resources Management at the Salt River Project, In Proceedings of the Verde Watershed Symposium-State of the Watershed in 2001, May 17-19, 2001. Gæaorama Inc., 2006, Geology and Structural Controls of Groundwater, Mogollon Rim Water Resources Management Study. Draft. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Tribe: Accessed April 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Maguire, Rita P., 2005, An Analysis of the Water Budgets of Buckeye, Payson and Prescott Valley, ThinkAZ. McGavock, Ed, 2003, Big Chino Aquifers: Knowns, Unknowns, and Conflicting Interpretations. Tri-City Water Forum 2003 National Wild & Scenic Rivers System (NWSR), 2007, Verde River Arizona: Accessed April 2007 at www.rivers.gov Neary, Daniel G., Gerald J. Gottfried, and Peter F. Ffolliott, 2003, Post-Wildfire Watershed Flood Responses, Proceedings of the 2nd International Fire Ecology Conference, American Meteorological Society, Orlando FL, Paper 65982, 8p. Nelson, Keith, 2002, Application of the Prescott Active Management Area groundwater flow model, planning scenario 1999-2025, Modeling Report No. 12: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division, September 2002. NEMO (Non-point Education for Municipal Officials), 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan for 66 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 the Upper Agua Fria Watershed Payson Regional Economic Development Corporation, 2006, Utilities; Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.paysonecon.org/relocation.htm Payson Roundup, 2005, Supervisors approve Diamond Star incorporation, Nov. 4, 2005 Quadra Mining, Ltd.. 2005, Carlota Project; Accessed June, 2007 at http://www.quadramining. com/s/Carlota.asp Owen-Joyce, Sandra J. and C. K. Bell, 1983, Appraisal of Water Resources in the Upper Verde River Area, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona Salt River Project (SRP), 2007; SRP system information: Accessed April, 2007 at http://www. srpnet.com/about/history/water.aspx ______, 2007, C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir; Accessed May, 2007 at com/water/dams/cragin.aspx http://www.srpnet. Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, E.P. and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. Tellman, B., Yarde, R., and Wallace, M., 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Truini, M., Macy, J. P., Porter, T. J., 2005. Ground-water, surface-water, and water-chemistry data, Black Mesa area, northeastern Arizona, 2003-04.; prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Arizona. Dept. of Water Resources. USGS U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/wildarea.htm U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2003, Draft Water Use Projections Verde Valley Arizona U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2007, USDA Forest Service - Southwestern Region: Accessed April, 2007 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/beetle/index.shtml U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007, Wilderness Areas: Accessed March, 2007 at http:// www.fs.fed.us/r3/ ______, 2003, Arizona Bark Beetle Epidemics-Fact Sheet and Bulletin, Southwestern Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007; News release: Comments Sought on Proposal to Section 5.0 DRAFT Central Highlands Overview 67 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Renovate Stillman Lake, March 15, 2007 ______, 2006, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed July 2006 at www.fws.gov/ arizonaes/documents/countylists and www.fws.gov/ifw2es/ endangered species/lists/ default.cfm. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River Watersheds, Central Arizona ______, 2005a, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona: Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294, 87 pg. ______, 2005b, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater ______, 2005c, Geologic Framework of Aquifer Units and Ground-water Flowpaths, Verde River Headwaters, North-Central Arizona: Open-File Report 2004-1141. _____, 2005c, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received December 2005. Wirt, L., 2005, Hydrogeoloic Review of the Drake Cement Project, Yavapai County, Arizona, USGS Open-File Report 2004-1439. Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee, 2004, Draft Big Chino Sub-basin Historical and Current Water Uses and Water Use Projections 68 Section 5.0 Central Highlands Overview DRAFT Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin 69 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.1 Geography of the Agua Fria Basin The Agua Fria Basin, located in the west central part of the planning area is 1,263 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.1-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and mesas. Vegetation types include Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, chaparral and montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation is found along the Agua Fria River including mixed broadleaf and cottonwood/willow. • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.1-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Black Canyon City and Cordes Junction o Other communities of Castle Hot Springs, Crown King and Mayer o Agua Fria River running north to south through the center of the basin o The lowest point in the basin is about 3,700 feet along the Agua Fria River o Numerous creeks that flow into the Agua Fria River. In the southern half of the basin these creeks include Castle Creek, Humbug Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Black Canyon Creek and Squaw Creek. In the northern half of the basin these creeks include Turkey Creek, Silver Creek, Sycamore Creek, Yellow Jacket Creek and Ash Creek o Horsethief Basin southeast of Crown King o Perry Mesa to the east of Interstate 17 north of Black Canyon City o Black Mesa along Interstate 17 west of Perry Mesa o Big Bug Mesa on the western basin boundary northwest of Mayer o Buckhorn Mountains in the southwestern portion of the basin o Bradshaw Mountains west of Interstate 17, which contain the highest point in the basin, Mt. Union at 7,528 feet Not well shown on Figure 5.1-1 are the New River Mountains in the southeastern portion of the basin 70 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 71 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.2 Land Ownership in the Agua Fria Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Agua Fria Basin is shown in Figure 5.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the diversity of land ownership types and the large contiguous parcels of forest service lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. National Forest and Wilderness • 46.7% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott and Tonto National Forests. • The basin contains two wilderness areas, the 25,536-acre Castle Creek Wilderness and the 20,100-acre Pine Mountain Wilderness. Both areas are in the Prescott National Forest. • There are numerous small private in-holdings in the Prescott National Forest. • National forest land is located in the northern, eastern and western portions of the basin, divided by Interstate 17 and other land uses in the central part of the basin. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 16.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Hassayampa Field Office Bureau of Land Management. • Most BLM lands are interspersed with private and state trust lands in the southern and central portions of the basin. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. State Trust Land • 14.6% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and four other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • State land is interspersed with private and BLM lands and is found in the southern and north-central portions of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. National Parks, Monuments and Recreation Areas • 12.1% of the land (71,000 acres) is federally owned and managed by the BLM as the Agua Fria National Monument located in the center of the basin. • Primary land use is recreation. Private • 7.1% of the land is private. • Private land is found throughout the basin with the majority of the private land interspersed with state trust, national forest and BLM lands. • The largest contiguous area of private lands is in the vicinity of Castle Hot Springs. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) 72 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • • • 2.6% of the land is owned and managed by two counties. The largest portion of “other” land is owned and managed by Maricopa County as the Lake Pleasant Regional Park. This park is located at the southernmost tip of the basin. A small portion of land northeast of Cordes Junction is owned by Yavapai County, its use is unknown. Primary land use at the Lake Pleasant Regional Park is recreation. Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 73 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 74 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.3 Climate of the Agua Fria Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 5.1-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.1-3. Figure 5.1-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Agua Fria Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.1-1A • Elevations at the three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations range from 1,990 feet to 5,920 feet. • Minimum average temperature ranges from 37.4°F at Crown King to 53.2°F at Castle Hot Springs. • Maximum average temperature ranges from 88.8°F at Castle Hot Springs to 72.6°F at Crown King. • Station precipitation is similar at the Castle Hot Springs and Cordes stations with an average annual precipitation of 15.47 inches and 16.21 inches respectively. Annual average precipitation is 28.41 inches at Crown King. • All stations report highest average seasonal rainfall in the winter season (January - March) and lowest seasonal rainfall in the spring. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 32 inches south of Crown King and as low as 10 inches at the southernmost tip of the basin. • In general, precipitation increases as altitude increases in this basin. The range of 22 inches between areas of highest and lowest precipitation is common for the planning area. Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 75 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-1 Climate Data for the Agua Fria Basin A.NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used for (in feet) Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Castle Hot Springs 1,990 1971 - 2000 88.8/Jul 53.2/Jan 6.23 1.03 4.52 3.69 15.47 Cordes 3,770 1971 - 2000 80.1/Jul 45.3/Jan 5.29 1.31 5.87 3.74 16.21 Crown King 5,920 1971 - 2000 72.6/Jul 37.4/Jan 11.39 2.13 8.62 6.27 28.41 Source: WRCC, 2003. B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for (in feet) (in inches) Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content Period of Elevation (Number of measurements to calculate average) Record Used for (in feet) Averages Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 76 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 77 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Agua Fria Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.1-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.1-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.1-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 5.3-4. A description of 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 5.1-2. • Data from seven stations located at five watercourses including the Agua Fria River, Turkey Creek, Boulder Creek, Humbug Creek and Cottonwood Creek, are shown in the table and on Figure 5.1-4. Four of the seven stations were discontinued between 1992-1994. The remaining three stations, all located on the Agua Fria River, are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow at six stations is highest in the winter (January-March) when between 52% and 82% of the annual average annual flow occurs. The average seasonal flow at the Agua Fria near Humbolt station is highest in the summer (July-September) when 40% of the average annual flow occurs. Lowest average seasonal flow is in the spring (April-June) or summer (July-Sept). • Maximum annual flows range from 360,541 acre-feet (1992, Agua Fria near Rock Springs) to 1,166 acre-feet (1992, Cottonwood Creek near Waddell Dam). • Minimum annual flows range from 12 acre-feet (1989, Cottonwood Creek near Waddell Dam) to 1,528 acre-feet (1975, Agua Fria River near Rock Springs). Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.1-3. • As of October 2005 there were 14 stations in the basin. All stations are located in Yavapai County, however, all but two stations are the responsibility of the Maricopa County Flood Control District. • Of the 14 stations, 11 are precipitation only stations, two are weather stations and one is a repeater/weather station. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.1-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir with a maximum capacity of 1,108,600 acre-feet. Lake Pleasant, created by the New Waddell Dam, is used for flood control, hydroelectric power generation, recreation and water supply purposes. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in four small reservoirs in the basin. • Total maximum storage for the two small reservoirs with greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity is 63 acre-feet. The total surface area for the remaining two small reservoirs is 13 acres. • There are 527 registered stockponds in this basin. 78 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.1-4. • Average annual runoff is one inch per year in most of the basin and increases to two inches per year in the northeast portion of the basin. Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 79 Undetermined 585 89 1,111 38 60 9 Agua Fria River near Humboldt Agua Fria River near Mayer Turkey Creek near Cleator Agua Fria River near Rock Springs Boulder Creek near Rock Springs Humbug Creek near Castle Hot Springs Cottonwood Creek near Waddell Dam 9512450 9512500 9512600 9512800 9512830 9512860 9512970 4/1983-3/1993 (discontinued) 5/1983-9/1994 (discontinued) 5/1983-9/1993 (discontinued) 1/1970-current (real-time) 10/1979 - 9/1992, (discontinued) 1/1940-current (real-time) 1/2000-current (real-time) 82 81 80 75 68 52 19 Winter 1 7 9 7 10 9 9 Spring 13 5 3 7 9 22 40 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 4 7 9 11 12 17 32 Fall 80 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Years of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record NA NA NA 4,770 5,360 5,000 NA Mean Basin Elevation (in Period of Record feet) Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Drainage Area (in mi2) Station USGS Station Name Number Table 5.1-2 Streamflow Data for Agua Fria Basin 12 (1989) 333 (1989) 14 (1989) 1,528 (1975) 239 (1981) 976 (1962) 1,332 (2003) Minimum 94 1,948 701 19,692 4,164 9,197 1,354 Median 252 5,334 1,186 1,166 (1992) 34,896 (1993) 3,869 (1992) 360,541 (1992) 33,882 (1980) 103,555 (1993) 3,352 (2002) Maximum Section 5.1 57,664 8,154 16,327 2,013 Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 9 10 9 31 12 63 3 Years of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Agua Fria Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 3755 Brooklyn Peak Precipitation 8/3/2005 Yavapai County FCD 3780 Black Canyon City Repeater/Weather Station 8/1/2005 Yavapai County FCD 5335 Minnehaha Precipitation 6/16/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5660 Lake Pleasant North Weather Station NA Maricopa County FCD 5670 Garfias Mountain Precipitation 8/14/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5685 Columbia Hill Precipitation 7/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5700 Horsethief Basin Weather Station 11/24/1986 Maricopa County FCD 5715 Crown King Precipitation 10/18/1982 Maricopa County FCD 5730 Sunset Point Precipitation 7/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5745 Horseshoe Ranch Precipitation 5/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5760 Horner Mtn. Ranch Precipitation 4/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5775 Arizona Hunt Club Precipitation 4/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5790 I-17 @ 169 Precipitation 11/11/1987 Maricopa County FCD 5805 Dewey Precipitation 11/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD FCD = Flood Control District NA = Data not currently available to ADWR Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Agua Fria Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION None Lake Pleasant (New Waddell Dam) 2 Bureau of Reclamation 1,108,600 C,H,R,S Federal Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 2005, US Bureau of Reclamation 2007 and others B: Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total Number: 2 Total maximum storage : 63 D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) 2 Total Number: 2 Total surface area: 13 E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 527 (from water right filings) Notes: C=Flood Control; H=hydroelectric; R=recreation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in the Phoenix AMA but lake storage is in the Agua Fria Basin 1 82 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 83 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Agua Fria Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 5.1-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.1-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • • • • Perennial streams in this basin include the Agua Fria River, Ash Creek, Sycamore Creek, Indian Creek, Silver Creek, a small reach of Humbug Creek, Yellow Jacket Creek and Grapevine Creek. Most perennial streams are in the northern portion of the basin. A number of intermittent streams are located throughout the basin. All perennial streams also have intermittent reaches. There are five 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. All of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1982. All but one major spring is found in the central eastern portion of the basin. The greatest discharge rate was measured near Castle Hot Springs (Castle, 340 gpm) in the southern part of the basin. All but one of the major springs has a measured discharge rate of less than 100 gpm. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.1-5B. There are 14 minor springs identified in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 294 to 297, depending on the database reference. 84 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-5 Springs in the Agua Fria Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Castle 335908 1122134 340 During or prior to 1982 2 Nelson Place 341913 1114946 96 6/5/1981 3 Bee House 341846 1114945 50 12/13/1980 4 Brown 342302 1120049 40 8/31/1978 5 Willow 342119 1115343 14 10/23/1980 Map Key Name 1 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Coyote 341800 1120248 6 9/16/1993 Larry Canyon2 340821 1120331 6 Not available Unnamed 342905 1126121 5 10/20/1978 Sombero Canyon 341753 1115945 5 9/9/1993 Sheep 341800 1120220 3 9/1993 Alkali 335933 1122212 3 6/22/1979 Charlie's 342002 1120230 3 9/28/1993 Government2 342742 1120146 2 9/5/1978 Silver Creek 341515 1120146 2 8/1993 Badger 341356 1120633 2 4/9/1998 Unnamed 335558 1122126 1 8/9/1979 Unnamed 342857 1121704 1 10/20/1978 Unnamed 335559 1122124 1 8/9/1979 Little 342108 1120524 1 9/1985 Bear Creek 340627 1120727 1 During or prior to 2004 Name C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 294 to 297 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 85 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 86 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Agua Fria Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 5.1-6. Figure 5.1-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.1-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.1-6. Figure 5.1-8 shows well yields in four 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 5.1-6 and Figure 5.1-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include basin fill and sedimentary rock (conglomerate). • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south from the basin boundaries toward the center of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.1-6 and Figure 5.1-8. • As shown on Figure 5.1-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,000 gpm at several locations. • One source of well yield information, based on 49 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 300 gpm. • Well yields vary throughout the basin, with a cluster of less than 100 gallons per minute yields in the vicinity of Mayer. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.1-6. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 9,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.1-6. • There are two storage estimates for this basin, ranging from 620,000 acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet, to a more recent estimate from a 1994 ADWR study of 3.5 million acre-feet to an unknown depth. • The predevelopment storage estimate is three million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 acrefeet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.1-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures seven index wells in this basin. • In 1979, the year of the last water level sweep, 49 wells were measured. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 462 feet near Interstate 17 north of Black Canyon City and the shallowest is 21 feet east of Mayer. • There is one ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring device located near. • Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figure 5.1-6 but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 5.1-7. Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 87 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Agua Fria Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,263 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (Conglomerate) Range 210-625 (2 wells measured) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 5-1,500 Median 300 (49 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 30-300 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) 9,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 620,000 - 3,500,000 (1990 to 1,200 ft, 1994 depth N/A) ADWR (1990 and 1994) 3,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water in Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 7 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1979 (49 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate N/A not available 88 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 89 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.1-7 Agua Fria Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 0 50 1975 0 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface WELL DEPTH: 140 ft USE: STOCK B 1985 0 50 25 25 75 E 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1995 WELL DEPTH: 200 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1995 90 2005 basin fill A-09-02 34DDD WELL DEPTH: 112 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 2005 volcanic rocks A-11-02 14CAA 1985 1975 2005 basin fill A-11-02 09CCB 1985 75 1975 2005 igneous and metamorphic rocks A-12-01 26BAB 1985 1975 D 1995 WELL DEPTH : 210 ft USE: DOMESTIC 50 1975 C igneous and metamorphic rocks A-12-02 23BAA YEAR 1995 2005 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.7 Water Quality of the Agua Fria Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table Table 5.1-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.1-7B. Figure 5.1-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.1.7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mines • Refer to Table 5.1-7A. • Forty-nine well and spring sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards • The drinking water standard most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. • Other standards equaled or exceeded include cadmium, fluoride and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 5.1-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in a 21 mile reach of Turkey Creek from an unnamed tributary to Poland Creek. • The standards exceeded were cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. • Turkey Creek is not part of the ADEQ Total Maximum Daily Load program at this time. 92 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Agua Fria Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Spring Spring Spring Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Spring Spring Section 5.1 DRAFT Site Location Township Range Section 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 11 North 9.5 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 2 East 2 East 1 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 3 East 3 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 3 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 23 32 28 12 14 24 33 9 14 9 26 29 36 17 35 31 26 21 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 33 34 35 35 35 35 2 4 14 15 15 15 25 4 14 25 33 33 33 27 13 4 22 22 Agua Fria Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As F F As F F F As, F As As As As As As Rad As As Cd Cd Cd As As As As As, F F As, F As As, Rad F F F 93 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Agua Fria Basin (cont'd)1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Turkey Creek unnamed tributary to Poland Creek Notes: Length of Area of Designated Use Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Standard3 Reach (in miles) (in acres) 21 NA A&W Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 2003. As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Zn = Zinc 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact NA = Not available 2 94 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 95 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Agua Fria Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 5.1-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.1-9. Figure 5.1-10 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 5.1-8 and Figure 5.1-10. • Population in this basin increased from 2,839 people in 1980 to 9,025 in 2003. Projections suggest a slower growth rate through 2050 to 20,220. • Groundwater use has increased since 1971, with an average of 2,000 acre-feet per year from 1971-1975 and an average of 3,400 acre-feet pumped per year from 2001-2003. The highest average annual groundwater use, 5,000 acre-feet per year, occurred during 19811985. • There are no reported surface water diversions in this basin. • Municipal groundwater demand increased from an average of 1,100 acre-feet per year in 1991-1995 to an average of 1,800 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. • Agricultural demand has increased slightly from an average of 1,300 acre-feet per year in 1991-1995 to an average of 1,600 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. • No industrial groundwater demand was reported for this basin. • Most municipal and industrial demand is found in the vicinity of Black Canyon City, Cordes Junction and Mayer. • There are numerous small agricultural demand areas north and east of Cordes Junction. • The basin contains two small mines or quarries, one northwest of Mayer and the other northeast of Castle Hot Springs. • As of 2003 there were 1,688 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 159 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.1-9. • This basin contains three wastewater treatment facilities. • Information on population served, effluent generation and disposal was available for two facilities. These facilities serve almost 300 people and generate 22 acre-feet of effluent per year. 96 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.1-8. Cultural Water Demands in the Agua Fria Basin 1 Year Recent Number of Registered Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) (Census) and Water Supply Wells Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Drilled (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 2,839 1981 3,086 1982 3,334 1983 3,581 1984 3,829 1985 4,076 1986 4,323 1987 4,571 1988 4,818 1989 5,066 1990 5,313 1991 5,603 1992 5,892 1993 6,182 1994 6,472 1995 6,762 1996 7,051 1997 7,341 1998 7,631 1999 7,920 2000 8,210 2001 8,482 2002 8,754 2003 9,025 2010 10,928 2020 13,389 2030 15,287 2040 17,213 2050 20,220 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 TOTAL WELLS: 8592 2,000 NR 3,000 NR Data Source 1272 ADWR (1994) 151 5 5,000 NR 138 11 4,000 NR 142 3 1,100 NR 1,300 NR 205 4 1,500 NR 1,300 NR 94 5 1,800 NR 1,600 NR 99 1,688 4 159 USGS (2005) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 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. Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 97 Private Prescott NF Private Arcosanti WWTF Crown King Work Center Kings Ranch Unit II Black Canyon City Site Facilities 98 Arcosanti City/Location Served NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility Totals Ownership Facility Name 292 19 273 Population Served 22 >1 21 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Agua Fria Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond NA NA Wildlife Area Golf Course Disposal Method Table 5.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Agua Fria Basin Discharge to Another Facility Infiltration Basin NA NA NA 610 Population Not Served Section 5.1 Current Treatment Level Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 2003 1996 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT 99 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 5.1-10. Figure 5.1-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 5.1-10 • Fifteen water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through May, 2005. • Six determinations of inadequacy have been made; two near Cordes Junction and four along State Highway 69. • All six determinations of inadequacy were because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information, and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. One inadequate determination also stated the existing supply was unreliable or physically unavailable or groundwater exceeds the depth-to-water criteria. • All lots receiving an adequacy determination are in Yavapai County. Of the 1,177 lots in fourteen subdivisions for which lot information is available, 973 lots or 83% were determined to be adequate. 100 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Bensch Ranch Estates Black Canyon Estates Black Canyon Estates # 2 Bradshaw Overlook Cordes Lakes Cordes Lakes # 8 Kings Ranch Units Mayer Estates Oak Hills Quail Hollow # 1 Rancho Vista Estates LLC Spring Valley # 3 Spring Valley # 4 Sunrise Estates Westridge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai County 8 North 12 North 11 North 11 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 8 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 8 North 8 North 11 North Township 2 East 1 East 2 East 2 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East Range Location 4 22 8 8 3, 4 22 35 27 4, 9 24 23, 24, 25, 26 5, 8 3, 4, 9 3, 4 6 Section 24 15 5 18 58 50 18 163 142 7 101 23 142 NA 411 No. of Lots 22-400244 22-400479 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 09/17/87 02/11/00 09/16/85 02/20/81 02/22/95 04/19/90 07/14/94 01/07/76 01/26/76 06/19/86 05/16/86 01/22/90 08/20/84 01/26/76 02/26/01 Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Mayer Domestic Water Improvement District Black Canyon City Water Association Dry Lot Subdivision Mayer Water Company Mayer Domestic Water Imp Distrct Mayer Water Company Trail's End Water Service Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Cordes Lakes Water Company Cordes Lakes Water Company Trail's End Water Service Trail's End Water Service Bradshaw Mountain View Water Company Date of Water Provider at the Determination Time of Application Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records Subdivision Name Map Key Table 5.1-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Agua Fria Basin1 101 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 102 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Agua Fria Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005.* _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us.* Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 103 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005.* _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* ______, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* ______, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* ______, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 1982, Geothermal Resources of Arizona: University of Arizona map.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* 104 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 F 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.* Fleming, J.B., 2004, Hydrologic characteristics of the Agua Fria National Monument, Central Arizona, determined from the reconnaissance study: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5163.* 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-HA664.* G Gebler, , J.B., 2000, Organochloride compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relationship to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4041.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P 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.* 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, 27 pp.* Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm.* US Bureau of Reclamation, 2007, Dams, Project and Power Plants: New Waddell Dam, at http:// www.usbr.gov/dataweb/dams/az82929.htm* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. * _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* * All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. 106 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Supplemental Reading Anning, D.W., 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Anning, D.W., 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Anning, D.W., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of Natural and Human Factors on Stream Water Quality in Central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29. Barnett, Lloyd, Hawkins, R. and Guertin, D., 2002, Reconnaissance Watershed and Hydrologic Analysis on the Upper Agua Fria Watershed, Univeristy of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Cordy, G.E., Gellenbeck, D.J., Gebler, J.B., Anning, D.W., Coes, A.L., Edmonds, R.J. Rees, J.A., and Sanger, H.W., 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Dava and Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gellenbeck, D.J., and Anning, D.W., 2002, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in central Arizona basins, 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 p. Levick, L, Guertin, D.P. and Uhlman, K, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Upper Agua Fria Watershed, University of Arizona at www.arizonaNEMO.org Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p. Scott, P.S., 1994, Basic geologic and hydrologic information, Bradshaw Mountains, Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Yavapai County Arizona, AZGS Open-File Report 94-2, 69 p. Shafroth, P.B., Stromberg, J.C., Patten, D.T., Springer, A.E., Wright, J.M., 1996, Riparian habitat enhancement and groundwater recharge; a feasibility study on the Agua Fria River, Maricopa County, Arizona: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona. Arizona: Proceedings of the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Prescott, AZ, September 1996, p. 23. Springer, A.E., Wright, J.M., Shafroth, P.B., Stromberg, J.C., Patten, D.T., 1999, Coupling ground-water and riparian vegetation models to simulate riparian vegetation changes due to a reservoir release: Water Resources Research, v. 35, p. 3621-3630. 108 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Index to Section 5.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 5, 10 10, 12 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Instream Flow Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas 21, 23 23 23 28 Water Supply Central Arizona Project Groundwater Effluent 36 41 42 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 48, 50 52 54 Water Resource Issues Watershed Groups and Studies Issue Surveys 56 59, 60 Section 5.1 DRAFT Agua Fria Basin 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 110 Section 5.1 Agua Fria Basin DRAFT Section 5.2 Salt River Basin 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.1 Geography of the Salt River Basin The Salt River Basin occupies the eastern part of the planning area and is the second largest basin at 5,232 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.2-1. The basin is characterized by mid- to high-elevation mountain ranges, plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include: Sonoran desertscrub; semidesert, great plains, and subalpine grasslands; chaparral; evergreen woodland; and subalpine, woodland and montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation includes mesquite, mixed broadleaf and tamarisk along the Salt River and mixed broadleaf along the Black River. • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.2-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Miami, Globe and Whiteriver o Other basin communities of Tortilla Flat, Roosevelt, Young, McNary, Cibecue, Carrizo, Hon-dah, Fort Apache and Hannagan Meadow o Salt River running east to west through the southern part of the basin from the confluence of the White and Black Rivers o White River and its tributaries in the northeastern portion of the basin o Black River running from the eastern basin boundary to the Salt River, which also demarcates part of Graham, Apache, Navajo and Greenlee county boundaries o Other major tributaries to the Salt River including Cherry Creek, Canyon Creek, Cibecue Creek, Carrizo Creek and Cedar Creek o Theodore Roosevelt Lake in the western portion of the basin o Apache Lake, Canyon Lake and Saguaro Lake in the vicinity of Tortilla Flat o Hawley Lake, Sunrise Lake, Crescent Lake and Big Lake in the high-elevation northeastern portion of the basin o Salt River Canyon (not on map) along the Salt River and numerous side canyons such as Sycamore Canyon and Sawmill Canyon o Superstition and Pinal Mountains near the southwestern basin boundary o Mogollon Rim along the northern basin boundary o Natanes Plateau along the southern basin boundary in Gila and Graham counties o Bonito Prairie between the White and Black Rivers south of Fort Apache o White Mountains in Apache County which contain the highest peak in the basin Mt. Baldy at 11,403 feet Not well shown on Figure 5.2-1 are Four Peaks along the Maricopa and Gila County line in the Mazatzal Mountains and the Sierra Ancha Mountains south of Young 112 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.2 Land Ownership in the Salt River Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Salt River Basin is shown in Figure 5.2-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large contiguous parcels of forest service and tribal lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. Indian Reservation • 59.4% of the land is under tribal ownership. • The basin includes two reservations, the Fort Apache Reservation in the north-central portion north of the Black River and the San Carlos Apache Reservation in the southcentral portion of the basin. • All tribal lands are contiguous. • This basin contains the largest percentage of tribal lands in the planning area. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, recreation, timber and ranching. National Forest and Wilderness • 38.6% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Tonto and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. • The basin contains approximately 236,000 acres in five wilderness areas, four in the Tonto National Forest and one in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Wilderness areas in the Tonto include the 18,515-acre Salome Wilderness, 21,007-acre Sierra Ancha Wilderness, a significant portion of the 160,135-acre Superstition Wilderness and the 32,088-acre Salt River Wilderness. A portion of the 11,336-acre Bear Wallow Wilderness in the Alpine Ranger District of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is also located in the basin. • There are numerous small private in-holdings in both forests. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 1.5% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land in the basin is in the vicinity of Miami/Globe and around Young. There are also numerous small private land in-holdings in the Tonto and ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, mining and ranching. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 0.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office Bureau of Land Management. • All BLM lands are in the vicinity of Miami and Globe. • Primary land uses are mining and grazing. State Trust Land • 0.1% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 114 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • All state land is in the vicinity of Miami and Globe. Primary land use is grazing. National Parks, Monuments and Recreation Areas • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Tonto National Monument, located in the southwestern portion of the basin near Roosevelt. • Primary land use is cultural preservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. • All “other” land is located north of the Greenlee and Apache County line. • Primary land use is unknown. 115 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 116 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.3 Climate of the Salt River Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 5.2-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.2-3. Figure 5.2-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Salt River Basin does not contain AZMET stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.2-1A • Elevations at the 13 NOAA/NWS Co-op network stations range from 1,710 feet at Mormon Flat to 8,180 feet at Hawley Lake. • Minimum average temperature ranges from 24.3°F at Hawley Lake to 52.6°F at Mormon Flat. • Maximum average temperature ranges from 90.3°F at Mormon Flat to 59.2°F at Hawley Lake. • Station precipitation ranges from an average annual precipitation of 13.78 inches at Globe to 39.62 inches at Hawley Lake. • Most stations report the highest seasonal rainfall in the summer (June-September) and all stations report the lowest seasonal rainfall in the spring (March-May). Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 5.2-1B • There are three evaporation pan sites in this basin, Hawley Lake, Roosevelt 1WNW and Whiteriver. • The highest average annual pan evaporation rate is 96.71 inches at Roosevelt 1 WNW, elevation 2,200 feet, and the lowest is 33.17 inches at Hawley Lake, elevation 8,180 feet. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to table 5.2-1D • There are 11 snow measurement sites in the basin. Five stations have been discontinued. • The site elevation ranges from 6,900 feet at Workman Creek and Workman Creek SNOTEL to 9,200 feet at Maverick Fork SNOTEL. • Seven sites record highest snowpack in March, three in February and one site, Workman Creek, has equally high snowpack in February and March. • Highest average snowpack is 11.4 inches at Hannagan Meadows SNOTEL. Snowpack is measured in inches of snow water content. Ten inches of fresh snow can contain as little as 0.10 inches of water or up to 4 inches depending on a number of factors. The majority of U.S. snows fall with a water-to-snow ratio of between 0.04 and 0.10. (NSIDC, 2006) Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 117 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.2-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 36 inches in several places in the basin and as low as 10 inches west of Tortilla Flat. • In general, precipitation increases as altitude increases in this basin. The range of 24 inches between areas of highest and lowest precipitation is common for the planning area. 118 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Table 5.2-1 Climate Data for the Salt River Basin Period of Record Used for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black River Pumps 6,040 1971-2000 71.8/Jul 35.1/Jan 4.97 2.00 8.27 4.57 19.81 Cibecue 5,050 1927-19791 73.7/Jul 37.1/Jan 5.57 2.00 5.34 6.08 18.98 Globe 3,550 1 1894-1975 82.7/Jul 43.6/Jan 2.86 1.17 4.78 4.97 13.78 Globe 2 3,650 1971-2000 81.4/Jul 43.4/Dec 5.28 1.17 6.03 4.52 17.00 Hawley Lake 8,180 1967-19881 59.2/Jul 24.3/Jan 12.49 4.96 12.95 9.22 39.62 Maverick 7,810 1948-1967 60.1/Jul 26.2/Jan 7.07 2.56 12.02 6.21 27.86 Miami 3,560 1971-2000 83.4/Jul 45.5/Jan 6.38 1.36 6.45 5.30 19.49 Mormon Flat 1,710 1971-2000 90.3/Jul 52.6/Dec 5.15 1.02 4.39 4.01 14.57 Pleasant Valley R.S. 5,050 1971-2000 72.5/Jul 38.2/Jan 7.08 1.96 7.85 5.66 22.55 Roosevelt 1WNW 2,210 1971-2000 88.1/Jul 48.4/Jan 6.51 1.20 4.37 4.81 16.89 Sierra Ancha 5,100 1913-19791 77.1/Jul 41.6/Jan 9.45 2.58 7.39 8.67 28.09 Whiteriver 1 SW 5,120 1971-2000 72.4/Jul 39.9/Jan 5.55 2.02 7.81 4.76 20.14 Young 5,050 1903-1964 75.3/Jul, Aug 36.9/Jan 6.00 2.17 8.26 4.59 21.02 Source: WRCC, 2003. Notes: 1 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for (in inches) Averages Station Name Elevation (in feet) Hawley Lake 8,180 1967 - 1988 33.17 Roosevelt 1 WNW 2,200 1905 - 2002 96.71 Whiteriver 5,280 1900 - 2002 77.65 Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in Period of Record feet) Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 119 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-1 Climate Data for the Salt River Basin (cont'd) D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Beaverhead SNOTEL 7,990 Buck Sping Station Name Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 1995 - current 1.6 (9) 2.3 (9) 2.9 (9) .7 (9) 0 (9) 0 (9) 7,400 1989 - current 1.1(6) 1(6) 1.7(6) 0.2(6) 0(0) 0(0) Buck Spring SNOTEL 7,400 1985 - 1997 (discontinued) 2.6(12) 4.5(12) 4.0(12) 0.8(12) 0.1(12) 0(12) Hannagan Meadows SNOTEL 9,020 1964 - current 5.3(29) 8.7(41) 11.4(41) 10.4(41) 1.9(24) 0(22) Maverick Fork 9,150 1975 - 2003 (discontinued) 4.3(26) 6.9(48) 9.0(49) 8.2(47) 5.1(1) 0(0) Maverick Fork SNOTEL 9,200 1950 - current 4.3(31) 7.4(53) 9.8(54) 8.3(52) 0.5(18) 0(17) 1.9(13) 2.8(47) 2.5(47) 0.8(46) 0(1) 0(0) 0.9(9) 1.9(46) 1(45) 0.4(42) 0(0) 0(0) 1939 - 1989 (discontinued) 1941 - 1989 (discontinued) McNary 7,200 Milk Ranch 7,000 Wildcat SNOTEL 7,850 1985 - current 1.6(20) 2.9(20) 3.7(20) 1.3(20) 0(20) 0(20) Workman Creek 6,900 1952 - 1993 (discontinued) 2.7(12) 4.7(42) 4.7(42) 2.8(40) 0(0) 0(0) Workman Creek SNOTEL 6,900 1961 - current 2.3(23) 5.2(44) 5.5(44) 3.0(44) 0(21) 0(22) Source: NRCS, 2005 120 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Salt River Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.2-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.2-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.2-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 5.2-4. A description of 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 5.2-2. • Data from 33 stations located at 20 watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 5.2-4. Nineteen of the 33 stations have been discontinued and eight of the 14 remaining stations are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow at 17 stations is highest in the winter (January-March) when between 38% and 73% of the average annual flow occurs. These stations are located primarily lower in the watershed or along tributaries. At 14 stations, located primarily along the major tributaries to the Salt River and higher in the watershed in the eastern part of the basin, the average seasonal flow is highest in the spring (April-June) due to snowmelt when between 34% and 68% of the average annual flow occurs. • The average seasonal flow is lowest at most stations in the summer (July-September). These stations receive between 3% and 13% of their average annual seasonal flow at this time and are located in both the upper and lower portions of the watershed. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 3.2 maf in 1905 at the Salt River at Roosevelt gage with a contributing drainage area of 5,824 square miles. • Nine streams in this basin have a mean and median annual flow of over 10,000 acre-feet. Three of those nine streams, Black River, White River and Salt River, have a mean annual flow of over 100,000 acre-feet. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.2-3. • As of October 2005 there were five stations in the basin, three in Gila County, one in Maricopa County and one in Navajo County. • Of the five stations two are precipitation only stations, two are precipitation/stage stations and one is a weather station. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.2-4. • The basin contains 13 large reservoirs. The largest is Roosevelt with a maximum capacity of 1,653,043 acre-feet. • The most common use of the large reservoirs is recreation. The reservoirs on the Salt River supply hydroelectric power, irrigation and water supply for users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 122 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 62 small reservoirs in the basin. Total maximum storage for the 26 small reservoirs with greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity is 3,239 acre-feet. The total surface area for the remaining 36 small reservoirs is 410 acres. There are 807 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.2-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 10 inches per year, in the White Mountains in the eastern portion of the basin and decreases to one inch per year in the southwestern portion of the basin. 123 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 15 560 119 40 13 357 1,232 66 39 20 499 632 Pacheta Creek at Maverick Black River below Pumping Plant near Point of Pines Big Bonito Creek near Fort Apache North Fork White River near Greer Turkey Creek near Fort Apache North Fork white River at White River Black River near Fort Apache North Fork White River near McNary East Fork White River near Fort Apache Rock Creek near Fort Apache White River at Fort Apache White River near Fort Apache 9489200 9489500 9489700 9490800 9490000 9492000 9490500 9491000 9492400 9492500 9493500 9494000 Forestdale Creek near Show Low 33 57 NA NA NA 7,400 NA NA 8,580 9,320 7,200 NA NA NA 7,920 8,000 8,810 8,700 NA Section 5.2 Salt River Basin PRELIMINARY DRAFT 9495500 9494500 225 315 Black River near Maverick 9489100 Carrizo Creek above Corduroy Creek near Show Low Corduroy Creek above Forestdale Creek near Show Low 1 North Fork of Thomas creek near Alpine 9489082 9494300 38 North Fork of East Fork Black River near Alpine 9489070 9,060 Contributing Mean Basin USGS Station Name Drainage Area Elevation (in feet) (in mi2) Station Number 28 64 9/1952-6/1961 (discontinued) 9/1952-6/1961 (discontinued) 47 28 28 50 18 15 42 21 68 14 29 37 10/1953-6/1967 (discontinued) 10/1917-current 10/1912-6/1922 (discontinued) 6/1955-9/1960 (discontinued) 8/1957-current 6/1945-9/1985 (discontinued) 11/1912-current 10/1916 - 6/1922 (discontinued) 6/1955-9/1960 (discontinued) 6/1965 - 9/1978 (discontinued) 10/1957-9/1981 (discontinued) 6/1953-current (real-time) 22 28 10/1962-9/1982 (discontinued) 10/1957-9/1980 (discontinued) 25 18 Winter 10/1985-9/2001 (discontinued) 6/1965-9/1978 (discontinued) Period of Record 34 4 12 48 44 34 53 57 35 43 18 52 49 42 63 49 58 68 Spring 27 5 8 12 22 9 16 16 9 26 6 20 11 9 7 10 8 6 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 11 27 32 12 7 8 13 13 15 10 8 15 12 13 8 13 8 7 Fall Table 5.2-2 Streamflow Data for Salt River Basin 87 (1956) 333 (1955) 1,926 (1961) 27,446 (2002) 110,217 (1918) 217 (1958) 6,930 (2002) 12,673 (1951) 45,188 (2002) 76,906 (1918) 442 (1957) 9704 (1971) 13,828 (1961) 1,314 2,404 6,501 149,177 196,247 1,770 24,984 32,442 233,904 109,638 514 15,569 41,267 127,452 4,851 789 (1961) 28,459 (2002) 86,899 62 5,933 Median 27,591 (1977) 23 (1989) 1,767 (1967) Minimum 2,190 2,867 8,683 144,517 214,840 1,613 25,517 34,855 280,932 118.159 1,017 17,842 49,530 151,168 6,443 102,892 85 9,121 Mean 7,023 (1960) 6,306 (1960) 28,886 (1965) 345,424 (1993) 356,649 (1916) 2,693 (1957) 54,457 (1993) 73,140 (1983) 818,301 (1993) 167,933 (1919) 2,599 (1958) 40,915 (1973) 102,805 (1979) 434,496 (1993) 17,593 (1973) 225,938 (1973) 180 (1991) 33,593 (1973) 8 8 13 45 4 4 45 31 45 3 4 13 23 49 22 19 6 12 Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) 124 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 295 316 62 200 162 4,306 5,824 37 102 1 Cibecue Creek near Chysotile Canyon Creek near Globe Cherry Creek near Young Cherry Creek near Globe Pinal Creek at Inspiration Dam near Globe Salt River near Roosevelt Salt River at Roosevelt Pinto Creek below Haunted Canyon near Miami Pinto Creek near Miami South Fork Parker Creek near Roosevelt 9497800 9497850 9497900 9497980 9498400 9498500 9500500 9498501 9498502 9498503 NA NA NA NA 6,190 NA 5,600 6,030 NA 5,700 6,730 5,240 5,390 6,320 73 68 9/1994-current (real-time) 11/1985-current (real-time) 70 45 1/1904-12/1907 (discontinued) 10/1995-current (real-time) 41 49 57 49 66 45 1/1913-current (real-time) 7/1980-current (real-time) 5/1965-current (real-time) 8/1963-9/1977 (discontinued) 10/1975 - 9/1981 (discontinued) 5/1959-current 38 4 6/1958-9/1971 (discontinued) 9/1924-current (real-time) 0 28 54 Winter 6/1958-9/1971 (discontinued) 6/1951-current 9/1951-current Period of Record 15 15 12 29 31 16 11 13 15 17 36 0 0 49 17 Spring 3 8 3 9 13 16 9 8 4 18 12 71 80 10 7 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 125 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 2,849 Salt River near Chrysotile 0.1 0.1 9497500 9496700 Cibecue 1 Tributary Carrizo Creek near Show Low Cibecue 2 Tributary Carrizo Creek near Show Low 439 Carrizo Creek near Show Low 9496500 9496600 203 Corduroy Creek near mouth near Show Low 9496000 6,370 Contributing Mean Basin USGS Station Name Drainage Area Elevation (in feet) (in mi2) Station Number 10 9 14 17 15 19 23 29 15 21 14 25 20 13 21 Fall 3 (2002) 449 (1996) 130 (2002) 254,840 (1904) 152,798 (2002) 2,868 (1999) 2,600 (2002) 1,289 (1964) 13,759 (1981) 10,066 (1961) 644,942 8,980 24,302 7,817 81,149 32,597 474,817 6 8 35,030 16,380 Mean 192 4,168 1,709 266 5,757 1,600 1,321,983 1,531,574 518,499 6,087 15,026 5,495 99,282 23,535 393,581 4 2 (19601961,1968) 128,176 (2002) 6 22,232 11,149 1 (1960) 3,758 (1956) 1,600 (1970) Median 1,036 (1995) 19,480 (1995) 3,722 (1998) 3,227,492 (1905) 2,422,315 (1916) 61,481 (1993) 84,003 (1993) 20,706 (1965) Section 5.2 Salt River Basin PRELIMINARY DRAFT 14 8 7 4 89 22 36 13 5 43 128,176 (1993) 147,149 (1979) 78 12 12 41 23 1,459,907 (1993) 17 (1963) 22 (1964) 124,556 (1993) 63,927 (1973) Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Minimum Table 5.2-2 Streamflow Data for Salt River Basin (cont'd) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Salt River Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 81 Roosevelt Fire Station Precipitation 10/2/04 Gila County FCD Precipitation/Stage NA Gila County FCD Precipitation/Stage NA Gila County FCD 910 920 Beer Tree Crossing Pinal Creek Guzman Crossing Pinal Creek 1712 Pinetop County Club Precipitation NA Navajo County FCD 6780 Saguaro Lake Weather Station 1/24/00 Maricopa County FCD FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 126 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Salt River Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Roosevelt Bureau of Reclamation 1,653,043 H,I,R,S Federal Bureau of Reclamation 245,048 H,I,R,S Federal Bureau of Reclamation 68,800 H,I,S Federal Bureau of Reclamation 57,900 H,I,R,S Federal White Mountain Apache Tribe 15,0002 R Tribal 2 3 4 Apache (Horse Mesa Dam) Saguaro (Stewart Mountain Dam) Canyon (Mormon Flat Dam) 5 Sunrise 6 Big AZ Game & Fish 10,100 R State 7 Reservation San Carlos Apache Tribe 6,0002 R Tribal 8 Crescent AZ Game & Fish 5,800 F,R State 1,170 R Tribal 775 R Tribal 650 F,R Tribal USE JURISDICTION R Tribal White Mountain Apache Tribe White Mountain 10 Cyclone Apache Tribe White Mountain 11 Hawley (Davis Dam) Apache Tribe Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 2005 and others 9 Horseshoe Cienega B: Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) 12 Nash Creek MAXIMUM OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (acres) White Apache Tribe 69 C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 26 Total maximum storage: 3,239 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 36 Total surface area: 410 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 807 (from water right filings) Notes: F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; R=recreation; S=water supply 2 Normal capacity < 500acre-feet 1 127 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 128 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Salt River Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 5.2-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.2-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • • • There are numerous perennial streams located throughout the basin, particularly in the high elevation eastern portion, and include the Salt River, Black River, White River, East Fork White River, North Fork White River, Carrizo Creek, Cibecue Creek, Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek. Most of the intermittent streams are found in the western portion of the basin. There are 26 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1952. Springs are found throughout the basin with the largest concentration of springs in the vicinity of McNary. The greatest discharge rate was measured on the White River, south of Hon-dah (Alchesay, 8,980 gpm). Fourteen of the major springs have a measured discharge rate of 100 gpm or greater and four springs have discharge rates of 1,000 gpm or greater. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.2-5B. There is one minor spring identified in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 624 to 822, depending on the database reference. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-5 Springs in the Salt River Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude 335641 1095523 Map Key Name 1 Alchesay 2 2 Canyon 3 Mann2 340340 4 Gosseberry Creek 340654 5 Warm 334403 6 Unnamed 7 Unnamed 8 9 334040 1111242 Discharge (in gpm)1 8,980 Date Discharge Measured During or prior to 1952 2,224 During or prior to 2001 1094810 1,980 10/24/1979 1094117 1,000 5/22/1952 1101256 874 During or prior to 1982 341740 1104858 480 11/5/2002 341738 1104853 410 11/5/2002 Unnamed 341738 1104853 310 11/5/2002 Blue Lake 340402 1094805 260 5/19/1952 2, 3 10 Gomez 340338 1095156 200 6/18/1946 11 Boy 340420 1094703 200 5/20/1952 12 Ess 334049 1093308 200 6/18/1952 13 Big 340539 1095932 150 6/20/1952 4 14 Upper Bull Cienega 340348 1095315 100 15 Government2 340410 1095210 75 6/18/1946 16 Maurel2, 3 332422 1104425 50 4/11/1946 2/19/1952 17 2, 3 6/20/1952 334942 1095100 40 18 Haystack # 12 340450 1095037 404 6/18/1946 19 Unnamed3 334430 1101316 305 During or prior to 1992 20 Earl Spring # 32 340424 1095123 204 6/18/1946 4 Unnamed 3 21 Unnamed 340441 1094840 20 22 Haystack # 22 340450 1095052 20 6/20/1946 6/18/1946 23 Columbine 335631 1095510 Greater than 10 6/5/2005 24 White 341109 1103055 Greater than 10 6/6/2005 25 Williams (Fish Hatchery) 340341 1094832 Greater than 10 6/5/2005 26 Unnamed 3 334414 1101339 10 5 During or prior to 1982 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name1 Bull Cienega Location Latitude Longitude 340348 1095314 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 2 6/20/1952 C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 624 to 822 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Location approximated by ADWR 4 Estimated discharge 5 Average discharge 1 130 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Salt River Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 5.2-6. Figure 5.2-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.2-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.2-6. Figure 5.2-8 shows well yields in five 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 5.2-6 and Figure 5.2-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, volcanic rock (Pinetop-Lakeside Aquifer) and sedimentary rock (Gila Conglomerate, and C and R Aquifers). • Most of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • The basin contains four sub-basins: Black River, White River, Salt River Canyon and Salt River Lakes. • Flow directions are generally not available due to the consolidated nature of the basin geology. Groundwater flow in the C-aquifer in the northwestern portion of the basin is from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.2-6 and Figure 5.2-8. • As shown on Figure 5.2-8, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 140 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 170 gpm. • Well yields vary throughout the basin, with the lowest and the highest well yields found in the Globe-Miami area in unconsolidated sediments. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.2-6. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 178,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.2-6. • There is one estimate of water in storage for this basin. This estimate, from a 1992 ADWR study, indicates the basin has more than 8,700,000 acre-feet in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.2-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin, located near Young. • There are no recorded well sweeps in this basin. • All water level information is from the western portion of the basin. The deepest recorded Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 132 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • water level is 82 feet and the shallowest is eight feet, both located north of Miami-Globe. Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figure 5.2-6 but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 5.2-7. 133 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-6 Groundwater Data for the Salt River Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 5,232 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Volcanic Rock (Pinetop-Lakeside Aquifer) Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: 60 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 2-2,000 Median 170 (140 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 10-300 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) 178,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A ADWR (1994) >8,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1992) N/A Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: N/A NA - Not available Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 134 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 135 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 136 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.2-7 Salt River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 50 0 50 0 A 1975 B 1975 C WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC basin fill A-09-14 20ACA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 89 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 Gila Conglomerate (?) A-02-15 07BDD4 1985 1995 2005 Gila Conglomerate (?) A-01-15 04CBD1 WELL DEPTH: 194 ft USE: MONITORING 50 100 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 138 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 139 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.7 Water Quality of the Salt River Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table Table 5.2-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table Table 5.2-7B. Figure 5.2-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.2-7. 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 Mines • Refer to Table 5.2-7A. • Seventy sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards All but one occurrence is in the southwest portion of the basin. • Of the ten standards equalled or exceeded in this basin, the most commonly equalled or exceeded was cadmium. • Multiple standards including fluoride, beryllium, copper, lead, cadmium, chromium and total dissolved solids were equalled or exceeded at sites in the vicinity of Miami-Globe. • Other standards equalled or exceeded in this basin include nitrate/nitrite, arsenic and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 5.2-7B. • Water quality standards in this basin were exceeded for two lakes and four stream reaches on two streams. • The most commonly exceeded standard was copper. Other standards exceeded include dissolved oxygen, high pH and selenium. • A total of 37 miles in three reaches of Pinto Creek are impaired. • The three impaired reaches of Pinto Creek are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Phase I of the TMDL reports have been approved and specific site standards are being developed. • Canyon Lake, Crescent Lake and the Gibson Mine tributary are not a part of the TMDL program at this time. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 140 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Salt River Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section 4 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 29 East 12 East 13 East 13 East 13 East 13 East 13 East 14 East 14 East 9 East 11 East 13 East 14 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 14 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 34 14 2 9 10 15 15 26 26 11 6 16 1 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 18 18 18 29 29 29 29 29 32 27 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 141 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) NO3 Rad As As As As As Pb, TDS Pb, TDS As, F Rad Rad F F F F F F Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, F Cd Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, TDS Pb Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, TDS Pb Cd, Pb, TDS Cd, Pb, TDS Cd Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, F, Pb TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Cd As As Be, Cd, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Pb Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb, TDS Pb Be, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Cu Cu Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, F, Pb, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, TDS Be, Cd, Cu, F, TDS Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Salt River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 South 1 South 1 South 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 13 East 14 East 15 East 9 9 23 23 23 23 23 34 34 35 12 2 12 B. Lakes and Streams Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach Lake (in acres) (in miles) Designated Use 3 Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use 2 Standard 450 A&W DO NA 150 A&W, FBC, AgL, AgI high pH 1 NA A&W Cu 3 NA A&W Cu 18 NA A&W Cu, Se 16 NA A&W Cu Map Key Site Type Site Name a Lake Canyon Lake NA b Lake Crescent Lake c Stream Gibson Mine tributary (headwaters to Pinto Creek) d Stream e Stream f Stream Notes: Pinto Creek (headwaters to tributary latitude 331927, longitude 1105456) Pinto Creek (Ripper Spring Canyon to Roosevelt Lake) Pinto Creek tributary (latitude 331927, longitude 1105456 to Ripper Spring) Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) Be, Cd, Cu, Pb Be, Cd, Cu, TDS Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd, Pb Cd NO3 F NO3 1 Water quality samples collected between 1984 and 2002. As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cr = Chromium Cu = Copper DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate/Nitrite Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact AgL - Agricltural - livestock watering AgI = Agricultural - irrigation NA = Not Available 2 Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 142 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 143 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 144 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Salt River Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 5.2-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.2-9. Figure 5.2-10 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 5.2-8 and Figure 5.2-10. • Population in this basin has increased from 27,318 in 1980 to 32,144 in 2003 and is projected to reach 40,000 by 2050. • Total groundwater use has decreased in this basin since 1971, from an average of 20,000 acre-feet per year from 1971-1975 to an average of 11,300 acre-feet per year in 20012003. • From 1991-2003 municipal groundwater use averaged 4,000 acre-feet per year. • Groundwater use for industrial purposes has decreased from 10,500 acre-feet per year on average in 1991-1995 to 8,000 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. • Groundwater use for irrigation occurs on non-reservation lands and has remained constant at less than 1,000 acre-feet per year on average from 1991-2003. • Information on surface water diversions is not available from 1971-1990. Surface water diversions for both municipal and irrigation uses is assumed to have remained constant from 1991-2003. Municipal use averages less than 300 acre-feet per year and irrigation use averages 6,400 acre-feet per year. • Surface water diversions for industrial use have decreased from an average of 6,300 acrefeet per year from 1991-1995 to 4,800 acre-feet per year during 2001-2003. • Municipal and industrial demand is found in the Globe – Miami area, around Young and near Fort Apache and Whiteriver on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. • There are three large copper mines, Pinto Valley, Carlotta and Miami Mine, and two small mines or quarries located in the vicinity of Miami. Not all mines are currently in production. • As of 2003 there were 1,491 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 216 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.2-9. • There are twelve wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for seven facilities and information on effluent generation was available for six facilities. These facilities serve over 20,000 people and generate over 2,600 acre-feet of effluent per year. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 145 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • Of the seven facilities with information on the effluent disposal method: two discharge to evaporation ponds; two discharge for irrigation; one reuses effluent for irrigation, a wildlife area and a golf course; one facility discharges to the Globe WWTF and two discharge into a watercourse. 146 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.2-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Salt River Basin 1 Year Recent (Census) and Projected (DES) Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 27,318 1981 27,453 1982 27,589 1983 27,724 1984 27,859 1985 27,995 1986 28,130 1987 28,265 1988 28,401 1989 28,536 1990 28,671 1991 28,942 1992 29,213 1993 29,484 1994 29,755 1995 30,026 1996 30,297 1997 30,568 1998 30,839 1999 31,110 2000 31,381 2001 31,635 2002 31,889 2003 32,144 2010 33,923 2020 36,006 2030 37,774 2040 39,175 40,609 2050 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 WELL TOTALS: Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm 9892 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 20,000 NR 20,000 NR Data Source 1582 ADWR (1994) 25 11 20,000 NR 69 22 22,000 NR 140 8 3,900 10,570 <1,000 <300 6,300 6,400 182 12 4,100 7,570 <1,000 <300 6,600 6,400 38 3 4,000 8,070 <1,000 <300 4,800 6,400 45 1,491 2 216 USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) ADWR (1992) Truini (2005) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 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. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 147 Department of Corrections Cobra Valley SD Globe Globe Globe White Mountain Apache Tribe Private Miami Globe Tonto National Forest White Mountain Apache Tribe White Mountain Apache Tribe Arizona DOC/Globe Cobra Valley Plaza Globe Central Heights Collection Systems Globe Holgate STP Globe WWTF Hon-Dah WWTP Houston Creek Landing Miami WWTF Pinal Creek Roosevelt WWTP White Mountain Apache White River 148 NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant STP:Sewage Treatment Plant SD: Sanitation District Total Ownership Facility Name White River Reservation Recreation Area Globe Miami Star Valley Resort Globe Globe Globe Claypool Prison City/Location Served 20,408 10,700 2,000 NA 5,238 190 190 1,990 100 Population Served 2,649 1,120 224 488 784 22 NA 11 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Unnamed wash to Pinal Creek Miami Wash Watercourse X X Evaporation Pond X X Irrigation NA Reuse NA NA NA NA Golf Course Disposal Method Wildlife Area Table 5.2-9 Effluent Generation in the Salt River Basin Globe WWTF Discharge to Another Facility Infiltration Basin NA NA 2000 1,250 762 NA NA NA Population Not Served 2000 2000 2004 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 Year of Record Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 149 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 5.2-10. Figure 5.2-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 5.2-10 • A total of seventeen water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through May, 2005. • Fifteen subdivisions received inadequate determinations. • The most common reason for an inadequacy determination is because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. • Other reasons for an inadequacy determination were because the existing water supply was unreliable or unavailable or the groundwater exceeded the depth-to-water criteria. • The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: Number of Subdivision Lots County Section 5.2 DRAFT Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate Apache County 0 0 NA Coconino County 0 0 NA Gila County 909 47 5% Greenlee County 0 0 NA Graham County 0 0 NA Navajo County 59 59 100% Maricopa County 0 0 NA Salt River Basin 150 Gila Dream Catcher Ranch Kristy Terrace Kristy Terrace # 2 Miami Gardens Morning Shadow Estates Mountain Gate Unit One Pinto Creek Valley 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gila Gila Gila Quail Run Subdivision Roosevelt Lake RV Resort Sierra Grande Tierra Madre 13 14 15 16 17 9.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 Township 14 24 19 13.0 14.0 15 15 15 15, 22 11 16 22 21, 27 22 22 24, 25 22 22 2, 3, 10 4 Section 15.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 15.0 13.0 22.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 Range Location 47 19 167 74 74 170 NA 59 50 40 7 10 63 34 46 53 55 22-300174 22-300053 22-400802 22-300058 22-300428 No. of ADWR File Lots No.2 Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A2 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 A2 A2 A1 A1, A2 A2 A1 A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 02/23/77 02/07/75 03/11/93 07/17/96 10/11/95 09/03/74 05/22/92 10/09/02 02/23/77 07/07/75 04/20/84 06/10/76 10/20/95 03/27/98 07/30/85 10/16/90 04/18/88 Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Quail Run Homeowners' Association Quail Run Homeowners' Association Utility Management Services and Operations, Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Lakeside Roosevelt Lake Resort Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Date of Water Provider at the Determination Time of Application 151 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin PRELIMINARY DRAFT Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not Available Gila Gila Gila Pioneer Hills Quail Run Mobile Home Subdivision 12 Gila Navajo Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Country Club Annex Gila Gila Country Club Annex Unit 1 Cherry Creek Estates Amended Copper Canyon Ranches #1 Subdivision Name County 3 2 1 Map Key Table 5.2-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Salt River Basin1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT 152 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Salt River Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Anning, D., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the Central Arizona basin study area, Arizona and Northern Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4063.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division.* Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. ____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005.* ____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005.* ____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005.* ____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. ____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. ____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* ____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005.* ____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. ____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004.* ____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* ____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us.* Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 153 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1992, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed: Volume 1 General Assessment.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005.* _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study.* Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* ______, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 1982, Geothermal Resources of Arizona: University of Arizona map.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) 154 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* _____, 2002, Total Maximum Daily Load for Copper in Pinto Creek, Arizona, USEPA Region 9. F 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-HA664.* G Gellenbeck, D.J. and Hunter, Y., 1994, Hydrologic data from the study of acid contamination in the Miami Wash- the Pinal Creek area, Arizona, water years 1992-1993: USGS Open file 94 – 508.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* L Larcher, L. 2005, White Mountain Apache tribe hydrologist: personal communication.* M 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ.* _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ.* O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 155 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Parker, J., Steinkampf, W. and Flynn, M., 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294.* 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.* 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, 27 pp.* Truini, M.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm.* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 156 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Angeroth, C.E., 2002, Characterization of hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium and basin fill, Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-420515 p. Angeroth, C.E., Fuller, C.C., Glynn, P.D., and Harvey, J.W., 1999, Surface and groundwater investigations in Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Andersen, 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. Anning, D.W., 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of natural and human factors on stream water quality in central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1996, Review of springs on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Arizona Water Company, 2007, System Water Plan: Miami Water System, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29. Baldys, S., and Bayles, J.A., 1990, Flow characteristics of streams that drain the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, east central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4053. Baldys, S., and Hjalmarson, H.W., 1994, Effects of controlled burning of chaparral on Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 157 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 streamflow and sediment characteristics, East Fork Sycamore Creek, Central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4102,33p. Best, J.E., 2002, Geochemical characterization of trace metal substitution in manganese precipitates from Pinal Creek, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 126 p. Bibhuti, P., Rucker, M., and Bansberg, R., 2003, Evaluation of sustainable groundwater resources in a fractured hard rock aquifer: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona,. Study done near Payson Brown, J.G., 1996, Hydrology and geochemistry of aquifer and stream contamination related to acidic water in Pinal Creek basin near Globe Arizona: USGS Water Supply Paper 2466, 103 p. Brown, J.G., Brew, R., and Harvey, J.W., 1997, Research on acidic metal contaminants in Pinal Creek Basin near Globe, Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet FS-005-97. Brown, J.G., Fuller, C.C., and Harvey, J.W., 2001, Controls on metals attenuation in streamflow and shallow groundwater in Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona: in Proceedings of the 14th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2001, Tucson, Arizona, p.122. Brown, J.G., Glynn, P.D., and Bassett, R.L., 1999, Geochemistry and reactive transport of metal contaminants in ground water, Pinal Creek basin, Arizona: USGS Water-Resources Investigations 99-4018A, p. 141-153. Carpenter, T.L., 2001, The origin of isotopically anomalous waters of the Mogollon Rim region of Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 107 p. City of Globe, 2006, Drought Preparedness and Water Conservation Plans, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Condon, A.K., 2003, Investigation of zinc uptake processes by manganese-oxidecoated sediments from a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Cordy, G.E., Gellenbeck, D.J., Gebler, J.B., Anning, D.W., Coes, A.L., Edmonds, R.J. Rees, J.A., and Sanger, H.W., 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Cordy, G.E., and Bouwer, H., 1999, Where do the salts go? The potential effects and management of salt accumulation in south-central Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet 170-98, 4 p. 158 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Cordy, G.E., Rees, J.A., Edmonds, R.J., Gebler, J.B., Wirt, L., Gellenbeck, D.J., and Anning, D.W., 1998, Water quality assessment of the central Arizona basins, Arizona and northern Mexico - An environmental setting and overview of water quality: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4097, 72 p. Davey, J. V., 1985, The mixing of waters of the Salt and Verde rivers: University of Arizona M.S. thesis. Eychaner, J.H., 1991, Inorganic contaminants in acidic water near Globe, Arizona: in Desert Water Quality and Quantity - Issues into the 21st Century: in Proceedings from the 3nd annual Arizona Hydrological Symposium, September 1990, Casa Grande, Arizona, p.242-252. Eychaner, J.H., 1991, Solute transport in perennial streamflow at Pinal Creek, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4034. Flinchbaugh, H., 1996, Biotic and abiotic processes contributing to the removal of Mn(II), Co(II) and Cd(II) from Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Fuller, C.C., and Harvey, J.W., 1999, The effect of trace-metal reactive uptake in the Hyporheic zone on reach-scale metal transport in Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substance Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in March 1999, Charleston, SC: USGS Water-Resources Investigations, p.163-172. Fuller, C.C., and Harvey, J.W., 2000, Reactive uptake of trace metals in the hyporheic zone of a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 7, p. 1150-1155. Gebler, J. B., 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p. Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041. Geiger, K.M., 1990, Characterization and distribution of transition metals in manganese oxides from a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: Arizona State University, M. S. thesis, 128 p. Gellenbeck, D.J., and Anning, D.W., 2002, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in Central Arizona basins, Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 159 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 p. Haag, D.M., Whitmore, P.C., Plato, P.R., Travers, B.C., Hulst, M.A., Culbertson, C. and Legg, C.J., 1999, The hydro-geologic conceptual model for the Payson water quality assurance revolving fund site - Payson, Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Ham, L.K., 1995, Historical overview and limnological reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4053, 36 p. Hart, R.J., 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. Harvey, J.W., Conklin, M.H., Koelsch, R.S., 2003, Predicting changes in hydrologic retention in an evolving semi-arid alluvial stream: in Modeling Hyporheic Zone Processes, Runkel, R.L., McKnight, D.M., Rajaram, H., eds., Advances in Water Resources, 26, 9, p. 939-950. Harvey, J.W. and Fuller, C.C., 1996, Association of selected metals with colloidal and suspended particulate material in shallow ground water and surface water at Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in September 1993, Colorado Springs, Colorado: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4015, p. 1073-1080. Harvey, J.W., Fuller, C.C., and Wagner, B.J., 1996, Interactions between shallow ground water and surface water that affect metal transport in Pinal Creek, Arizona, in Morganwolp, D.W., and Aronson, D.A., eds., U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, September 20-24, 1993L U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4015, p. 1065-1072. Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and Upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Hulseapple, S.M., 1995, A field study of re-aeration and solute transport at Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona, August 1995, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Ingram, R.S., 2003, Groundwater pumping and injection well recharge system for 160 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Department of Highway road construction purposes on the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Jones, C., 2003, Public policy, cows, riparian areas, drought, sustainability and the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues and Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Kay, J.T., 2000, The reactive uptake and release of Mn(II), Co(II), Ni(II), and Zn(II) by sediments from a mining-contaminated stream, Pinal Creek, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Keadle, D.A., Brown, C.A., Eichberg, S., Musielak, W.D., Whitmer, T., Rall, K.L., 1999, Verde River watershed study: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains Arizona. Koelsch, R.S., 2000, Effect of floods and recovering aquatic vegetation on surface and  subsurface storage processes at Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Konieczki, A.D., and Angeroth, C.E., 1997, Hydrologic data from the study of acid contamination in the Miami Wash-Pinal Creek area, Arizona: USGS Open – File Report 97-247, 94 p. Lacher, L.J., 2002, Drought conditions preceding the Rodeo-Chediski fire in the White Mountains of Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings of the15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Long, J.W., 1999, Riparian restoration projects on the White Mountain Apache Reservation: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Lovely, C., 2003, Hydrologic impacts of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings of the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Marble, J.C., 1998, Biotic Contribution of Mn(II) removal at Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Marble, J.C., Corley, T.L., Conklin, M.H., 1999, Representative plant and algal uptake of metals near Globe, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in March 1999, Charleston, SC: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, p. 239-245. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 161 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Marble, J.C., Corley, T.L., Conklin, M.H., Fuller, C.C., 1999, Environmental factors affecting oxidation of manganese in Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in March 1999, Charleston, SC: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report, p. 173-183. Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p. Neaville, C.C., and Brown J.G., 1994, Hydrogeology and hydrologic system of Pinal Creek basin, Gila County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report, 93-4212, 33 p. Oureshi, M.T.A., 1995, Sources of arsenic in the Verde River and the Salt River watersheds, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 116 p. Parker, E.A., 1998, A Photochemical study of manganese oxides from Pinal Creek, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Plato, P.R., Haag, R.G., Travers, B.C., Whitmore, P.C., Legg, C.J., and Culbertson, A.C., 1998, Development of a groundwater flow model for water treatment system design for the town of Payson WRQF site: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings of the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 40-41. Plato, P.R., Nesky, M., Travers, R.G., Haag, D.M., and Downs, L.A., 1999, Town of Payson water quality assurance revolving fund site groundwater treatment facility, Payson, Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Pool, D.R., and Eychaner, J.H., 1991, Temporal microgravity measurements of aquifer storage change and specific yield along Pinal Creek, central Arizona: in Abstracts and Programs: Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, October 1991, San Diego California, p.A124. Pool, D.R., and Leenhouts, J.M., 2002, A multi-parameter approach for measuring flood induced aquifer and bank storage changes along the San Pedro River, Arizona: in Supplement to Eos Transactions: American Geophysical Union 2002 Fall Meeting, December 2002, San Francisco California, vol.83, no.47, Abstract H61B-0779. Reese, R.S., Bassett, R.L., 1990, Characterization of organic contamination of ground water in a mining area, Globe, Arizona: in Ground Water Geochemistry, Kansas City, MO, United States, Feb. 20-21, 1990: Ground Water Management, 1, p. 221-236. 162 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Robbins, E., 2003, The role of water speedwell in the distribution and rates of metal removal from Pinal Creek, near Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Robbins, E.I., Corley, T.L., Conklin, M.H., 1999, Manganese removal by epilithic microbial consortium at Pinal Creek near Globe, Arizona: in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., eds., U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program; proceedings of the technical meeting, Charleston, SC, United States, March 8-12, 1999: USGS WaterResources Investigations, p.247-258. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Wagner, B.J., Harvey, J.W., 1993, Solute-transport parameter estimation for an injection experiment at Pinal Creek, Arizona: in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting in September 1993, Colorado Springs, CO, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, p. 1081-1087. Wallin, R.W., 1991, Ground water transport of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in association with humic substances in the Pinal Creek basin, Globe, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Section 5.2 DRAFT Salt River Basin 163 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Index to Section 5.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 5-6, 10 13-15 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Instream Flow Endangered Species National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Unique and Other Managed Waters 20, 21 21 21 27 28 30 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 36 38-40 41 41 45 Cultural Water Use Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand Water Resource Issues Issue Surveys 164 45 47 47 53 53 59, 60 Section 5.2 Salt River Basin DRAFT Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin 165 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.1 Geography of the Tonto Creek Basin The Tonto Creek Basin, located in the east central part of the planning area is 955 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.3-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, chaparral, woodland and montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including mixed broadleaf, tamarisk and mesquite along Tonto Creek. • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.3-1 are: o Basin communities of Punkin Center, Rye, Star Valley and Kohls Ranch o Tonto Creek running north to south through the center of the basin from Kohls Ranch and exiting the basin about eight miles south of Punkin Center o The lowest point in the basin is about 5,000 feet along Tonto Creek where it exits the basin o Rye Creek flowing through Rye in the western portion of the basin o Spring Creek and Hayler Creek flowing from the eastern basin boundary to Tonto Creek o The Tonto Basin located in the south central part of the basin along Tonto Creek Not well shown on Figure 5.3-1 are o The Mogollon Rim along the northern basin boundary o The Sierra Ancha Mountains along the eastern boundary o The Mazatzal Mountains along the western boundary, which contain the highest point in the basin, Mazatzal Peak at 7,888 feet 166 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 167 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.2 Land Ownership in the Tonto Creek Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Tonto Creek Basin is shown in Figure 5.3-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large amount of forest service land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. National Forest and Wilderness • 97.5% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness, the largest percentage of any basin in the planning area. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Tonto National Forest. • The basin contains two wilderness areas, a portion of the 250,053-acre Mazatzal Wilderness and the entire 37,399-acre Hellsgate Wilderness. • There are numerous small private in-holdings. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 2.4% of the land is private. • Small in-holdings of private land are scattered throughout the basin with a number of larger parcels in the vicinity of Punkin Center and Star Valley. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. Indian Reservation • 0.1% of the land is under ownership of the Tonto Apache tribe. • The small portion of tribal land in this basin is located in T10N, R10E. • Land use includes domestic and ranching. 168 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 169 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.3 Climate of the Tonto Creek Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 5.3-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.3-3. Figure 5.3-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Tonto Creek Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or AZMET stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.3-1A • Elevation at the three NOAA/NWS Co-op network stations is similar, ranging from 2,360 feet at Punkin Center to 2,900 feet at Gisela. • Minimum average temperature ranges from 40.8°F at Gisela to 45.3°F at Punkin Center. • Maximum average temperatures are also similar and range from 86.8°F at Reno R.S. to 81.9°F at Gisela. • Station precipitation ranges from 18.23 inches at Punkin Center to 19.77 at Reno R.S. • The Reno R.S. station reports highest average seasonal rainfall in the fall (OctoberDecember) and the other two stations report highest seasonal annual rainfall in the winter (January – March). All three stations report the lowest seasonal rainfall in the spring (April-June). SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to table 5.3-1D • There are two stations in this basin, Promontory Butte and Promontory Pillow (SNOTEL). The Promontory Butte station was discontinued in 1989. • Both stations are at an elevation of 7,930 feet and record highest average snowpack in April. • The highest average snowpack at Promontory Butte is 15.1 inches and at Promontory Pillow (SNOTEL) is 14.1 inches. Snowpack is measured in inches of snow water content. Ten inches of fresh snow can contain as little as 0.10 inches of water or up to 4 inches depending on a number of factors. The majority of U.S. snows fall with a water-to-snow ratio of between 0.04 and 0.10. (NSIDC, 2006) SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.3-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches on the northern basin boundary at the Mogollon Rim and as low as 14 inches on the southern basin boundary south of Punkin Center. • In general, precipitation increases as altitude increases in this basin. The range of 24 inches between areas of highest and lowest precipitation is common for the planning area. 170 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Station Name Table 5.3-1 Climate Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Period of Record Used for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month 1 Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Gisela 2,900 1895-2004 81.9/Jul 40.8/Dec 6.53 1.39 6.10 4.89 18.91 Reno R.S. 2,420 1915-1973 1 86.8/Jul 45.1/Jan 3.51 1.05 6.58 8.61 19.77 Punkin Center 2,360 1971-2000 85.9/Jul 45.3/Dec 6.92 1.23 4.83 5.24 18.23 Source: WRCC, 2003. Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for Averages (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Promontory Butte 7,930 Promontory SNOTEL 7,930 Station Name Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 1973 - 1989 (discontinued) 4.2(10) 8.4(13) 13.7(16) 15.1(15) 11.3(1) 0(0) 1973 - current 3.9(25) 8.1(28) 13.7(31) 14.1(30) 2.3(22) 0(21) Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 171 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 172 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tonto Creek Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.3-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.3-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.3-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 5.3-4. A description of 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 5.3-2. • Data from four stations located on Tonto Creek and Rye Creek are shown in the table and on Figure 5.3-4. Three of the four stations have been discontinued. The fourth station, Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt, is a real-time station. • The average seasonal flow at all stations is highest in the winter (January-March) when between 43% and 65% of the average annual flow occurs. The average seasonal flow is lowest at all stations in the summer (July-September) when between 7% and 10% of the average annual flow occurs. • Maximum annual flows range from 469,256 acre-feet (1978, Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt) to 64,289 acre-feet (1978, Rye Creek near Gisela). Minimum annual flows range from 1,245 acre-feet (1971, Rye Creek near Gisela) to 32,796 acre-feet (1974, Tonto Creek near Gisela). • Both gaged streams in this basin have a mean annual flow of over 10,000 acre-feet. Tonto Creek has a recorded mean annual flow of over 100,000 acre-feet. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.3-3. • As of October 2005, there were nine stations in the basin. All stations are in Gila County, however, one station is operated by the Maricopa County Flood Control District. The remaining stations are operated by the Gila County Flood Control District. • Of the nine stations, six are precipitation only stations, two are precipitation/stage stations and one is a repeater/precipitation station. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.3-4. • The basin does not contain any large reservoirs. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in one small reservoir in the basin. This reservoir has a maximum storage of 20 acre-feet. • There are 389 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.3-4. • Average annual runoff is two inches per year in the southern tip of the basin and increases to five inches per year in the northern portion of the basin. Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 173 430 122 675 841 Tonto Creek near Gisela Rye Creek near Gisela Tonto Creek above Gun Creek near Roosevelt Tonto Creek near Roosevelt 9498800 9498870 9499000 9499500 NA 5,020 4,390 5,810 Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 10/1913-12/1940 (discontinued) 12/1940-current (real-time) 12/1965-9/1985 (discontinued) 12/1964-9/1975 (discontinued) Period of Record 59 61 65 43 Winter 17 12 10 15 Spring 10 8 7 8 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 174 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record NA = Data not currently availble to ADWR Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Drainage Area (in mi2) USGS Station Name Station Number 15 19 18 33 Fall 17,452 (1934) 2,853 (2002) 1,245 (1971) 32,796 (1974) 89,796 66,297 9,267 68,705 Median 27 62 19 10 Years of Record Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 225,214 (1916) 469,256 (1978) 64,289 (1978) 236,741 (1965) Maximum Section 5.3 104,292 113,232 19,030 93,147 Mean Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Minimum Table 5.3-2 Streamflow Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 DRAFT Precipitation Rock Creek (Rye Tributary) Hardt Creek @ SR 87 Little Pine Flat Deer Creek Shake Ridge (Bar T Bar North) Upper Rye Creek Houston Creek Mt. Ord Repeater 67 80 92 930 931 3900 5960 Tonto Creek Basin NA = Data not currently available to ADWR FCD = Flood Control District Precipitation Christopher Creek 54 Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Upper Deer Creek 51 Station Type Station Name Station ID 10/28/1982 10/26/2005 NA NA 8/29/2005 NA NA 5/1/2005 NA Install Date Maricopa County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Gila County FCD Responsibility Table 5.3-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tonto Creek Basin 175 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tonto Creek Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 20 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 389 (from water right filings) 176 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 177 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 5.3-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.3-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • • • • Perennial streams in this basin include Tonto Creek, Haigler Creek, Spring Creek, Dell Shay Creek, Houston Creek, Christopher Creek and Greenback Creek. There are numerous intermittent streams located throughout the basin. Tonto Creek is the longest continuously perennial stream in the basin. Most other perennial streams also contain intermittent reaches. There are 10 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. Only four of the ten springs have measured discharges in the past decade. All springs are found in the vicinity of Kohls Ranch in the northern portion of the basin below the Mogollon Rim. The greatest discharge rate was measured near the Gila and Coconino County boundary (Tonto, 1,291 gpm). Three of the major springs have measured discharge rates of 100 gpm or greater. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.3-5B. There are seven minor springs identified in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 169 to 175, depending on the database reference. 178 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-5 Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Tonto 342312 1110541 1,291 During or prior to 2001 2 R-C 341827 1110311 800 5/14/1952 3 Horton 342217 1110333 392 10/2/2002 4 See 342108 1110039 84 During or prior to 2002 5 Nappa 342118 1110111 70 8/17/1966 6 Henturkey2 342037 1110541 60 10/17/1952 7 Wildcat/Arsenic 341726 1111031 59 10/20/1952 8 Indian Gardens 341926 1110610 26 During or prior to 2002 9 Winters # 3 342235 1110633 20 5/16/1952 10 Unnamed2 342043 1110054 15 8/17/1966 Date Discharge Measured Map Key Name 1 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Bootleg 341852 1110358 8 During or prior to 2001 Allenbaugh 341620 1105353 83 4/19/2001 Turkey-south 341356 1111752 54 5/14/1952 Blue-south 341007 1111943 4 5/14/1952 Bear Flat/ Columbine 341716 1110357 4 7/16/1975 Winters # 1 342233 1110634 1 5/16/1952 Winters # 2 342233 1110634 1 During or prior to 1952 Name C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 169 to 175 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Most recent measurement < 1gpm 4 Average gpm 1 Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 179 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 180 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tonto Creek Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 5.3-6. Figure 5.3-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.3-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.3-6. Figure 5.3-8 shows well yields in five 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 5.3-6 and Figure 5.3-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are basin fill and sedimentary rock (C and R aquifers). • Most of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rocks. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.3-6 and Figure 5.3-8. • As shown on Figure 5.3-8, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 51 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 120 gpm. • The highest well yields in the basin are located along Highway 188 north of Punkin Center. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.3-6. • There are two estimates of natural recharge for this basin ranging from 17,000 acre-feet per year to 37,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.3-6. • There are three estimates of water in storage for this basin ranging from two million acrefeet to 9.4 million acre-feet. The most recent estimate, from a 1994 ADWR study, is three million acre-feet in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. • The predevelopment storage estimate is two million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.3-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 11 index wells in this basin. • In 1975, the year of the last water level sweep, 42 wells were measured. • There is one ADWR automated water-level recording device in this basin located near Star Valley. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 106 feet east of Kohls Ranch and the Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 181 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • shallowest is 14 feet near Punkin Center. Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figure 5.3-6 but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 5.3-7. 182 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-6 Groundwater Data for the Tonto Creek Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 955 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) N/A Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 5-2,200 Median 120 (51 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 10-50 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) 17,000 ADWR (1994) 37,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 3,000,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1994) 9,400,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1992) 2,000,0001 (to 1,200 feet) Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 11 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1975 (42 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate N/A = not available Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 183 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 184 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.3-7 Tonto Creek Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 50 25 75 0 50 A 1975 B 1975 C 1975 recent stream alluvium A-09-10 32BDB DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 unknown aquifer A-06-11 05CAD DEPTH: 69 ft USE: UNUSED 1995 1985 2005 sedimentary rocks A-05-11 18AAA DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 186 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.7 Water Quality of the Tonto Creek Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.3-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.3-7B. Figure 5.3-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.3-7. 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 Mines • Refer to Table 5.3-7A. • Nine sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards • Standards equalled or exceeded in this basin include arsenic, nitrate/nitrite, beryllium, radionuclides and organic compounds or pesticides. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 5.3-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in three stream reaches on two streams. • The standard exceeded in all reaches was E. coli. The two reaches on Tonto Creek also exceeded the standard for nitrates/nitrites. • All three impaired reaches are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final TMDL reports for the streams have been completed. Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Tonto Creek Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 11 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 5 North 12 East 10 East 11 East 12 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 11 East 34 25 18 23 13 26 26 27 8 Rad As Rad As, NO3 NO3 Be As As Organics B. Lakes and Streams Length of Parameter(s) Area of Designated Impaired Exceeding Use Impaired Lake 3 Stream Reach Use Standard (in acres) Standard2 (in miles) Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Christopher Creek (headwaters to Tonto Creek) 8 NA FBC E. coli Stream Tonto Creek (headwaters to unnamed tributary latitude 341810, longitude 1110414) 8 NA A&W, FBC E. coli, NO3 Stream Tonto Creek (unnamed tributary latitude 341810, longitude 1110414 to Haigler Creek) 9 NA A&W, FBC E. coli, NO3 b c 1 Water quality samples taken from 1979 to 2002 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium NO3 = Nitrate/Nitrite Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact NA = Not Available 2 188 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 189 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tonto Creek Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 5.3-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.3-9. Figure 5.3-10 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 5.3-8 and Figure 5.3-10. • Population in this basin has increased from 1,934 in 1980 to 7,537 in 2000. Projections suggest the population will double by 2050 to 16,377. • Groundwater use has fluctuated from a low of 2,000 acre-feet per year in the 1970s to an average of 4,000 acre-feet per year from 1986-1990. During 2001-2003 the average annual groundwater demand was 3,400 acre-feet per year. • Municipal groundwater use has increased from an average of 1,600 acre-feet per year in 1991-1995 to 2,200 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. • There was no reported industrial groundwater use in 1991. In 2001-2003, industrial demand was 200 acre-feet per year on average. • Groundwater demand for irrigation was less than 1,000 acre-feet per year on average from 1991-2003. • Information on surface water diversions is not available from 1971-1990. From 19912003, 1,000 acre-feet per year on average was used for irrigation. • Municipal and industrial demand is principally found in the vicinity of Payson and Star Valley with smaller demand centers scattered along State Highways 188 and 260 as well as east of Rye. • A small amount of agriculture is located east of Rye and in T9N, R10E. • There is one small mine or quarry in this basin along Highway 87 south of Payson. • As of 2003 there were 1,916 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 93 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.3-9. • There is one wastewater treatment facility in this basin. It is a private facility serving the Hunter Creek development near Kohl’s Ranch. 190 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.3-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tonto Creek Basin1 Year Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Recent (Census) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells and Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Drilled (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1,934 1981 2,202 1982 2,470 1983 2,738 1984 3,006 1985 3,275 1986 3,543 1987 3,811 1988 4,079 1989 4,347 1990 4,615 1991 4,907 1992 5,200 1993 5,492 1994 5,784 1995 6,076 1996 6,368 1997 6,660 1998 6,953 1999 7,245 2000 7,537 2001 7,753 2002 7,968 2003 8,184 2010 9,693 2020 11,844 2030 13,810 2040 15,136 2050 16,377 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 WELL TOTALS: 8222 2,000 NR 2,000 NR Data Source 752 ADWR (1994) 259 11 3,000 NR 280 3 4,000 NR 187 2 1,600 NR <1000 NR NR 1,000 289 1 1,900 200 <1000 NR NR 1,000 79 1 2,200 200 <1000 NR NR 1,000 1,916 93 USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) ADWR (1992) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 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. Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 191 Private Hunter Creek WWTP 192 NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Ownership Facility Name Hunter Creek City/Location Population Served Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Evaporation Irrigation Pond 6/12/2007 Watercourse NA Golf Course Discharge Wildlife to another Area Facility Disposal Method Table 5.3-9 Effluent Generation in the Tonto Creek Basin Section 5.3 Infiltration Basin Population Not Served Year of Record Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 193 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 5.3-10. Figure 5.3-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • A total of 54 water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through May, 2005. • The most common reason for an inadequate determination was because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. • Other reasons for an inadequacy determination included: the existing supply was unreliable or physically unavailable or groundwater exceeds the depth-to-water criteria; the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate their legal authority to serve the subdivision; and water quality. For one subdivision the reason for the inadequacy determination is unknown because the records could not be located. • All water adequacy determinations are in Gila County. Of the 3,676 lots in 51 subdivisions for which lot information was available, 352 lots or less than 10% were determined to be adequate. 194 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Section 5.3 DRAFT Gila Gila Pine Gate Pine Island at Chaparral Pines 29 30 13 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 6 North 10 10 10 12 12 11 11 11 10 13 11 10 13 10 10 14 10 North 10 10 North 10 10 10 11 10 10 11.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 Range 10.5 North 10 North 9 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 8 North 11.5 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 11 North Township Location 36 36 26 21 21 31 31 31 26 29, 30, 31, 32 32 2 13 14 2, 11 36 20 10 10 24, 25 35 5, 8 10 5 32 25, 36 25, 35, 36 25, 35, 36 35 11 26, 27, 34, 35 Section Tonto Creek Basin Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Oak Ridge Hills Knolls # 3 25 28 Knolls # 2 24 Gila Kohl's Ranch Knolls # 1 23 Gila Gila Kohl's Tonto Creek Ranch Juniper Ridge 22 27 Hunter Creek Ranch 21 Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila County 26 Highlands at the Rim Houston Creek Landing 19 Haigler Creek Haciendas 18 20 Granite Dells Estates Greenback Vista Estates Gordon Canyon Creek 15 16 Golden Frontier # 2 14 17 Gisela Heights Foothills East 11 Golden Frontier # 1 Evergreen Meadows 10 12 Elk Ridge 9 13 Collins Ranch Deer Creek Village 8 Chaparral Ranch 6 7 Chaparral Pines # 1 Chaparral Pines # 2 4 5 Boulder Creek Chaparral Lakes 3 Alpine Heights 1 2 Subdivision Name Map Key 43 11 9 20 123 27 22 34 6 118 91 130 NA 35 19 7 7 87 112 22-300081 22-300435 22-300168 22-300010 22-300048 22-400015 22-400372 22-400671 22-300392 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate 47 Inadequate 22-300599 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination 6 22-300056 22-300281 22-300080 22-400536 22-401552 ADWR File No.2 63 108 154 36 14 281 475 88 20 257 No. of Lots 1 A1, A2 A1 A2 A1, A2 A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1, B A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 B A2, C A1 ,A2 A1 A2, C A1 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 ,A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Table 5.3-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin 12/14/96 04/21/98 07/01/96 07/08/77 05/16/95 09/19/95 03/28/94 08/24/93 02/09/99 02/27/90 08/25/00 02/12/02 04/11/83 02/03/98 01/19/77 08/10/76 08/15/84 01/17/80 03/30/77 10/19/98 08/11/75 10/05/95 04/09/82 01/15/80 02/23/95 04/03/97 12/18/95 06/29/01 11/18/04 07/11/78 Date of Determination Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Kohl's Ranch Water Company Kohl's Ranch Water Company United Utilities, Inc. United Utilities, Inc. United Utilities, Inc. Town of Payson Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association Brooke Utilities Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision United Utilities Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson United Utilities Company Gisela Water Company Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson United Utilities Company Water Provider at the Time of Application 195 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Gila Woods of Payson Zane Grey Ranch 53 54 Gila 6 North Gila Gila Gila Gila 12 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 6 North 11 North Gila & Maricopa Gila 11 North 9 North 9 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 11 North 10 North 11 North 11 North 11 North Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila 10 North 10.5 North 10 North 10 North 11 North Township 12 10 10 10 10 11.5 12 10 10 11 10 12 10 10 10 13 11 11 10 13 14 10 10 11 Range Location 32 26 35 2 26 5, 8 4, 9 25 25 31, 32 36 32, 33 10, 11 36, 1 1 29 32 34 13, 14 13 26, 27, 34, 35 10 10 32 Section 5 8 50 20 85 NA 12 13 8 12 25 210 101 317 9 19 9 160 NA 29 28 39 41 36 No. of Lots 22-300372 22-401559 22-400774 22-300557 22-400392 22-300532 22-400859 22-400482 22-300426 22-401384 22-300505 22-300433 22-300286 22-300600 ADWR File No.2 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 D A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 1 08/05/93 10/08/97 11/17/04 08/08/02 01/06/98 07/17/78 11/13/98 09/18/00 09/09/98 03/18/87 12/23/02 04/06/01 03/21/88 04/21/98 09/02/04 08/10/98 03/17/87 04/30/82 10/15/84 01/13/86 01/02/80 03/20/98 05/14/97 02/02/99 Date of Determination 196 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Zane Grey Ranch Homeowners Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson United Utilities, Inc. Tonto Village Water Company Tonto Creek Utility Co. NA United Utilities, Inc. United Utilities Company Town of Payson Pine Meadows Domestic Water System Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association United Utilities Company United Utilities Company Sheer Speed Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Town of Payson Brooke Utilities Water Provider at the Time of Application Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not Available Whisper Ridge Walnut Springs 50 Wildflower Ridge Tonto Village # 3 49 52 Tonto Rim Ranch 48 51 Tonto Creek Shores Star Valley Vista 45 Tonto Creek Shores B Siena Creek 44 47 Settle in at Pine Meadows 43 46 Rim Golf Club Rim View Heights Estates 42 Rim Club Cabins, Unit One 40 41 Quail Valley # 2 Quail Valley Ridge at Hunter Creek Punkin Center Village 36 37 39 Preserve, on Haigler Creek 35 38 Gila Gila Gila Pinon Ridge Unit Two Ponderosa Springs (Colcord Sps) Gila 33 32 County 34 Pine Ridge Pinon Ridge #1 31 Subdivision Name Map Key Table 5.3-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Tonto Creek Basin (cont'd) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT 197 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Tonto Creek Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. ____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005.* _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005.* _____, 2004, Total Maximum Daily Load for Tonto Creek and Christopher Creek. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* 198 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedances in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1992, Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed: Volume 1 General Assessment.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser from Sundie, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005.* _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* ______, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2003, Status of Water Quality in Arizona – 2004: ADEQ draft report. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 199 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F 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-HA664.* H Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J., and Flynn, M.E., 2003, Generalized hydrology and groundwater budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and Salt River systems, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ.* _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ.* National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), 2007, Cryoshpere Glossary at http://nsidc.org/cgibin/words/glossary.pl* O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Parker, J., Steinkampf, W. and Flynn, M., 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294.* 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.* 200 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department. W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112. Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. ______, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 201 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Supplemental Reading 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. Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of Natural and Human Factors on Stream Water Quality in Central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. Anning, D.W., 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29. Carpenter, T.L., 2001, The origin of isotopically anomalous waters of the Mogollon Rim region of Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 107 p. Cordy, G.E., Gellenbeck, D.J., Gebler, J.B., Anning, D.W., Coes, A.L., Edmonds, R.J. Rees, J.A., and Sanger, H.W., 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Gæaorama, Inc., 2006, Draft Geology and Structureal Controls of Groundwater, Mogollon Rim Water resources Management Study, prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. Jones, C., 2003, Public policy, cows, riparian areas, drought, sustainability and the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues and Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of flood hydrology on twelve drainage basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An integrated approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p. Nemecek, E.A., 2003, Sustainability of Arizona’s few remaining perennial streams: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Parker, J.T.C., Steinkamph, W.C. and Flynn, M.E., 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294, 87 p. 202 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Woodhouse, B.G., Parker, J.T.C., Bills, D.J., and Flynn, M.E., 2000, USGS investigation of rural Arizona watersheds: Coconino Plateau, Upper and Middle Verde River, and Fossil Creek- East Verde River -Tonto Creek: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p.97. Section 5.3 DRAFT Tonto Creek Basin 203 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Index to Section 5.0 Overview of the Central Highlands Planning Area 1 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 5, 6, 7 13, 14-15 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Instream Flow National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 21, 23 23 23 26 Water Supply Surface Water Effluent 36, 37 38 42 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand 45 46, 50 52-53 Water Resource Issues Issue Surveys 59, 60 204 Section 5.3 Tonto Creek Basin DRAFT Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin 205 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.1 Geography of the Upper Hassayampa Basin The Upper Hassayampa Basin, located in the eastern part of the planning area is the smallest basin in the planning area at 787 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.4-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountains and valleys. Vegetation types include Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland and chaparral. Riparian vegetation including mesquite and cottonwood/willow is found along the perennial portions of the Hassayampa River. • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.4-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Wickenburg and Congress, and small communities of Wagoner and Groom Creek o Hassayampa River running north to south through the center of the basin and Wickenburg o Martinez Wash and Antelope Creek in the center of the basin o The highest point in the basin is about 7,000 feet in the Bradshaw Mountains east Wagoner Not well shown on Figure 5.4-1 are the Weaver Mountains near Groom Creek, the Bradshaw Mountains along the eastern basin boundary and the Date Creek Mountains north of Congress. 206 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 207 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.2 Land Ownership in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Verde River Basin is shown in Figure 5.4-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the relatively large portion of state trust land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. State Trust Land • 38.3% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and three other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout most of the basin. In the western portion of the basin state land is contiguous and in the remainder of the basin it is interspersed with private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest and Wilderness • 24.7% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott National Forest. • The basin contains one National Forest wilderness area, the 25,536-acre Castle Creek Wilderness. • All forest lands are in the northern portion of the basin and contain numerous private inholdings. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 20.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Hassayampa Field office of the Bureau of Land Management. • All BLM lands are located in the center of the basin. • The basin includes the 11,840-acre Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness Area. • Land uses include recreation and grazing. Private • 16.2% of the land is private. • Private land is located throughout the basin interspersed with state, BLM and National Forest lands. Larger portions of private land are located in the vicinity of Wickenburg and along Wagoner Road. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by the City of Wickenburg as local parks. • Primary land use is recreation. 208 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 209 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.3 Climate of the Upper Hassayampa Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op stations are complied in Table 5.4-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.4-3. Figure 5.4-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Upper Hassayampa Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.4-1A • Elevation at the three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations range from 2,050 feet at Wickenburg to 6,110 feet at Groom Creek. • Minimum average temperature ranges from 34.2°F at Groom Creek to 49.4°F at Wickenburg. • Maximum average temperature ranges from 87.2°F at Wickenburg to 68.9°F at Groom Creek. • Station precipitation varies with an average annual rainfall of 12.25 inches at Wickenburg, 15.35 inches at Stanton and 22.08 inches at Groom Creek. • The Groom Creek and Stanton stations report highest average seasonal rainfall in the summer (July-September). The Wickenburg station reports slightly higher average seasonal rainfall in the winter (January-March) than in the summer. All three stations report the lowest average seasonal rainfall in the spring (April-June). SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.4-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 32 inches on the east central basin boundary and as low as 10 inches in the southern portion of the basin around Wickenburg. • In general, precipitation increases as altitude increases in this basin. The range of 22 inches between areas of highest and lowest precipitation is common for the planning area. 210 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-1 Climate Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin A.NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Station Name Period of Record Used for Averages 1 Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Groom Creek 6,110 1948-1976 68.9/Jul 34.2/Jan 5.15 3.12 8.79 5.02 22.08 Wickenburg 2,050 1971-2000 87.2/Jul 49.4/Dec 4.48 0.86 4.36 2.55 12.25 Stanton 3,480 1948-1969 83.5/Jul 48.0/Jan 4.27 1.35 6.09 3.65 15.35 Source: WRCC, 2003 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Period of Record (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 211 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 212 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.4-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.4-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.4-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 5.3-4. A description of 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 5.4-2. • Data from three stations located at the Hassayampa River are shown in the table and on Figure 5.4-4. All of the stations have been discontinued. • The average seasonal flow at two stations, Hassayampa River at Walnut Grove near Wagoner and Hassayampa River at Box Damsite near Wickenburg, was highest in the winter (January-March) when between 55% and 59% respectively, of the average annual flow occurs. The third site, Hassayampa River near Wagoner received highest average seasonal flows in both the winter (January-March) and spring (April-June) when 41% of the average annual flow occurs. The average seasonal flow is lowest at all stations in the fall (October-December) when between 8% and 11% of the average annual flow occurs. • The highest annual flow recorded in the basin is 123,076 acre-feet in 1980 at the Hassayampa River at Box Damsite near Wickenburg station, however, the median annual flow at this gage is 7,457 acre-feet. Minimum annual flows range from 731 acre-feet (1981, Hassayampa River at Walnut Grove near Wagoner) to 1,499 acre-feet (1940, Hassayampa River near Wagoner). Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.4-3. • As of October 2005 there were 34 stations in the basin. Stations are located in Maricopa and Yavapai counties, however, all but one station is operated by the Maricopa County Flood Control District. • Most stations are located in the vicinity of Wickenburg or in the western half of the basin. • Of the 34 stations 15 are precipitation only stations, 15 are precipitation/stage stations, two are repeater/precipitation stations, one is a repeater/weather station and one is a weather station. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.4-4. • The basin does not contain any large reservoirs. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in seven small reservoirs. These reservoirs have a maximum storage capacity of 1,684 acre-feet. • There are 266 registered stockponds in this basin. Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.4-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year in most of the basin with one inch of runoff in a small area along the west central basin boundary. 214 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Hassayampa River near Wagoner 79 55 59 11/1912-10/1983 (discontinued) 1/1938-9/1982 (discontinued) 4,750 41 NA 1/1940-9/1946 (discontinued) 15 23 41 14 14 9 Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record NA = Not available 9515000 NA 11 9 8 Average Seasonal Flow Mean Basin (% of annual flow) Drainage USGS Station Name Elevation (in Period of Record Area (in mi2) feet) Winter Spring Summer Fall Hassayampa River at 107 Walnut Grove near Wagoner Hassayampa River at 9515500 Box Damsite near 417 Wickenburg Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 9514500 Station Number 883 (1962) 731 (1981) 1,499 (1940) 7,457 2,907 3,015 Minimum Median 17,585 3,989 6,552 Mean 123,076 (1980) 9,412 (1982) 23,022 (1941) 35 4 6 Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Table 5.4-2 Streamflow Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin 215 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 216 Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Sunset FRS Sunnycove FRS Vulture Mine Road Sols Wash @ SR 71 Yarnell Hill Hassayampa River @ Box Canyon O'Brien Gulch 5230 5245 5260 5275 5290 5305 5320 Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Martinez Creek Congress Sols Tributary @ US 93 Sols Tank Black Hill Sols Wash near Matthie 7010 7020 7025 7030 7035 7040 Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Mid-Martinez Creek 7005 Precipitation Stanton Precipitation/Stage Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage 7000 5350 Towers Mountain Repeater Hassayampa River @ Wagoner Rd. Precipitation/Stage Hassayampa River @ US 60 5225 5340 Repeater/Weather Station Mt. Union Repeater 358 Precipitation Saw Mountain 320 Station Type Station Name Station ID 8/4/95 6/15/95 7/25/95 5/2/05 6/16/94 11/23/94 4/27/95 6/16/94 12/19/83 5/1/92 9/1/81 11/17/83 7/13/81 9/24/81 10/14/81 7/1/86 5/11/89 3/14/94 4/28/92 11/8/90 Install Date Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Yavapai County FCD Responsibility Table 5.4-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 DRAFT Black Mountain Hartman Wash Flying E Tank Flying E Wash Casandro Wash Constellation Road Powder House Wash Wickenburg Airport Casandro Dam Centennial Divide Burton Tank Bucks Well Antelope Creek Upper Martinez Creek 7050 7060 7070 7080 7090 7100 7110 7120 7130 7135 7155 7160 7165 7170 Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Weather Station Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Station Type Upper Hassayampa Basin FCD = Flood Control District FRS = Flood Retarding Structure Station Name Station ID 2/26/02 7/9/03 12/11/02 3/19/02 8/21/01 3/26/91 8/3/94 5/18/95 8/3/94 7/12/94 7/12/94 5/9/95 7/6/94 7/6/94 Install Date Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Responsibility Table 5.4-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Upper Hassayampa Basin (cont'd) 217 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Upper Hassayampa Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) MAXIMUM OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 7 Total maximum storage: 1,684 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 266 (from water right filings) 218 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 219 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin There are no data on major or minor springs in this basin (Table 5.4-5). The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.4-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • Perennial streams in this basin include portions of the Hassayampa River, Ash Creek, Weaver Creek, Minnehaha Creek and Antelope Creek. Intermittent streams are located predominantly in the northern portion of the basin. All perennial streams are intermittent for most of their length. The total number of springs with discharges of less than one gpm identified by the USGS ranges from 164 to 166, depending on the database reference. 220 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-5 Springs in the Upper Hassayampa Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 164 to 166 Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 221 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 222 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Upper Hassayampa Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 5.4-6. Figure 5.4-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 5.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.4-6. Figure 5.4-8 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods 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 5.4-6 and Figure 5.4-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is basin fill. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.4-6 and Figure 5.4-8. • As shown on Figure 5.4-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 61 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 125 gpm. • Most well yields in the basin are less than 500 gallons per minute. The highest well yields are in the vicinity of Wickenburg. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.4-6. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 8,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.4-6. • There are two estimates of water in storage for this basin ranging from 1 million acre-feet to 1.1 million acre-feet. The most recent estimate, from a 1994 ADWR study, indicates the basin has 1.1 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. • The predevelopment storage estimate is one million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 acrefeet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 5.4-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures six index wells in this basin. • In 1978, the year of the last water level sweep, 135 wells were measured. • There is one ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring device located near Congress. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 817 feet west of Congress and the shallowest is 20 feet in the vicinity of Wickenburg. • Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figure 5.4-6 but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 5.4-7. Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 223 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-6 Groundwater Data for the Upper Hassayampa Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 787 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 1-1,324 Median 125 (61 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 100-500 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) 8,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,100,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1994) 1,000,0001 (to 1,200 feet) Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 6 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1978 (135 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 224 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 225 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.4-7 Upper Hassayampa Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 800 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 850 400 450 300 350 100 150 A 1975 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 igneous and metamorphic rocks B-08-05 18CCC 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-07-05 03DCB1 WELL DEPTH: 300 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1975 2005 basin fill B-09-05 35DBB 1985 1975 D 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1975 C basin fill B-09-06 05ADD WELL DEPTH: 992 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 226 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 227 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.7 Water Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.4-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.4-7B. Figure 5.4-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.4-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mines • Refer to Table 5.4-7A. • Forty-five sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. The majority of the sites are in the vicinity of Wickenburg. • The most commonly equalled or exceeded standard was arsenic. • Other standards equalled or exceeded include cadmium, lead, radionuclides, barium, beryllium, copper, and mercury. • Many sites have equalled or exceeded multiple standards. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 5.4-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in four stream reaches on three streams in the basin. • All reaches exceeded standards for copper and zinc. Other standards exceeded include cadmium and pH. • The French Gulch impaired reach is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final report has been completed for this reach. • Impaired reaches on Cash Mine Creek and the Hassayampa River are not part of the TMDL program at this time. 228 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper Hassayampa Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Section 5.4 DRAFT Site Location Township Range Section 13 North 13 North 12.5 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 2 West 2 West 3 West 4 West 1 West 3 West 5 West 6 West 7 West 5 West 3 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 26 26 35 12 21 14 28 25 23 1 30 27 27 16 17 18 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 12 12 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Cd Pb Rad Cd As NO3 NO3, Rad NO3 Rad As Rad NO3 As NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb, Hg As, Ba, Be, Cd, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu As, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Pb As, Pb Ba, Be As, Pb As, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Cu, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Pb Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Cd, Pb, Hg As, Pb Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb As, Ba, Be, Pb Upper Hassayampa Basin 229 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper Hassayampa Basin (cont'd)1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key a b Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Site Name Stream Cash Mine Creek (headwaters to Hassayampa River) 1 NA A&W, FBC Cu, Zn Stream Cash Mine Creek (unnamed tributary of headwaters to Cash Mine Creek 1 NA A&W Cd, Cu, Zn 10 NA A&W Cd, Cu, Zn 11 NA A&W, FC, FBC, AgL, AgI Cd, Cu, pH, Zn c Stream d Stream Notes: Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard3 Reach (in miles) Site Type French Gulch (headwaters to Hassayampa River) Hassayampa River (headwaters to Copper Creek) 1 Water quality samples collected between 1993 and 2003. As = Arsenic BA = Barium Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate/Nitrite Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Zn = Zinc 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact FC = Fish Consumption AgL = Agricultural - livestock watering AgI = Agricultural - irrigation NA = Not available 2 230 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 231 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 5.4-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.4-9. Figure 5.4-10 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 5.4-8 and Figure 5.4-10. • Population in this basin has almost doubled since 1980, from 6,050 in 1980 to 11,673 in 2003. Projections suggest the population will almost double by 2050 to about 22,100. • Total groundwater use has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 3,000 acre-feet per year pumped during1971-1975 to an average of about 4,600 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. • Municipal groundwater use has increased slightly from an average of 2,200 acre-feet per year in 1991-1995 to 2,800 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. • Industrial use of groundwater has remained a constant 800 acre-feet per year on average from 1991-2003, primarily due to dairy use. • Groundwater use for irrigation located north of Wagoner was less than 1,000 acre-feet per year on average between 1991-2003. • There are no recorded surface water diversions in this basin. • Municipal and industrial demand is found in the vicinity of Wickenburg, north of Congress and near Groom Creek. • The basin contains a large currently inactive copper mine, the Zonia Property, and three small mines or quarries near Wagoner Road. Two small mines or quarries are located north of Congress. • As of 2003 there were 1,887 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 131 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.4-9. • There are two treatment facilities in this basin serving 5,824 people and generate 573 acrefeet of effluent per year. • Information on disposal method is only available for the Wickenburg facility. Effluent at this facility is discharged to irrigated fields and to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. 232 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Hassayampa Basin1 Year Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 6,050 1981 6,251 1982 6,452 1983 6,653 1984 6,855 1985 7,056 1986 7,257 1987 7,458 1988 7,659 1989 7,860 1990 8,062 1991 8,303 1992 8,545 1993 8,787 1994 9,029 1995 9,270 1996 9,512 1997 9,754 1998 9,996 1999 10,237 2000 10,479 2001 10,878 2002 11,277 2003 11,677 2010 14,471 2020 16,092 2030 17,895 2040 19,800 22,128 2050 3 ADDITIONAL WELLS: WELL TOTALS: 8872 3,000 NR 3,000 NR Data Source 1052 ADWR (1994) 206 12 3,000 NR 213 9 3,000 NR 178 1 2,200 800 <1,000 NR 241 2 2,600 800 <1,000 NR 79 2 2,800 800 <1,000 NR 83 1,887 131 USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 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. 6/12/2007 Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 233 Private Wickenburg Escapees at North Ranch Wickenburg WWTP 234 NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Totals Ownership Facility Name Wickenburg Congress City/Location Served 5,824 5,500 324 Population Served 573 560 13 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Watercourse 6/25/2007 X Evaporation Irrigation Pond NA Golf Course/ Discharged Wildlife Turf to Another Area Irrigation Facility Disposal Method Table 5.4-9 Effluent Generation in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Adv. Trt. I & Nutrient Removal Current Treatment Level 3,837 Population not served 2004 2001 Year of Record Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT X Infiltration Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT 235 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 5.4-10. Figure 5.4-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 5.4-10 • A total of 26 water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through May, 2005. • Nine determinations of inadequacy have been made. • All nine determinations of inadequacy were because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. • Two subdivisions receiving inadequate determinations also had existing supplies that were unreliable or physically unavailable or the groundwater exceeded the depth-to-water criteria. • All lots receiving an adequacy determination are in Yavapai County. Of the 1,564 lots in 25 subdivisions for which lot information is available, 1,225 lots or 78% were determined to be adequate. 236 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Section 5.4 DRAFT Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Hacienda Heights High Desert One and Two High Desert One, Unit One and Two Loma Estates Millsite Village Mira Monte Vistas Quail Village Unit 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Smoke Tree Ranch # 1 Vista Royale Vista Royale Phase 1-B Vista Royale Phase II Weaver Mountain Estates Wickenburg Inn 21 22 23 24 25 26 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Maricopa Maricopa Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 8 North 10 North 8 North 8 North 8 North 11 North 12.5 North 7 North 7 North 9 North 9 North 12.5 North 13 North 9 North 9 North 10 North 13 North 10 North 9 North 9 North 9 North 10 North 10 North 7 North 8 North 13 North Township 5 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 3 West 2 West 5 West 5 West 6 West 6 West 2 West 2 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 2 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 5 West 5 West 2 West Range Location 171 NA 8, 17, 7, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 61 23 138 61 10 100 15 25 57 35 47 50 51 24 5 21 436 36 36 86 24 40 11 1 35 13 13 13 26 36 15, 16, 21 21 3 2 36 26 12, 13 12, 13, 24 35 26 26, 27 24 3 3 35 35 7 27 26 Section No. of Lots 22-400493 22-400378 22-300499 22-300141 22-300404 22-300516 22-400434 22-400656 22-400004 22-300110 22-400862 22-300086 ADWR File 2 No. Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination 07/01/86 07/31/01 09/12/00 09/09/98 06/03/96 03/06/89 01/20/98 02/01/83 10/20/94 09/10/99 10/29/90 06/24/86 12/04/73 12/14/00 09/24/02 05/07/79 06/01/87 10/18/82 02/10/99 03/07/96 08/28/90 05/07/79 05/07/79 12/24/02 05/01/96 08/06/75 Date of Determination Congress Water Company Yavapai Hills Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Caballeros Water Company Caballeros Water Company Homeowners Association Wells Millsite Water Users, Inc. Loma Estate Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Congress Water Company Groom Creek Water Users Association Congress Water Company Congress Domestic Water Improvement Rainbow Parks Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Congress Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Spring Water Provider at the Time of Application Upper Hassayampa Basin Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records S J Claims 20 19 Ranchos de los Caballeros # 2 Ranchos de Los Caballeros # 3 Yavapai Groom Creek Pines Plat B 10 18 Yavapai Gold Dollar Estates 9 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Congress Village # 2 Congress Village 6 Escapees at North Ranch Chaparral Estates # 1 5 Yavapai 8 Brough Subdivision # 1 4 Maricopa Yavapai Yavapai County 7 Bird's Eye View Black Mountain Ranches 3 Berry's-Groom Creek 1 2 Subdivision Name Map Key Table 5.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper Hassayampa Basin1 237 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 238 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Upper Hassayampa Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, French Gulch: TMDLS for Cadmium, Copper and Zinc, Headwaters to Hassayampa River. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us.* Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 Rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 239 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedances in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2003, Status of Water Quality in Arizona – 2004: ADEQ draft report. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, 240 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P 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.* 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, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 241 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap*. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading 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. Anning, D. W., 2004, Effects of natural and human factors on stream water quality in central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. 242 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Anning, D.W., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. Anning, D.W., 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona Anning, D., 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8 Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: US Forest Service Technical Report, GTR-29 Cordy, G.E., Gellenbeck, D.J., Gebler, J.B., Anning, D.W., Coes, A.L., Edmonds, R.J. Rees, J.A., and Sanger, H.W., 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213 Dava and Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041 Gellenbeck, D.J., and Anning, D.W., 2002, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in Central Arizona basins, 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 p Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 p Town of Wickenburg, 2006, Drought Preparedness Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Section 5.4 DRAFT Upper Hassayampa Basin 243 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Index to Section 5.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 10 12-13 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Instream Flow National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 20, 21 23 23 28 Water Supply Groundwater Effluent 41 42 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand 52 55 Water Resource Issues Issue Surveys 244 59, 60 Section 5.4 Upper Hassayampa Basin DRAFT Section 5.5 Verde River Basin 245 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.1 Geography of the Verde River Basin The Verde River Basin, located in the northern and central part of the planning area is the largest basin in the planning area at 5,661 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 5.5-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and valleys with high elevation areas along its north central boundary. Vegetation types include Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, chaparral, woodland and montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including mixed broadleaf and mesquite along the Verde River and mixed broadleaf along other streams such as West Clear Creek, Wet Beaver Creek and Oak Creek. • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 5.5-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Payson and Sedona o Other communities of Ash Fork, Bellemont, Jerome, Lake Montezuma, Munds Park, Paulden, Pine, Seligman, Strawberry and Sunflower o Verde River beginning from south of Paulden and running southeast through the basin and the communities of Clarkdale, Cottonwood and Camp Verde o Notable tributaries to the Verde River include Sycamore Creek, which joins the Verde River north of Clarkdale; Oak Creek, which joins the Verde River south of Cottonwood; Wet Beaver Creek and West Clear Creek, which join the Verde River near Camp Verde; and Fossil Creek and East Verde River, which join the Verde River west of Strawberry and Pine o Big Chino Wash in the northwestern portion of the basin entering the basin at the northernmost basin boundary and exiting south of Paulden o Horseshoe Reservoir on the Verde River northwest of Sunflower and Bartlett Reservoir on the Verde west of Sunflower o Stoneman Lake southeast of Munds Park near the Yavapai and Coconino County boundary o Chino Valley in the northwestern portion of the basin, extending from Seligman to Paulden o Verde Valley in the center of the basin around Clarkdale and Cottonwood o Bloody Basin in the southwestern portion of the basin west of Payson o Big Black Mesa southwest of Ash Fork o Garland Prairie south of Bellemont o Mogollon Rim east of Strawberry and Pine along the Gila County boundary o Juniper Mountains on the northwestern basin boundary o Mingus Mountain on the western basin boundary south of Jerome Not well shown on the Figure 5.5-1 are o The Mazatzal Mountains in the southern portion of the basin o Humphreys Peak, the highest point in the basin at 12,633 feet, on the north central basin boundary northeast of Bellemont o The Black Hills, west of Camp Verde along the basin boundary 246 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 247 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.2 Land Ownership in the Verde River Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Verde River Basin is shown in Figure 5.5-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large contiguous parcels of forest service lands and the relatively large portion of private land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. National Forest and Wilderness • 71.3% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott, Kaibab, Coconino and Tonto National Forests. • The basin contains approximately 434,000 acres in eleven wilderness areas. The 57,916acre Sycamore Canyon Wilderness is located in the Prescott, Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. Coconino National Forest wilderness areas include: the 48,263-acre Red Rock Secret Mountain Wilderness, 18,069-acre Munds Mountain Wilderness, 6,178-acre Wet Beaver Creek Wilderness, 15,267-acre West Clear Creek Wilderness and the 10,400-acre Fossil Creek Wilderness. Prescott National Forest wilderness areas include: 7,708-acre Juniper Mesa Wilderness, 5,553-acre Woodchute Wilderness, 9,747-acre Granite Mountain Wilderness and most of the 5,488-acre Apache Creek Wilderness. Most of the 250,053acre Mazatzal Wilderness in the Tonto National Forest is located in the southern part of the basin. • There are numerous small private in-holdings in all forests. • National forest land is located throughout the basin. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 20.2% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land in the basin is in a checkerboard pattern in the northwestern portion of the basin. There are also parcels of private land in the vicinity of Cottonwood, Camp Verde and Sedona. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, mining, farming and ranching. State Trust Land • 7.4% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and many other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • The majority of state land is located in a checkerboard pattern in the northwestern portion of the basin interspersed with private lands. State lands are also located in the vicinity of Clarkdale and south of the Navajo Army Depot. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Military • 0.7% of the land is federally owned and operated by the U.S. Military as the Navajo Army Depot located in the vicinity of Bellemont in the northeastern portion of the basin. • Land uses include National Guard training and army equipment storage. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 248 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Indian Reservation • 0.2% of the land is under ownership of the Yavapai Apache Tribe. • Tribal lands are composed of five separate parcels located in the vicinity of Camp Verde. • Land uses include domestic and commercial. National Parks, Monuments and Recreation Areas • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Montezuma Castle National Monument located near Interstate 17 in the center of the basin. • Land uses include cultural preservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as the Upper Verde River Wildlife Area located in the vicinity of Paulden. • Land uses include wildlife preservation and recreation. 249 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 250 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.3 Climate of the Verde River Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 5.5-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.5-3. Figure 5.5-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Verde River Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 5.5-1A • Elevation at the 18 NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations range from 2,650 feet at Childs to 7,480 feet at Happy Jack R.S. • Minimum average temperature ranges from 27.5°F at Happy Jack R.S. to 45.6°F at Childs. Seventeen stations have minimum average temperatures between 35°F and 46°F. • Maximum average temperature ranges from 84.5°F at Childs to 63.7°F at Happy Jack R.S. Fifteen stations have maximum average temperatures between 73°F and 85°F. • Station precipitation ranges from an average annual precipitation of 10.55 inches at Cottonwood to 28.46 inches at Junipine. • Most stations report the highest seasonal rainfall in the summer (July-September) and all stations report the lowest seasonal rainfall in the spring (April-June). AZMET • Refer to Table 5.5-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin at Payson. • The station is at 4,849 feet and reported an average annual reference evapotranspiration of 59.48 inches based on one year of record. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to table 5.3-1D • There are 14 snow measurement sites in the basin. Five stations have been discontinued. • The site elevation ranges from 6,120 feet at Sugar Loaf Pillow SNOTEL to 7,720 feet at Williams Ski Run. • Most sites record highest average snowpack in March. Several sites have high snowpacks in May, however, the average for these sites is based only on one year of data. • Highest average snowpack is 12.8 inches at Baker Butte No. 2, located at 7,700 feet. Snowpack is measured in inches of snow water content. Ten inches of fresh snow can contain as little as 0.10 inches of water or up to 4 inches depending on a number of factors. The majority of U.S. snows fall with a water-to-snow ratio of between 0.04 and 0.10. (NSIDC, 2006) SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 5.5-3 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 251 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches in the southern portion of the basin north of Pine. Rainfall is as low as 10 inches in the Big Chino Valley in the vicinity of Paulden. In general, precipitation increases as altitude increases in this basin. The range of 28 inches between highest and lowest precipitation is the largest range in the planning area. 252 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-1 Climate Data for the Verde River Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Ashfork 6N 5,310 Period of Record Used for Averages 1 1902-1987 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 74.0/Jul 36.1/Jan 1.91 1.42 5.37 3.98 12.69 Beaver Creek R.S. 3,820 1971-2000 80.8/Jul 43.1/Dec 5.25 1.63 5.75 4.08 16.71 Childs 2,650 1971-2000 84.5/Jul 45.6/Dec 6.67 1.56 6.40 4.90 19.53 Cottonwood 3,380 1949-1977 1 82.2/Jul 43.1/Jan 2.15 1.25 3.76 3.40 10.55 Happy Jack R.S. 7,480 1971-2000 63.7/Jul 27.5/Jan 10.05 2.96 7.92 6.60 27.53 Jerome 4,950 1971-2000 78.7/Jul 41.4/Jan 6.11 2.23 7.26 4.15 19.75 1 Junipine 5,130 1948-1982 74.4/Jul 39.0/Jan 10.69 3.25 6.92 7.60 28.46 Montezuma Castle N.M. 3,180 1971-2000 81.9/Jul 42.5/Dec 4.13 1.45 5.49 3.42 14.49 Natural Bridge 4,610 1893-1972 76.8/Jul 40.9/Jan 7.34 2.35 8.30 6.16 24.17 Oak Creek Canyon 5,080 1971-2000 73.4/Jul 39.2/Jan 11.14 2.99 7.48 6.84 28.45 Payson 4,910 1971-2000 75.4/Jul 39.9/Jan 7.35 2.18 7.20 5.34 22.01 Payson 12 NNE 5,510 1 1952-1976 70.6/Jul 36.0/Jan 7.15 3.03 9.12 8.93 28.24 Payson R.S. 4,850 1893-1974 1 73.1/Jul 36.3/Jan 4.01 1.88 5.70 7.57 19.14 Sedona R.S. 4,220 1971-2000 80.3/Jul 43.5/Jan 6.73 2.23 5.49 4.56 19.01 Seligman 5,250 1971-2000 73.5/Jul 37.1/Jan 3.67 1.41 5.13 2.61 12.82 Seligman 13 SSW 5,240 1 1962-1982 73.8/Jul 35.1/Jan 3.89 1.21 4.94 3.02 13.06 Tuzigoot 3,470 1971-2000 83.1/Jul 44.8/Dec 3.51 1.19 5.29 2.75 12.74 Walnut Creek 5,090 1971-2000 72.1/Jul 36.0/Dec 5.16 1.45 5.73 3.45 15.79 Source: WRCC, 2003. Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Avg. Annual Period of Record Evap (in Used for Averages inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (number of years to calculate averages ) Payson 4,849 2003 - current 59.48 (1) Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content of measurements to calculate average) (Number Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Jan. Feb. March April May June Baker Butte 7,300 1966 - 1999 (discontinued) 2.4(32) 5.2(34) 6.3(34) 4.5(34) 12.1(1) 0(0) Baker Butte No. 2 7,700 1972 - current 4.0(30) 7.7(33) 11.6(33) 12.8(33) 12.1(1) 0(0) Baker Butte SNOTEL 7,300 1966 - current 2.3(36) 4.7(38) 6.0(38) 4.1(38) 0.8(22) 0(21) Chalender 7,100 1947 - current 1.3(30) 2.6(58) 2.9(58) 1.4(58) 0.2(1) 0(0) Station Name Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 253 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-1 Climate Data for the Verde River Basin (cont'd) Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 7,200 Gaddes Canyon Station Name Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content of measurements to calculate average) (Number Jan. Feb. March April May June 1983 - current 2.7(21) 4.6(21) 5.8(21) 2.1(21) 0(21) 0(0) 7,600 1954 - 1989 (discontinued) 2.6(10) 4.0(36) 5.4(36) 5.1(35) 0(0) 0(0) Happy Jack 7,630 1951 - current 1.9(32) 3.3(52) 4.1(53) 2.4(50) 6.6(1) 0(0) Happy Jack SNOTEL 7,630 2000 - current 1.5(5) 2.5(5) 3.3(5) 0.2(5) 0(5) 0(5) Mingus Mountain 7,100 1947 - 1989 (discontinued) 0.9(9) 1.9(46) 1.0(45) 0.4(42) 0(0) 0(0) Newman Park 6,750 1963 - current 1.2(31) 2.(42) 2.2(42) 0.8(42) 0.3(1) 0(0) 0.1(16) 0.3(16) 0.5(15) 0(16) 0(17) 0(17) 1.4(25) 3.1(31) 3.8(33) 2.1(33) 0.9(33) 0(0) Fry SNOTEL 1983-1999 (discontinued) 1967 - 1999 (discontinued) Sugar Loaf SNOTEL 6,120 White Horse Lake Jct 7,180 White Horse Lake SNOTEL 7,180 1967 - current 1.8(31) 3.6(36) 4.9(38) 2.6(38) 0.2(25) 0(22) Williams Ski Run 7,720 1967 - current 2.9(21) 5.8(38) 8.3(38) 8.7(37) 0(0) 0(0) Source: NRCS, 2005 254 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 255 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Verde River Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 5.5-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 5.5-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 5.5-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 5.3-4. A description of 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 5.5-2. • Data from 36 stations located at 22 watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 5.5-4. Twenty-one of the 36 stations have been discontinued and 13 of the stations are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow at all stations but one is highest in the winter (January-March) when between 37% and 71% of the average annual flow occurs. The average seasonal flow is lowest at most stations in the summer (July-September) when between 1% and 24% of the average annual flow occurs. • Maximum annual flows range from 1,583,014 acre-feet (1993, Verde River below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam) to 376 acre-feet (1991, Rocky Gulch near Rimrock). Minimum annual flows range from seven acre-feet (1964, East Fork Sycamore Creek near Sunflower) to 258,525 acre-feet (1939, Verde River below East Verde River near Childs). • Seventeen streams in this basin have a mean annual flow of over 10,000 acre-feet. One river, Verde River, has a mean annual flow of over 100,000 acre-feet. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 5.5-3. • As of October 2005 there were 41 stations in the basin. Stations are in Maricopa, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, however, all stations in Coconino County are operated by Yavapai County Flood Control District and one station in Yavapai County is operated by Maricopa County Flood Control District. • Of the 41 stations, 25 are precipitation only stations, seven are precipitation/stage stations, four are weather stations, three are repeater/precipitation stations and two are repeater/ weather stations. Salt River Project (SRP) Low-Flow Gages • Refer to Table 5.5-3a • There are three SRP low-flow gages in this basin. These gages are a project of SRP, Prescott National Forest and Arizona Game and Fish designed to provide real-time information to the public about the Verde River streamflow. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 5.5-4. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 256 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 • • • • • The basin contains 13 large reservoirs. The largest, Bartlett, has a maximum storage of 178,186 acre-feet. The most common use of the reservoirs is for fire protection, stock or farm pond. Other uses include recreation, irrigation, water supply, flood control and other. Bartlett and Horseshoe store water for use in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Surface water is stored or could be stored in 59 small reservoirs in the basin. Total maximum storage for the 27 small reservoirs with greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity is 3,592 acre-feet. The total surface area for the remaining 32 small reservoirs is 496 acres. There are 2,328 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 5.5-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.1 inches per year in the northwestern portion of the basin and 1 inch in the southwestern portion of the basin. Average annual runoff increases to five inches per year in the west central portion of the basin. 257 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Section 5.5 DRAFT 255 2,507 15 131 3,124 233 233 355 3,849 111 1 48 25 142 433 4,288 241 Williamson Valley Wash near Paulden Verde River near Paulden Hell Canyon near Williams Volunteer Wash near Bellemont Verde River near Clarkdale Oak Creek near Sedona Oak Creek at Sedona Oak Creek near Cornville Verde River at Camp Verde Wet Beaver Creek near Rimrock Rocky Gulch near Rimrock Red Tank Draw near Rimrock Rattlesnake Canyon near Rimrock Dry Beaver Creek near Rimrock Beaver Creek at Camp Verde Verde River below Camp Verde West Clear Creek near Camp Verde 9403990 9502800 9503700 9503720 9503800 9504000 9504420 9504430 9504500 9505000 9505200 9505220 9505250 9505300 9505350 9505500 9505550 9505800 6,680 5,544 NA 6,220 6,560 5,910 7,190 6,410 NA 6,200 NA NA 5,490 7,620 7,110 5,410 5,120 NA Verde River Basin 4.7 Dogtown Wash above Dogtown Reservoir near Williams 12/1964- current (real-time) 11/1971-11/1981 (discontinued) 12/1912-3/1920 (discontinued) 10/1960-current (real-time) 6/1957-9/1980, (discontinued) 4/1957 - 9/1978, (discontinued) 10/1985-9/1992 (discontinued) 10/1961-current (real-time) 1/1913-3/1920 (discontinued) 54 42 64 61 59 58 66 55 55 50 58 10/1981-9/1995 (discontinued) 7/1940-current (real-time) 54 50 59 49 46 64 20 24 21 21 22 16 25 22 20 20 16 18 16 7 6 16 7 Spring Fall Minimum Median 8 7 6 3 2 4 4 8 12 9 9 10 14 1 8 16 10 18 27 9 15 17 22 6 15 14 21 18 17 20 33 37 19 19 11,152 (2002) 67,620 (1977) 26,715 (1913) 253 (1996) 101 (1963) 33 (1963) 62 (1989) 5,489 (1977) 149,139 (1913) 21,357 (1956) 24,108 (1989) 22,587 (2002) 54,529 (2002) 61 (1967) 123 (1967) 16,511 (2002) 770 (2002) 34,542 192,578 64,072 21,978 4,345 3,183 210 18,176 309,138 51,402 53,792 46,298 104,279 1,792 1,444 20,783 2,064 45,858 267,706 70,274 31,271 5,763 4,666 215 23,659 305,312 61,972 67,074 58,873 128,062 2,709 2,316 30,743 5,199 Mean 133,245 (1993) 603,073 (1978) 132,488 (1915) 105,727 (1978) 21,652 (1965) 22,304 (1965) 376 (1991) 64,667 (1993) 545,879 (1916) 182,440 (1978) 165,067 (1993) 164,776 (1993) 458,393 (1993) 6,719 (1966) 5,017 (1966) 156,19 (1993) 22,959 (1980) 38 7 6 42 22 20 4 33 7 56 13 21 40 6 6 39 20 1 Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) No statistics run; less than 3 years of data Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Winter 10/1981 -current (real-time) 6/1915-current (real-time) 8/1965-9/1972 8/1965-9/1972 (discontinued) 7/1963-current (real-time) 3/1965-current (real-time) 2/1964-5/1965 (discontinued) Period of Record Table 5.5-2 Streamflow Data for Verde River Basin Mean Basin Drainage Station USGS Station Name 2 Elevation (in Number Area (in mi ) feet) 258 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 259 10 4 52 3 15 164 East Fork Sycamore Creek near Sunflower Sycamore Creek near Sunflower Camp Creek near Sunflower Rock Creek near Sunflower Sycamore Creek near Fort McDowell 9510100 9510150 9510170 9510180 9510200 3,820 3,680 NA 4,260 5,760 5,260 5,430 NA 5,470 4,810 NA 5,140 NA NA NA 6,980 6,430 5,560 60 10/1966-5/1986 (discontinued) 12/1960-current (real-time) 3/1963-9/1972 (discontinued) 8/1963-9/1966 (discontinued) 10/1961-9/1976 (discontinued) 10/1961-5/1986 (discontinued) 70 44 47 69 54 48 10/1938-12/1945 (discontinued) 10/1961-9/1974 (discontinued) 51 71 67 59 50 46 51 37 26 59 11 7 14 13 13 12 25 17 6 13 16 33 40 36 36 32 17 Spring 34 14 26 24 16 20 18 11 15 2 9 9 20 19 14 Fall 297 (1964) 7 (1964) 50 (1971) 27 (1971) 245,428 (1942) 131,073 (2002) 87 (2002) 258,525 (1939) 1,499 (2002) 4,684 (1964) 557 (1963) 181 (1963) 478 (1967) 521 (1963) 99,934 (2002) 2,881 308 923 623 381,536 294,733 8,471 395,733 34,036 10,425 1,050 348 1,814 10,208 222,679 Minimum Median 3 12 17 38 41 (2002) 109 (1971) 8,290 999 19,584 1,227 5,476 678 1,573 816 434,387 409,875 10,182 444,220 46,674 9,211 1,775 586 1,876 8,860 299,621 Mean 111,493 (1993) 4,474 (1965) 18,244 (1965) 2,302 (1980) 4,503 (1973) 2,121 (1983) 1,036,012 (1941) 1,583,014 (1993) 37,864 (1978) 733,574 (1937) 208,558 (1993) 12,544 (1962) 3,424 (1960) 1,115 (1962) 4,547 (1965) 16,507 (1968) 990,650 (1993) 42 8 2 14 22 12 10 7 57 35 6 38 3 5 5 14 9 24 Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 6 4 6 4 11 11 5 9 10 16 6 4 7 24 11 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Winter 8/1945-current (real-time) 10/1967-current (real-time) 6/1934 -current 9/1961-current (real-time) 7/1961-9/1965 (discontinued) 7/1959-9/1965 (discontinued) 7/1959-9/1965 (discontinued) 7/1959-9/1974 (discontinued) 9/1961-9/1971 (discontinued) 4/1934-current (real-time) Period of Record Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record NA = Not available Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 5 6,065 West Fork Sycamre Creek near Sunflower 9510070 9508500 9510080 36 Wet Bottom Creek near Childs 9508300 9509000 5,241 Verde River below East Verde River near Childs 9508000 5,493 331 East Verde River near Childs 9507980 Verde River below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam Verde River at Bartlett Reservoir near Cave Creek West Fork Sycamore Creek above McFar Canyon near Sunflower 272 9507800 East Verde River near Payson 4 West Fork Webber Creek near Pine 9507700 9507950 5 Webber Creek above West Fork Webber Creek near Pine 9507600 10 6 East Verde River near Pine 9506000 Webber Creek below 9507900 WF Webber Creek near Pine 4,644 Verde River near Camp Verde Mean Basin Drainage Station USGS Station Name Elevation (in Number Area (in mi2) feet) Table 5.5-2 Streamflow Data for Verde River Basin (cont'd) Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT 8/22/1997 Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Repeater/Weather Station Kelly Pocket Red Hill Small Tank Coyote Park Bear Seep Munds Park Pumphouse Wash Sedona Airport West Fork Oak Creek Oak Creek @ Tlaquepaque ADOT Rim Camp Dry Creek Levee Merry-Go-Round Chick Road Detention Pond Mingus Mountain Repeater Jacks Point Jacks Canyon House Mountain Summit Mountain 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 175 180 185 193 240 250 260 370 Verde River Basin 12/15/2000 Precipitation/Stage Woody Mountain Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Weather Station Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation 5/6/1997 7/14/2004 7/19/2004 7/27/2004 3/23/2005 8/28/2001 7/9/1993 11/12/1997 11/12/1997 7/2/1993 11/12/1997 7/9/1993 7/14/1993 7/11/1993 7/2/1993 7/3/1993 7/13/1993 7/12/1993 7/14/1994 110 Precipitation Metz Mountain Install Date 105 Station Type Station Name Station ID Table 5.5-3 Flood Alert Equipment in the Verde River Basin Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Responsibility 260 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 261 White Hills 420 Lee Butte Cedar Flat Calloway Butte Baker Butte Hyde Mountain Repeater 470 485 490 495 3800 Seven Springs Horseshoe Lake Bartlett Lake 4940 4950 5890 5910 FCD = Flood Control District ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources Repeater/Weather Station Humboldt Mountain Repeater Weather Station Weather Station Precipitation Repeater/Precipitation Bill Williams Repeater Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Weather Station Precipitation Precipitation 3850 3825 Williamson Valley Fire Department Big Chino Wash @ SR 89 Buck Mountain 465 3805 Apache Maid 460 430 Yavapai County Verde Roads Yard Cottonwood Pubilc Works Yard Sycamore Point 415 425 Precipitation/Stage 410 Precipitation Precipitation Happy Jack Walnut Creek @ Williamson Valley Rd Station Type 375 Station Name Station ID 8/31/2000 9/11/2000 11/12/1981 7/14/1981 9/20/2005 4/1/2005 6/16/2005 4/13/2005 8/29/2001 4/28/2000 8/1/2001 12/4/2000 7/13/2000 4/17/2000 8/21/2001 11/19/1997 7/15/2004 8/28/2001 8/27/2001 5/6/1997 Install Date Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD ADWR Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Yavapai County FCD Responsibility Table 5.5-3 Flood Alert Equipment in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde Headwaters Verde at Black Bridge Verde Falls a b c 150 6/2001 (destroyed spring 2004 and reinstalled summer 2006) Low Flow Gage 150 9/2001 Radar based level sensor Verde River Basin 100 Upper Flow Limit (cfs) 4/2004 Install Date Critical Depth Flume GaugeType Greg's list doesn't match the website www.watershedwise.com Station Name Map Key Table 5.5-3 a. SRP Low Flow Gages in the Verde River Basin 262 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Verde Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Barlett Bureau of Reclamation 178,186 R,S Federal 2 Horseshoe Bureau of Reclamation 131,500 I,S Federal 3 Hells Canyon Tank (Hell Canyon) AZ Dept. of Transportation 1,545 P State 4 Wineglass Ranch AZ Land Dept 1,226 P State 5 Railroad Embarkment 1,000 C State 6 Padre Reservoir (Pan Dam) 760 O State 7 Canyon Mouth 600 O State Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)2 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 8 Rogers3 Coconino NF 1,134 P Federal 9 Stoneman Coconino NF 220 P Federal 10 Unnamed4 Private 94 P NA 11 Little Red Lake4 Private 85 P NA 12 Horse4 Private 83 P NA 13 Duck Private 50 P NA C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 27 Total maximum storage: 3,592 acre-feet 2 D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 32 Total surface area: 496 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2,328 (from water right flings) Notes: NA = Not applicable 1 C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; I=irrigation; O=other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond R=recreation; S=water supply 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR 3 Intermittent Lake 4 Dry Lake 263 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 264 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Verde River Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 5.5-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 5.5-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • • • Perennial streams are located throughout most of the basin and include the Verde River, Oak Creek, Fossil Creek, East Verde Creek, West Clear Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, Deadman Creek and Sycamore Creek. These streams are perennial for all or most of their length. Intermittent streams are found throughout the basin except for the northwestern portion of the basin. There are 101 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time, the largest number reported in any groundwater basin in Arizona. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1981. Most springs are located in the western portion of the basin with large concentrations of springs in the Lower Oak Creek Area, Upper Oak Creek Area and in the vicinity of Strawberry and Pine. The greatest discharge rate was measured at Fossil Creek Spring, 21,647 gpm. Forty of the major springs have a measured discharge rate of 100 gpm or greater and nine springs have discharge rates of 1,000 gpm or greater. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 5.2-5B. There are 79 minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 493 to 571, depending on the database reference. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 265 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Map Key Name 1 Fossil Creek (multiple) 342523 1113423 Date Discharge Measured 21,647 During or prior to 2001 2 Big Chino 345107 1122546 8,941 During or prior to 1997 3 Bubbling Pond 344625 1115403 3,879 5/20/1968 4 Buckhorn 343340 1113108 1,000 5/28/1959 5 Unnamed 345327 1120815 2,917 7/4/1991 6 Page 344542 1115318 2,693 1/20/1975 7 Summers 345250 1120358 2,100 8 Wet Beaver 344116 1113433 850-1,350 10/12/2003 2 10/28/1999 9 Parson 345410 1120349 1,600 11/27/1999 10 Webber Canyon 341923 1112003 996 During or prior to 2002 11 Montezuma Well 343856 1114503 916 During or prior to 1990 12 Cold 342058 1111547 830 11/11/1952 13 Unnamed 345838 1114507 749 During or prior to 1949 14 Haskell 344407 1120357 600 10/24/1958 344438 1115332 520 2/4/1959 15 3 Lower Newell 16 Duff 345234 1121727 449 During or prior to 1997 17 Sullivan Lake 345148 1122636 448 During or prior to 1997 18 Grotto 341859 1112026 340 5/15/1952 3 19 Bonito 342410 1111238 330 11/19/1999 20 Lolo-Mai 344631 1115403 300 7/10/1974 21 Sterling # 1 350130 1114420 300 10/12/2003 22 Tree Root 344627 1115405 264 7/9/1952 23 Dude 342925 1111351 250 11/18/1999 24 Blue 343125 1114959 230 6/11/1981 342616 1112543 230 11/9/1999 341935 1114515 220 4/21/1976 25 26 Upper Parsnip 3 3 Unnamed 3 27 Unnamed 343135 1115015 220 11/6/1980 28 Spring Creek 344633 1115511 207 10/12/2003 29 Pieper Hatchery 342602 1111527 200 10/12/2003 342557 1111740 200 11/11/1999 1115035 190 6/9/1981 30 3 Chase 3 31 Unnamed 343138 32 Spider John 345300 1120422 15-85 10/27/1999 33 Thompson Pasture 345436 1114335 177 2/14/1952 34 Big 341854 1112037 175 5/15/1952 35 Turtle Pond 344627 1115404 160 12/10/1952 36 Indian Gardens 345439 1114336 115 2/14/1952 266 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.4-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key Name 37 Sheepshead Canyon 344448 1115557 111 3/1/1974 38 Bear 343259 1112548 100 5/27/1959 39 Tonto Bridge 341918 1112716 100 10/12/2003 40 3, 4 Date Discharge Measured 342257 1111700 100 10/18/1952 41 Unnamed 343122 1114959 90 11/6/1980 42 Beaverhead 344251 1114701 85 6/4/1974 43 Unnamed 342221 1111709 75 10/18/1952 44 Unnamed 345316 1120734 75 6/8/1977 343847 1114111 75 7/10/1959 2 45 46 Burned house Walker Creek 3 Banjo Bill 345739 1114509 75 3/6/1974 47 Nad-1 351315 1115000 64 8/2/1978 48 Unnamed 351313 1114958 64 8/2/1978 49 Unnamed 351320 1115033 60 8/9/1949 50 Page area # 1 344634 1115405 60 7/10/1974 51 Ellison Headwater 342333 1110913 60 12/1/1999 52 Gravel Plant 3 344605 1120235 60 10/29/1958 53 Landon 350726 1114238 60 8/29/1979 54 Walnut 344423 1120801 52 5/10/1978 55 Unnamed 345106 1129358 50 During or prior to 1965 56 Unnamed 345832 1114546 50 8/18/1949 57 Unnamed 351324 1115045 50 8/9/1949 58 Brown 342439 1114721 50 2/3/1959 59 Pine Flat 350040 1114411 50 10/4/2002 60 Sherwood 345908 1114450 50 1/20/2000 61 Unnamed 340735 1115116 45 5/12/1976 62 Big 350929 1120448 40 6/11/1997 63 Ellison 342330 110959 40 12/1/1999 64 Twin springs 344132 1120619 40 5/10/1978 65 Clear Creek # 1 343138 1113925 30 11/17/1999 66 Lelani 345905 1114443 30 67 350440 1115649 10-30 North Sycamore Sheep Bridge Hot (multiple) 342521 1111908 30 1/12/1999 340441 1114223 26 6/13/2002 Cave 345955 1114423 25 1/20/2000 71 Lolami 345937 1114437 25 8/17/1949 72 Woods 345211 1113723 25 12/13/1960 73 Hummingbird 345903 1114450 25 8/18/1949 74 Lo 350913 1115857 24 7/24/2002 68 69 70 Section 5.5 DRAFT Geronimo During or prior to 1949 2, 5 3 During or prior to 2001 Verde River Basin 267 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Map Key Name Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 75 Catfish 343112 Date Discharge Measured 1115003 22 6/11/1981 5 8/13/1949 76 Sterling # 2 350130 1114423 21 77 Sterling # 3 350130 1114421 20 8/13/1949 78 Hutch # 1 341232 1115311 20 6/12/2002 79 Hutch # 2 341229 1115306 20 6/12/2002 80 LX 341005 1115005 20 6/13/2002 81 Stone Camp 340704 1115105 20 7/6/2002 82 Zig Zag # 1 341040 1114734 20 6/13/02 83 Mine 342903 1115107 20 1/27/1982 1115828 5 8/31/1949 5 84 Poison 350802 20 85 Pivot Rock 342927 1112351 20 12/2/1999 86 Parsnip 342600 1112553 205 11/9/1999 87 Clear Creek # 3 343222 1113730 20 11/17/1999 88 Clear Creek # 2 343141 1113919 15 11/17/1989 89 Unnamed 345745 1114604 15 During or prior to 1951 90 Pyle Ranch 342215 1111009 15 12/1/1999 91 Soda 343845 1114429 15 2/6/1959 3 92 Unnamed 343120 1115001 13 11/6/1980 93 Little 351812 1115724 12 6/6/1979 94 Verde Hot 342119 1114233 12 6/20/02 95 Unnamed 341126 1114730 10 7/7/1976 96 Bunker Hill 345900 1115524 10 9/20/1962 97 Frey Ranch 344635 1115413 10 7/10/1974 98 Lindberg/Fulton 350629 1114313 10 7/8/1952 99 Washington Park 342526 1111600 10 10/18/1952 100 Washington 342603 1111619 5 4/29/1905 5 9/20/1962 101 Gray 350736 1115743 10 10 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Babe's Hole 350421 1115623 8 8/10/2002 Bull Pen 343214 1114145 7 10/10/1959 Lower Lo 350906 1115854 6 10/24/2001 Cottontail 344337 1115538 5 6/9/1977 268 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Name Maxwell 351657 1114746 5 6/5/1978 Unnamed 345202 1122523 5 5/2/1977 Storm Seep 350107 1123053 5 4/19/2001 Hackberry # 2 342558 1114122 5 5/31/2002 Wet Prong 342431 1114350 5 6/21/2002 Big 343228 1113724 5 11/19/1999 Unnamed 352017 1114328 5 8/17/1978 Lockwood 350248 1115147 6 5 9/20/1960 Irving High 342426 1113611 56 11/15/1999 6 Irving Low 342417 1113640 5 5/24/1978 Hance 343336 1114420 4 5/27/1981 Frizell Ranch (Hell's Canyon) 344443 1115511 4 2/6/1959 Picnic 340941 1114957 4 6/13/2002 Turkey 322436 1112307 4 7/27/2002 North Pasture 340750 1115127 3 6/14/2002 Red rock 342214 1112402 3 7/22/1946 Dripping(2) 342327 1112603 3 7/20/1946 Unnamed 351354 1115136 3 8/2/1978 Spitz 351537 1115823 3 6/1/1978 Oak 342102 1112822 3 08/1946 Sycamore #1B 342825 1114232 3 6/7/2002 Cottonwood 343102 1115215 3 12/13/1977 Lee 345605 1125506 2 4/20/2001 Russell 343709 1114536 2 10/12/2003 Quail 344015 1120258 2 7/11/2002 Phroney 342631 1114134 2 6/10/2000 Sycamore #1A 342830 1114230 2 6/7/2002 Sycamore # 2 342754 1114249 2 6/7/2002 Zig Zag # 2 341041 1114733 2 6/13/2002 Pine 345759 1125413 2 4/20/2001 340459 1115214 2 5/12/1976 344044 1114108 2 4/20/1978 Ash Beaver Creek Section 5.5 DRAFT Date Discharge Measured 3 Buzzard 350026 1114943 2 9/20/1962 West Twin 351006 1121326 2 9/30/1976 Little Hutch # 1 341232 1115316 2 6/12/2002 Little Hutch # 2 341231 1115317 2 6/12/2002 Sheep 345458 1113214 2 6/24/2002 Ryal 343030 1115410 2 7/10/1959 Verde River Basin 269 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Powell 343454 1120445 2 4/20/1978 Goat Camp 343748 1120141 2 4/18/1978 Date Discharge Measured Hogpen 344552 1120603 2 5/4/1978 Unnamed 345606 1124002 2 7/15/1969 Surprise 343614 1123242 2 4/19/2001 Log 343606 1120420 2 6/29/2002 Rosalida 351030 1120341 2 6/11/1997 Cherry 361b 343625 1120038 2 7/11/2002 Tappen 351057 1114655 2 9/6/1949 Black 350802 1114117 1 8/1/1949 Baker 350115 1141729 1 12/2/1999 Railroad 350807 1115734 1 11/2/2001 Pine 342242 1112323 1 8/11/2002 Pfau 343622 1120012 1 7/11/2002 Trail Jct. 335838 1114021 1 7/18/2002 Kelsey 350432 1115605 1 8/6/2002 Hackberry # 1 342603 1114117 1 10/12/2003 Fuller/Strawberry 342436 1112833 1 7/24/1946 Dripping(1) 342328 1112306 1 10/11/2002 Unnamed 343154 1115035 1 10/28/1981 North Mine 342916 1115113 1 1/27/1982 Fourty Four 342905 1112217 1 1/19/2000 Unnamed 343425 1114352 1 5/27/1981 Holly 344501 1115502 1 3/1/1974 Bell Rock 344752 1114552 1 4/25/1974 Dorsey 350316 1115640 1 8/11/1949 Grassy Meadow 350014 1114402 1 8/17/1949 Aspen 350738 1114707 1 6/22/1978 Buck 351120 1120240 1 During or prior to 11/2004 Garland 351116 1115949 1 During or prior to 11/2004 Huffer 342756 1112315 1 12/2/1999 Strawberry Hollow 342346 1112814 1 7/24/46 Chasm 342643 1114942 1 7/1/2002 345109 1113253 1 6/27/2002 342248 1112840 1 7/24/1946 Rock Top 3, 4 Cottonwood 3, 4 Unnamed 350633 1114929 1 During or prior to 1946 Fisher (tank) 351022 1114531 1 8/18/1949 270 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-5 Springs in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS 493 to 571 (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge is expressed as a range 3 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 4 Location approximated by ADWR 5 Most recent measurement < 10gpm 6 Most recent measurement < 1gpm 1 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 271 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 272 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Verde River Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 5.5-6. Figure 5.5-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. In the Verde Valley and Big Chino sub-basins few wells were measured in 1990-1991. Figures 5.5-6A and 5.56B show water level changes in these sub-basins measured in other years. Figure 5.5-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 5.5-6. Figure 5.5-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods 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 5.5-6 and Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-6 A and B. • Major aquifers in the basin include the Verde formation, recent stream alluvium, basin fill carbonate aquifers and igneous and metamorphic rock. • The basin contains three sub-basins, Big Chino, Verde Valley and Verde Canyon. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south following the Verde River. Well Yields • Refer to Table 5.5-6 and Figure 5.5-8. • As shown on Figure 5.5-8, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 262 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 260 gpm. • Most well yields in the basin are less than 100 gallons per minute. The highest well yields are in the vicinity of Paulden in the Big Chino sub-basin. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 5.5-6. • There are two estimates of natural recharge for this basin ranging from 107,000 acre-feet per year to more than 138,000 acre-feet per year. • Natural recharge in the Big Chino Sub-basin is from runoff along the mountain fronts and the major washes. Recharge in the Verde Valley Sub-basin is principally from infiltration of precipitation in the higher elevations and is estimated at 167,470 acre-feet per year (Blausch et al., 2006). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 5.5-6. • There are three estimates of water in storage for this basin ranging from 13 million acrefeet to 28 million acre-feet. The most recent estimate, from a 1990 ADWR study, indicates the basin has 28 million acre-feet in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. • The predevelopment storage estimate is 13 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 acre-feet. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 273 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Water Level • Refer to Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-6 A and B. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 106 index wells in this basin. • In 2004, the year of the last water level sweep, 681 wells were measured. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 1,375 feet in the vicinity of Strawberry. There are two wells in the basin where the depth to water is only one foot, located southwest of Paulden and south and east of Bellemont. • There are three ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring devices in this basin located near Cottonwood, Payson and . • Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figures 5.5-6 and 5.5-6 A and B but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 5.5-7. 274 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-6 Groundwater Data for the Verde River Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 5,661 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill with Interbedded Volcanic Rock Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Verde Formation) Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) Igneous and Metamorphic Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Range 10-2,908 Median 102 (55 wells measured) Range 1-5,500 Median 260 (262 wells reported) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells 10-1000 ADWR (1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 167,470 (average for Verde Valley Sub-basin during 1990 - 2003)1 Blasch and others (2006) 30,300 (average for Big Chino Subbasin during 1990 - 2003)2 Blasch and others (2006) 31,770 (Big Chino Sub-basin during 1996 and 1997)3 ADWR (2000) 1,826 (Town of Payson only) Southwest Groundwater Consultants (1998) >138,000 ADWR (1994) 107,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 6,800,000 (portion of Upper Big Chino Southwest Groundwater Consultants (2005) Sub-basin) 10,000,000 (Big Chino Sub-basin to 1,200 feet) Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: McGavock (2003) 4 9,230 (Pine/Strawberry area) ADWR (1996) 28,000,000 (to 1,200 feet) ADWR (1990) 13,000,000 (to 1,200 feet) Freethey and Anderson (1986) >22,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 106 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (681 wells measured) 1 Includes 19,300 AF of incidental and artificial recharge. Includes 4,300 AF of incidental and artificial recharge. 3 Includes 8,010 AF of incidental recharge. 4 This figure has been refuted as an overestimation by Morrison Maierle (2003). 2 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 275 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 276 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 277 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 278 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 279 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 675 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 725 175 225 975 1025 0 50 Section 5.5 DRAFT A 1975 B 1975 C 1975 D 1975 R-aquifer B-23-07 32ACD WELL DEPTH: 1040 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 255 ft USE: STOCK basin fill B-22-07W25ADD 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1700 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 R-aquifer B-21-02 14BCC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 110 ft USE: COMMERCIAL 1985 2005 2005 volcanic rocks A-21-05 02ABC3 YEAR 1995 Verde River Basin 2005 280 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Con’t.) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 25 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 75 650 E WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 F 700 1975 250 G basin fill B-20-04 30AAD 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1210 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-20-07 20CCA 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-19-05 23CBA WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 300 350 25 75 1975 H 1985 1995 basin fill B-19-03 19CBD WELL DEPTH: 500 ft USE: STOCK 1975 281 1985 2005 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Con’t.) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 525 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 575 225 I WELL DEPTH: 720 ft USE: STOCK 1975 1985 J 275 1975 700 750 125 175 K 1975 L 1975 basin fill B-19-01 16ACB 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-18-04 25AAA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1480 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-aquifer A-18-07 08DDC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 342 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-17-02 06BBB 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 282 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Con’t.) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 700 M Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 750 1975 425 N 475 1975 0 O 1985 0 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-17-06E30BBB WELL DEPTH: 465 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-16-04 14BBB1 WELL DEPTH: 352 ft USE: UNUSED 50 1975 P C-aquifer A-17-04 01ACA WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 Verde Formation A-16-03 36CDC WELL DEPTH: 1200 ft USE: UNUSED 50 100 1975 283 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Con’t.) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 Q verde Formation A-15-03 12ADB1 WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: DOMESTIC 50 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 25 75 100 150 25 75 1975 1985 R WELL DEPTH: 250 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 S WELL DEPTH: 240 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 1985 T WELL DEPTH: 160 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 1995 2005 Verde Formation A-15-04 04DDC1 1995 2005 C-aquifer A-15-05 25DDD 1995 2005 Verde Formation A-14-05E17AAC 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 284 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Con’t.) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 100 150 U 1975 V Verde Formation A-13-05 05BDC WELL DEPTH: 120 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1995 2005 sedimentary rocks A-12-08 27BAD WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC 200 250 300 350 400 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 285 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Figure 5.5-7 (Con’t.) Verde River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 W R-aquifer A-11-10 32ACD WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: DOMESTIC 250 300 350 1975 1985 X WELL DEPTH: 525 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 125 1995 2005 igneous and metamorphic rocks A-10-10 03BAD 175 225 1995 2005 YEAR Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 286 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 287 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 288 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.7 Water Quality of the Verde River Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 5.5-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 5.5-7B. Figure 5.5-9 and 5-5.0A show the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 5.5-7. 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 Mines • Refer to Table 5.5-7A. • Four hundred and thirty sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards • The parameter most frequently equalled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. • Many of the wells in the Payson area equalled or exceed the standards for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, volatile organic compounds and selenium. • Other parameters equalled or exceeded in this basin include fluoride, nitrates and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 5.5-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in three lakes in the basin and five stream reaches on three streams. • Three stream reaches, totaling 37.5 miles, on the Verde River exceeded the water quality standard for turbidity. • Whitehorse Lake and Pecks Lake exceeded in dissolved oxygen and Stoneman Lake exceeded in arsenic and pH. • Pecks Lake and Stoneman Lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Final TMDL reports have been completed for the lakes. • Impaired reaches on the East Verde River, Oak Creek and Verde River and Whitehorse Lake are not part of the TMDL program at this time. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Map Location2 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 59 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A M A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M M M M M M M M Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 21 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 15 North 4 East 1 East 1 East 3 East 1 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 2 East 2 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 2.5 East 5 33 36 8 7 5 33 15 15 11 11 12 13 15 19 25 26 26 29 35 8 19 24 34 21 22 22 27 28 28 29 30 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 11 23 27 27 34 35 11 13 14 8 9 13 17 18 18 18 13 NO3 As As Cd As As As NO3 NO3 As, Pb Cd As As As, Cd As As, Cd, Pb Pb Pb As As Cu As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, Be As As As As As, Cd As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As 290 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M M M Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Section 5.5 DRAFT Site Location Township Range Section 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 4 4 5 5 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 6 9 10 15 15 18 18 18 18 19 19 21 22 31 33 20 24 34 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 29 31 31 Verde River Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As Pb As As As As As As Pb As As As As As As As, Pb As As As As Pb As As As As As As As As As As As, Pb As As, Pb As 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 3 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 14 21 2 3 3 3 3 3 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 24 24 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 31 31 31 32 32 292 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As As NO3 As As As As As, Se As As, Pb As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, TDS As As As As As, Cd As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, Pb As As As As As, Se As As As As As As As As As As Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Section 5.5 DRAFT Site Location Township Range Section 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 32 32 32 32 32 12 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Verde River Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As, Pb As As As As As As, NO3 As As As As As As As As As As As, Pb As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, TDS As As As As As As As As As, Pb As As As As As As, Pb As, TDS As As As As As As As As As As As As 293 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well 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 Site Location Township Range Section 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 12 13 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 20 21 21 21 21 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 294 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As As As As As As As F As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, Pb As As As, Pb As As As As As TDS As As, Pb As As As As As As As As As As As TDS As As As As As As As As As As As, Pb TDS Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 A A A A A A A A M M M M M M M M M I I I I I I I I I I I I M M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Section 5.5 DRAFT Site Location Township Range Section 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 11.5 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 10 East 6 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 28 28 28 28 28 34 34 34 29 11 11 26 26 26 26 35 10 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Verde River Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, TDS As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics Organics Organics Organics As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se NO3 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As As Pb As, Organics Pb As, NO3 As As, Be, Cd, Pb, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, NO3, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics Organics As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se 295 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M M M M M M M M M M M M M Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Site Location Township Range Section 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 6 North 22 North 22 North 19 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 7 East 7 West 7 West 4 West 4 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 2 West 3 West 3 West 6 West 2 West 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 28 8 25 4 10 6 6 27 27 11 25 27 2 296 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics Organics NO3 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se Organics As As, Be, Cd, Pb, Se Organics Organics Organics Organics As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As, Be, Cd, Pb, Organics, Se As As, NO3 As, Be, Cd, Pb, Se F As NO3 As As NO3 NO3 As As As As As As Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Verde River Basin (cont'd)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 M M M M M M M Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Site Location Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 As As As As As As As Township Range Section 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 4 West 3 3 4 9 15 22 8 Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated Use Standard4 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard3 B. Lakes and Streams Map Map Key Location2 a M Stream East Verde River Ellison Creek to American Gulch 20 NA A&W Se b M Stream Oak Creek - Slide Rock State Park 1 NA FBC Escherichia coli c A Lake Pecks Lake NA 95 A&W DO, pH and nutrients d M Lake Stoneman Lake NA 14 A&W DO, pH and nutrients e A Stream 0.5 NA A&W Turbidity f A Stream 13 NA A&W Turbidity g A Stream 24 NA A&W Turbidity h M Lake NA 41 A&W DO Notes: 5 Verde River Beaver Creek to HUC boundary Verde River - Oak Creek to Beaver Creek Verde River West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek Whitehorse Lake 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2004. M = Figure 5.5-9; I = Inset; A = Figure 5.5-9A 3 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate/Nitrite Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 4 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact 5 Lake has been dry or nearly dry since 2002 2 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 298 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 300 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Verde River Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 5.5-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 5.5-9. Figure 5.5-10 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 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 5.5-8 and Figure 5.5-10. • Population in this basin has more than doubled from 36,049 in 1980 to 88,242 in 2000. Projections suggest a slightly smaller rate of growth through 2050 to 165,314. • In general, groundwater use has increased since 1971, from an average of 16,000 acre-feet per year in 1971-1975 to an average of 23,900 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. The highest average annual groundwater demand was in 1986-1990 when 33,000 acre-feet per year was used. • Total surface water diversions in this basin have decreased slightly from an average of 18,000 acre-feet per year in 1971-1990 to an average of 17,400 acre-feet per year in 20012003. • Municipal groundwater demand has increased from an average of 7,200 acre-feet per year in 1991-1995 to 10,000 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. Municipal surface water demand is about 600 acre-feet per year. • Industrial groundwater use has increased slightly from 2,100 acre-feet per year on average in 1991-1995 to 2,400 acre-feet per year on average in 2001-2003. Industrial surface water use has remained a constant 800 acre-feet per year during this time. • Groundwater use for irrigation has increased from an average of 8,100 acre-feet per year in 1991-1995 to an average of 11,500 acre-feet per year in 2001-2003. Most of the surface water use in the basin is for irrigation with 11,500 acre-feet per year on average used in 1991-1995 and 16,000 acre-feet per year on average used in 2001-2003. • Municipal and industrial demand centers are found primarily in the central portion of the basin. • The only low intensity municipal and industrial demand center identified by the USGS is the National Guard installation at Camp Navajo near Bellemont. • The majority of the agricultural use is found along the Verde River. • There are two large mines, Clarkdale Cement and the closed United Verde copper mine, and two small mines or quarries located in the vicinity of Clarkdale and Jerome. An additional small mine or quarry is located north of Sunflower. • As of 2003 there were 10,654 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 708 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 5.5-9. • There are 24 wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for 12 facilities and information on effluent generation was available for 13 facilities. These facilities serve over 43,000 people and generate almost 6,650 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Of the 13 facilities with information on the effluent disposal method: three discharge to evaporation ponds; three discharge for golf or turf irrigation; one discharges effluent to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer; five discharge to a watercourse; and seven discharge for irrigation. In Payson, treated effluent is delivered to a 10.5 acre recreational lake where it is stored to irrigate turf and recharges the aquifer. 302 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Table 5.5-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Verde Basin1 Year Recent (Census) and Projected (DES) Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 36,049 1981 38,093 1982 40,137 1983 42,181 1984 44,225 1985 46,269 1986 48,313 1987 50,357 1988 52,401 1989 54,445 1990 56,489 1991 59,664 1992 62,839 1993 66,015 1994 69,190 1995 72,365 1996 75,541 1997 78,716 1998 81,891 1999 85,067 2000 88,242 2001 89,963 2002 91,683 2003 93,404 2010 105,449 2020 124,325 2030 140,300 2040 152,941 165,314 2050 3 ADDITIONAL WELLS: WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm 4,6242 Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 16,000 18,000 16,000 18,000 Data Source 5032 ADWR (1994) 1,219 79 19,000 18,000 1,018 51 33,000 18,000 1,161 27 7,200 2,100 8,100 600 800 11,500 1,555 27 8,800 2,200 8,400 600 800 12,500 490 13 10,000 2,400 11,500 600 800 16,000 587 10,654 8 708 USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) Notes: Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summ 1 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 303 NA Yavapai County Camp Verde SD Clarkdale Cottonwood NA NA NA NA Private Jerome Private Pinewood SD Private Private NA American Ranch WWTF Big Park ID Camp Verde WWTF Clarkdale WWTF Cottonwood WWTF Crimson View WWTP Cross Creek Ranch WWTF Flagstaff Meadows Houston Creek Landing WWTP Inscription Canyon Ranch Jerome WWTF Lolo Mai Springs Munds Park/Kay Blackman WWTP Oak Creek Property Owners Pine Creek Domestic WWTF Portal Pine Creek WWTP 304 Payson Northern Gila County SD American Gulch Strawberry/Pine Pine Oak Creek Munds Park NA Jerome Prescott Star Valley Bellemont Sedona Sedona Cottonwood Clarkdale Camp Verde Sedona Prescott City/Location Served Ownership Facility Name 10,000 420 700 NA NA 8,500 1,920 2,500 2,500 8,000 Population Served 1,176 34 56 NA 1,008 291 194 224 2,240 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Munds Creek Bitter Creek X X Watercourse X X X X X X X NA NA NA Pinewood Talking Rock NA NA NA NA Payson, Chaparral & Rim Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf Pond Irrigation Wildlife Area X Discharged to Another Infiltration Basins Facility NA Disposal Method Table 5.5-9 Effluent Generation in the Verde River Basin NA 1999 2001 2004 2002 2002 2002 2000 1999 2004 Year of Record Verde River Basin DRAFT 2,500 45 NA 1,000 1,600 7,400 NA 200 Population Not Served Section 5.5 Adv. Trt.I & Nutrient Removal Secondary Adv. Trt. I Secondary Secondary Secondary Adv. Trt II & Nutrient Removal Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Private Sedona Yavapai County SD Private NA Private Sedona Venture WWTF Sedona WWTF Seligman WWTF Shelby Dr. WWTP Thunder Mountain Ranch WWTP Verde Santa Fe Section 5.5 DRAFT Cornville Sedona Sedona Seligman Sedona Sedona City/Location Served 42,64 NA NA NA 84 8,000 240 Population Served 6,617 55 9 1,288 45 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Verde River Basin NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WRP: Water Reclaimation Plant SD: Sanitation District ID: Improvement District Totals Ownership Facility Name Unnamed tributary to Oak Cr. Watercourse X X X Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf Pond Irrigation NA NA Wildlife Area Disposal Method Table 5.5-9 Effluent Generation in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) Discharged to Another Infiltration Basins Facility 324 2,500 Secondary NA NA Population Not Served Adv. Trt. II & Nutrient Removal Current Treatment Level 2004 2004 2001 2003 Year of Record 305 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 306 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 5.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 5.5-10. Figure 5.5-11 and 5.5-11A show the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 5.5-10 • A total of 375 water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through May, 2005. • 110 determinations of inadequacy have been made. • The most common reason for an inadequacy determination in Gila and Coconino counties is because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. The most common reason for an inadequacy determination in Yavapai County is water quality. • Other reasons for an inadequacy determination included: the existing supply was unreliable or physically unavailable or groundwater exceeds the depth-to-water criteria; and the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate their legal authority to serve the subdivision. For three subdivisions the reason for the inadequacy determination is unknown because the records could not be located. • The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Coconino County 6,188 5,668 92% Gila County >4,652 >717 ~15% Maricopa County 20 20 100% Yavapai County >18,645 >16,153 ~87% County Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin Percent Adequate 308 Section 5.5 DRAFT A A 21 22 M A A A A 28 29 30 31 32 Yavapai Yavapai Camp Verde Acres Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Coconino Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Gila Gila Yavapai County Camp Verde Townsite, Block 7 Butterfield Plaza Butler Subdivision Boynton Canyon Ranch Bonita Creek Black Hills Terrace Black Hills Estates # 2 Black Hills Estates Black Hill Industrial Park Bella Terra on Oak Creek Bell Rock Vista Beaver Valley Estates Beaver Creek Golf Club Beaver Creek Acres Back'O Beyond Ranch Aspen Shadows Arroyo Sienna Arroyo Seco Arroyo Roble Resort Arnold Terrace Arizona Homes # 4 Arizona Homes # 3 Arena del Loma Estates Antelope Lakes # 3 Antelope Lakes # 2 Antelope Lakes # 1 Anasazi Amigos Rancheros Alpine Village # 1 Alpine Ridge Aerie I and Aerie II Subdivision Name 14 North 13 North 16 North 14 North 18 North 12 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 17 North 16 North 11.5 North 14 North 14 North 17 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 14 North 22 North 22 North 14 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 11 North 11 North 17 North Township 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 11 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 6 East 10 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 3 East 6 East 5 East 6 East 5 East 1 East 1 East 5 East 2 West 2 West 2 West 6 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 5 East Range Location Verde River Basin A M 26 27 A M 20 25 A 19 A A 18 A A 17 23 A 24 A A 12 16 M 11 15 M 10 A A 8 9 A M 7 13 M 6 14 A M 5 I A I 2 4 A 1 3 Map Location 2 Map Key 31 34 13 30 20, 29 32 32, 33 32 32 33 26 18 35 1 11 30 34 18 10 8 31 22 22 19 28 27 27 7 29 33 34 5 Section 5 53 46 9 12 38 18 80 66 24 106 6 8 137 36 80 36 12 46 72 18 NA NA 11 44 655 22 11 105 312 7 74 No. of Lots Adequate 22-401631 Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate 22-401502 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate 22-401848 22-300211 22-300478 22-400647 22-300031 22-300068 22-401588 ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin 1 C A1 A1, A2 B A1, A2 A1, A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 10/04/93 06/24/81 06/06/83 03/25/80 06/27/80 06/06/75 05/08/80 10/31/81 06/20/74 05/13/87 03/01/05 06/15/89 03/05/86 10/18/05 01/20/05 10/23/96 07/22/98 02/12/02 07/12/91 05/18/83 07/09/74 04/08/77 06/07/73 07/28/95 03/14/88 02/19/97 11/06/95 05/01/81 08/20/87 07/16/85 01/12/82 07/06/05 Date of Determination Camp Verde Water System Dry Lot Subdivision Big Park Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Homeowners Association Wells Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Sedona Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Rimrock Beaver Valley Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Camp Verde Water System Northwest Water Company Northwest Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Antelope Lakes Water Company, Inc. co-op water system Arizona Water Company NA Town of Payson Town of Payson The Aerie Conservancy Water Provider at the Time of Application 309 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 A A A 54 55 56 A A A 62 63 64 310 A A 60 61 A A 53 59 A 52 A A 51 A A 57 M 49 50 58 I A 48 I 46 47 A A 44 45 A A 42 A 41 43 A A 38 A A 37 39 A 36 40 A A 34 A 33 35 Map Location 2 Map Key County Yavapai Cottonwood Springs Yavapai Yavapai Cottonwood Commons/Cottonwood Cottonwood Ranch Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Yavapai Gila Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Cottonwood Business Park Cottonwood Airpark Cottages at Coffee Pot Copper Vista Estates Coffee Pot Lodge Cliffs, Unit 2 South Cliffs, Unit 2 North Cliffs, The Cliffs at Cup of Gold Clarkdale Palisades # 4 Clarkdale Palisades # 3 Clarkdale Palisades Cimmaron Pines Chapel View Chalet Village Cedar Ridge Phase 1 Cedar Ridge Cave View Estates Cathedral View # 2 Cathedral Rock Ranchos Castle Rock Plaza # 2 Castle Rock Plaza Casa Del Sol Condominiums Casa Del Sol Condominiums - South Casa Bonita Canyon Shadows Canyon Mesa Country Club Yavapai #2 Canyon Mesa Country Club Yavapai #3 Canyon Mesa Country Club Yavapai Subdivision Name 15 North 16 North 15 North 16 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 12 North 17 North 11 North 11 North 17 North 13 North 16 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North Township 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 9 East 6 East 10 East 10 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 6 East 6 East Range Location 17, 20 32, 33 2 34 33 1 13 1 31 31 31 33 29 29 29 30 30 33, 34 32 11 11 18 35, 36 13 13 34 34 12 1 18 18 18 Section Adequate n/a 627 178 10 18 37 42 27 30 29 42 8 112 84 50 64 17 48 8 49 22-300096 22-400318 22-400433 22-300164 22-300060 22-401441 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 13 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 15 22-400595 22-401223 22-400548 22-400072 Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 99 6 4 52 28 22 21 20 44 109 No. of Lots A1 A1, A2 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 08/04/80 05/13/96 06/01/00 10/09/81 07/19/85 06/27/86 07/06/79 02/10/84 12/05/00 07/23/96 09/02/94 11/01/95 08/25/75 09/26/75 04/17/75 07/06/82 08/21/73 12/27/74 10/21/04 12/26/78 11/01/01 07/19/91 09/01/81 09/20/82 12/18/85 04/07/04 08/14/01 04/17/81 07/07/80 05/21/99 12/12/85 08/27/84 Date of Determination Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Clemenceau Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Quail Springs Ranch Water Company Arizona Water Company Oak Creek Water Company, #1 Arizona Water Company Camp Verde Water System Camp Verde Water System Camp Verde Water System Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Company Cottonwood Water Company Cottonwood Water Company E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company United Utilities Company Town of Payson Water Company Arizona Water Company Verde Lakes Water Corp. Big Park Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT M M 94 95 Doodlebug # 2 Coconino Yavapai Forest Highlands Unit Five Coconino Forest Highlands Foothills South Unit 4 Yavapai Yavapai Foothills South Unit 3 Yavapai Foothills South Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Coconino Foothills South # 2 Amended Foothills North Foothill Terrace Flagstaff Meadows Unit 1 Flagstaff Meadows Unit 2 Gila Gila Fairway Oaks Estates replat Falcon View Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Fairway Oaks Fairfield Sedona Estrella Noche Ranch Yavapai Yavapai Enchantment, John Gardiner's Equestrian Estates Gila Yavapai Gila Coconino Elusive Acres Eagle Rock Subdivision Eagle Glen Townhouses Yavapai Yavapai Distant Drums Yavapai Diamond Creek Ranch North Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai County Diamond Creek Ranch Cross Creek Ranch Crimson View Crestview Phase 3 Crestview Courthouse Butte Estates Country Estates # 4 Country Estates # 3 Subdivision Name 7 East 7 East 6 East 20 North 20 North 20 North 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 3 East 5 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 5 East 5 East 4 East 4 East 5 West 10 East 5 East 8 East 6 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 5 East 5 East Range Location 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 21 North 21 North 11 North 10 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 14 North 18 North 11 North.5 17 North 12 North 17 North 17 North 13 North 13 North 17 North 17 North 15 North 15 North 17 North 13 North 13 North Township Verde River Basin A A 92 93 A A 89 A A 88 90 M 87 91 I M 86 I 84 85 A A 81 A A 80 82 M 79 83 A M 77 78 A M 75 A 74 76 A A 71 A A 70 72 A 69 73 A A 67 68 A A 65 66 Map Location 2 Map Key 18 24 19 15 15 15 10 3, 7 29 1 1 33 5, 6 13 11, 14 1, 36 14 20, 29 20 11 36 19 9 8 8 33 11 3 3 27 7 7 Section 170 655 8 25 n/a 64 21 140 88 133 57 23 8 114 10 44 118 30 26 57 42 6 22 27 84 91 40 91 60 14 19 No. of Lots 22-300321 22-401826 22-401029 22-401174 22-400692 22-300027 22-400109 22-300591 22-401613 22-401545 22-401353 22-400199 22-400694 22-300088 22-400345 22-300022 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1 A1 A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1 C C C C Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 08/22/97 03/24/88 09/08/05 09/18/03 12/22/82 06/18/74 02/20/79 05/05/83 02/04/04 03/22/02 10/03/95 03/10/83 01/07/87 08/02/99 01/14/99 04/20/05 04/18/86 03/22/88 02/02/05 02/16/84 04/15/74 02/06/76 06/10/04 11/02/99 04/09/03 02/29/96 07/19/00 06/16/95 06/15/79 03/14/84 12/04/73 Date of Determination Forest Highlands Water Company Forest Highlands Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Co. Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Utility Source LLC Homeowners Association Wells Town of Payson Town of Payson Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Homeowners Association Wells Camp Verde Water System Homeowners Association Wells United Utilities Company Arizona water Company Sedona E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company NA Dry Lot Subdivision Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Arizona Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works Community well Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at the Time of Application 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 M 127 312 A M A 124 126 M 123 125 M M M 120 121 A 119 122 A 118 M 115 M M 114 M A 113 116 A 117 M 112 I 108 111 I 107 I A 106 I A 105 110 I 109 I 103 M 100 104 I 99 I I 98 M I 97 101 I 96 102 Map Location 2 Map Key Yavapai Yavapai Inscription Canyon Ranch Inscription Canyon Ranch Unit 5 Coconino Coconino Hyatt Pinon Point/The Y Project Indian Cliffs Gila Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Hunt Ranch # 01 Homestead, The Homestead at Camp Verde Holiday Lake Estates Hillcrest Villa Highland Estates # 2 Hidden Pines Phase II Hidden Pines Headwaters Ranch Country Club Headwaters Ranch Country Club 2 Haskell Springs Harmony Heights North Guevremont Greenfaire # 2 Greenfaire Green Valley Estates 2 Green Valley Estates Yavapai Yavapai Gateway Commercial Complex Unit 1 Golden Heights Gila Gila Coconino Gila Coconino Gila Gila Gila Gila County Frontier Townhouses Frontier Condominiums FoxBoro Ranch Estates Four Seasons North Forest Ranch # 1 Forest Park # 3 Forest Park # 2 Forest Park # 1 Forest Park Subdivision Name 16 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 12 North 12 North 14 North 18 North 15 North 16 North 12 North 12 North 18 North 17 North 16 North 17 North 12 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 14 North 14 North 10 North 10 North 17 North 11 North 22 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North Township 3 West 3 West 6 East 6 East 8 East 8 East 4 East 2 West 3 East 5 East 8 East 8 East 2 West 2 West 3 East 5 East 8 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 4 East 4 East 10 East 10 East 7 East 10 East 4 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East Range Location 27, 28 27, 28 30 7 20 20 25, 30, 31, 36 33, 34 2 11 25 25 35 2 32 11 21 8 8 8, 9 8, 9 12, 13 23 9 4 3 34 13, 24 4 3 4 3 Section 46 323 41 218 8 25 165 1543 10 47 18 49 620 765 150 45 10 8 11 14 53 44 8 8 42 57 48 10 10 121 28 12 No. of Lots 22-400551 22-300021 22-400946 22-400441 22-300240 22-300182 22-300011 22-300216 22-400849 22-401794 22-300091 22-401577 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1 A1 A1,B A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2, C A1 A1, A2 A1, A2 A2 A1, A2 A2, A3 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 09/14/01 11/15/95 09/15/92 05/16/03 07/21/93 01/18/84 12/18/00 02/07/97 03/22/94 11/01/79 08/08/96 10/19/1995 06/18/93 06/18/93 05/24/95 01/18/78 07/17/84 10/31/96 10/27/94 11/25/02 04/26/94 07/17/80 08/04/05 06/17/80 01/16/96 02/10/05 05/18/83 01/13/87 08/11/88 02/08/80 05/20/80 08/08/73 Date of Determination Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Sedona E & R Water Company E & R Water Company Camp Verde Water System Abra Water Company, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Little Park Water Company Juniper Wells Water Company Juniper Wells Water Company Williamson Waterworks, Inc. Williamson Waterworks, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works Arizona Water Company E & R Water Company Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Camp Verde Water System Camp Verde Water System United Utilities Company Town of Payson FoxBoro Ranch Domestic Water Improvement District Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson United Utilities Company United Utilities Company United Utilities Company Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT A A A A M M M A A A A A A A A 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 M M 156 157 Malapai Ridge Estates Maine Townsite Lucky Canyon Estates Lovett Place Los Lomas Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Gila Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Long Meadow Ranch - Unit 3 Los Abrigados Timeshare Yavapai Coconino Loma Sinagua Les Springs Yavapai Yavapai Las Oficinas Office Building Las Piedras Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Coconino Yavapai Coconino 17 North 22 North 13 North 11 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 15 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 17 North 14 North 14 North 16 North 15 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 20 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North Coconino 17 North 17 North 13 North 13 North 18 North 14 North Township Coconino Coconino Coconino Yavapai Las Estancias Lakeside Townhouses La Barranca Koch Ranch Estates Kinsey Estates at Western Hills Kinsey Estates Two at Western Hills Kindra Heights Kachina Village Junipine Oak Creek Juniper Meadows Jordan Road, 540 Jordan Road Condominiums Jordan Road Condominiums B Jordan Park Ridge Jordan Park Glen Jordan Meadows # 3 Yavapai Yavapai Jordan Meadows # 2 Yavapai John Gardiner's Enchantment Resort County J.D. Stump Subdivision Subdivision Name 2 West 4 East 4 East 10 East 5 East 6 East 3 West 3 East 6 East 5 East 6 East 5 East 4 East 5 East 6 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 3 East 9 26 1 28 15 18 19 2 7, 18 24 19 12 14 2 17, 18 15 11 11 28 20 5, 8 6 East 7 East 29 8 8 5 5 6 7 7 20, 29 2 Section 5 West 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East Range Location Verde River Basin I A 153 A A 152 154 M 151 155 A A 149 A 150 148 A 132 A A A M 129 130 A 128 131 Map Location 2 Map Key 25 9 6 18 92 175 6 195 106 156 152 6 26 10 76 35 9 9 21 3000 50 42 8 9 4 39 20 6 10 19 8 No. of Lots 22-401490 22-300113 22-401596 22-300084 22-300413 22-400398 22-300502 22-401913 22-401603 22-401397 22-401150 22-400722 22-400266 Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A2, A3 A1 A2 A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 07/11/88 07/29/77 12/08/04 03/15/96 11/09/82 12/09/88 12/29/04 01/10/96 08/28/85 05/15/98 10/22/84 10/25/00 05/27/83 09/08/98 12/01/05 03/30/05 09/15/04 01/28/04 08/25/75 03/21/86 05/07/92 11/15/82 6/14/2002 04/30/81 12/29/93 12/06/91 03/26/79 02/24/76 02/28/00 09/27/88 Date of Determination Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Arizona Water Company Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Camp Verde Water System Arizona Water Company Big Park Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Arizona Water CompanySedona Arizona Water Company Sedona Flagstaff, City of Juniper Meadows Water Users' Junipine Community Property Owners Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Boynton Canyon Enchantment Homeowners Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at the Time of Application 313 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 I I M A A A A 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 314 A M 180 181 A M 178 A 177 179 A A 175 176 A M A 172 173 A 171 174 A M 169 170 I I 168 I 166 167 I I 163 A I 162 164 I 161 165 A M 160 I 158 159 Map Location 2 Map Key Mountain Gate Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Nizhoni Village Yavapai Coconino Coconino Gila Gila Coconino Yavapai Coconino North Slopes # 3, Lots 3355 Nepenthe Mystic Hills Mountainaire Meadows Mountain-Aire Condominiums Mountain-Aire Condominiums # 3 Mountainaire # 5 Mountain View Ranchos Mountain Rose Ranch Yavapai Yavapai Mountain Estates Yavapai Mission Hills Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Morning Sun Condominiums Mint Creek Ranch Mingus View Estates Mingus Shadows Yavapai Gila Mesa Verde Estates Yavapai Mel Glo Estates #2 17 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 20 North 11 North 11 North 20 North 15 North 21 North 16 North 13 North 17 North 17 North 15 North 16 North 16 North 14 North 11 North 15 North 11 North 11 North Gila 11 North 13 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 11 North 17 North 10 North Township Gila Gila Yavapai Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Coconino Gila County Mesa Del Caballo Tracts, plats 3, 5 & 6 Mazatzal Mountain Airpark #1 Mazatzal Mountain Airpark # 2 Phase 2 Mazatzal Mountain Airpark # 3 Phase 1 Maybelle Estates Manzanita Woods Manzanita Hills # 5 Manzanita Hills # 4 Manzanita Hills # 3 Manzanita Hills # 2 Manzanita Hills # 2 Manzanita Hills # 1 Subdivision Name 5 East 5 East 5 East 6 East 7 East 10 East 10 East 7 East 4 East 3 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 3 West 3 East 3 East 5 East 10 East 4 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 6 East 10 East Range Location 3 13 14 19 28 34 34 28 11 3 19 1 13 12 2, 11 32 29 19, 30 23, 24 3 32 32 32 6 32 32 5 5 5 7 5 Section 23 40 182 144 20 8 4 522 47 32 606 15 74 81 74 70 121 16 12 8 12 17 26 5 6 8 19 7 22 14 11 No. of Lots Inadequate 22-300258 22-300083 22-400914 22-401660 22-401186 22-400038 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate 22-400805 22-401032 Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate 22-300173 22-300462 22-400905 22-400739 22-300461 Inadequate Adequate Inadequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2, A3 C A1, C C A1 A1 A1, A2 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2, C A1, A2, C Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 07/03/97 11/07/80 01/16/96 09/15/92 05/05/83 09/10/85 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Company Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Ponderosa Utility Corporation Town of Payson Town of Payson Ponderosa Utility Corporation 06/14/82 Dry Lot Subdivision 07/29/83 Individual Wells Camp Verde Water System, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Oak Creek Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Brooke Utilities Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Water Department Town of Payson Town of Payson Camp Verde Water System Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Arizona Water Company Town of Payson Water Provider at the Time of Application 03/26/79 04/17/03 06/03/05 02/02/04 12/31/87 09/26/80 11/29/93 01/13/94 05/21/82 04/15/80 03/26/99 02/25/76 09/03/03 09/17/02 08/23/96 10/11/74 05/15/98 03/31/03 06/18/02 05/15/98 01/18/95 04/15/74 01/17/95 Date of Determination Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT I Parks Pine Pebble Rock Pecan Acres I A A A A I M M 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 Gila 18 North 12 North 10 North 17 North 15 North 16 North 13 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 17 North 22 North 17 North 10 North 10 North 17 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 15 North 11 North 17 North 17 North Township 7 East 9 East 10 East 5 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 2 West 4 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 5 East 3 East 6 East 6 East 4 West 4 West 4 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 4 East 10 East 5 East 5 East Range Location Verde River Basin Pinewood Fairway Condos Coconino #1 Pine Mountain Acres Gila Yavapai Pine Aire Yavapai Penny Acres # 2 Yavapai Yavapai Gila Gila Gila Gila Yavapai Coconino Piedras Del Rojo Condominiums Payson Pines Unit 2 Payson Pines Payson Meadows I I Payson Industrial Park Paulden Farms 210 I 209 Gila Yavapai Paradise Heights Phase Two Park Place Condominium Gila Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Yavapai Yavapai County Paradise Heights Papago Highlands Panorama Palisades Orchards # 2 Oak Creek Valley # 2 Oak Creek Valley # 1 & 3 Oak Creek Palisades Oak Creek Estados Oak Creek Country Club Estates Oak Creek Country Club Estates # 2 Oak Creek Country Club Estates # 3 Oak Bend # 2 Northwoods Northview Northern Shadows Subdivision Name 211 M M 207 208 I A 203 204 A A 202 205 A 206 A A 196 201 A 195 200 A 194 M A 193 199 A 192 A I 191 M A 190 197 A 189 198 Map Location 2 Map Key 15 30 3 15 1, 2 35 5 28 28 27, 28 4 4 26 15 9 8, 9 10, 15 19, 30 18 6 34 34 35 13 23, 24 13 13 10, 15 34 13 12 Section 44 32 28 18 8 28 10 22 127 32 13 15 26 88 20 16 192 22 86 34 185 135 15 136 57 40 63 12 72 121 NA No. of Lots 22-401854 22-401538 22-400740 22-300364 22-401834 22-401547 22-401022 22-300199 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1 A1, A2, B A1, A2 A1 A1 A1, A2 D A2, A3 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 01/29/79 11/26/74 03/18/80 11/14/05 07/27/78 05/09/79 03/07/05 06/25/02 09/30/97 08/07/86 11/08/88 03/12/92 09/20/73 11/14/05 11/18/04 09/03/03 09/23/74 10/30/75 10/17/78 08/30/74 08/08/79 06/21/77 08/26/73 06/03/81 11/23/81 11/23/81 02/06/80 02/04/88 11/08/96 11/29/73 07/18/83 Date of Determination Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision United Utilities Company Arizona Water Company Sedona Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Town of Payson Town of Payson Arizona Water Company Cottonwood Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Oak Creek Valley Water & Sewer Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Oak Creek Water Company, #1 Arizona Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application 315 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 A 225 M M M A A M A A 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 M A A 248 249 250 316 M M 246 247 M M 234 M M 233 244 M 232 245 A M 231 A A 229 230 A A 228 M 223 224 A M 222 A M 221 226 M 220 227 Map Location 2 Map Key Ridge at Sedona Red Rock Vista Red Rock Cove Ravencrest Rancho Shangri La Rancho del Oro Ranch at Hidden Valley Ranch Acres Rainbow Subdivision Quail Springs Ranches Quail Ridge Quail Canyon Portal (Canyon Shadows) Portal at Pine Creek Canyon # 2 Portal at Pine Creek Canyon # 3 Portal at Pine Creek Canyon # 4, Phase 1 Portal at Pine Creek Canyon # 4, Phase 2 Portal # 3, Pine Canyon Ponderosa Paradise # 2 Poco Diablo Villas # 2 Poco Diablo Villas Plaza Wes Playa del Rio Pinon Woods # 3 Pinon Woods # 2 Pinon Woods Pinon Valley Estates Pinewood Fairway Condos #2 Pinewood Fairway Condos #3 Pinewood Fairway Condos #4 Pinewood Fairway Condos #5 Subdivision Name Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 16 North 16 North 12 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 14 North 16 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 12 North Gila Yavapai 12 North 12 North Gila 12 North Gila Gila 12 North 12 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 14 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North Township Gila Gila Coconino Coconino Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino County 5 East 5 East 5 East 2 West 6 East 5 East 2 West 5 East 3 East 2 East 3 East 3 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 6 East 6 East 5 East 4 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 6 East 7 East 7 East 7 East 7 East Range Location 24 23 13 19, 30 21 27 29 30, 31 34 15 15, 22 15 25 25 24 25 25 24 16 19 19 11 13, 14 18 18 18 18 15 15 15 15 Section 8 6 6 29 20 200 56 75 5 16 53 59 7 73 190 208 NA NA 9 33 18 33 183 70 28 120 8 20 18 8 18 No. of Lots 22-300360 22-400573 22-400349 22-400381 22-401819 22-400396 22-300005 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A2 A2 A1, A2 A1 A1, A2 D A1 A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 10/10/97 03/21/94 01/22/82 09/11/01 08/19/81 04/01/81 08/21/00 10/26/73 01/06/88 03/25/75 09/18/00 09/08/05 09/22/00 07/19/94 10/23/81 08/12/76 07/17/73 08/08/99 08/21/89 09/28/78 10/11/74 11/08/84 05/13/87 03/30/95 04/05/93 08/15/83 08/09/93 12/09/81 11/25/81 06/08/81 05/14/81 Date of Determination Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Big Park Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Shangri La Property Owners Association Rancho del Oro Dry Lot Subdivision Camp Verde Water System Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Pine Creek Canyon Domestic Water Quail Canyon Domestic Water Improvement District Williamson Water Works Myers Water Company Myers Water Company developer-supplied Myers Water Company Stoneman Lake Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Camp Verde Water Company Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT A 254 A A 268 269 A A 280 281 Rim Ranch Gila Yavapai Sedona Vista Estates Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Sedona Summit II, Phase 3 Yavapai Sedona San Carlos Yavapai Sedona Seven Canyons Units I, II, and III Sedona Heights Yavapai Sedona Golf Resort, Phase 2 Sedona Golf Resort Hotel Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Sedona Golf Resort 2 Sedona Golf Resort 1 Sedona Gardens Secluded Homesites Yavapai Yavapai Schuerman Estates Yavapai Sawmill Cove Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Sawmill Gardens Patio Homes Santa Fe Industrial Sites San Patricio Estates San Carlos Condominium Saddlerock Homes River Ranch Estates Yavapai Yavapai Rio Verde Ranchos Yavapai Rimrock North Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Rio Verde Condominiums Rimrock # 2 Rimrock # 1 Rim Shadows Rim Rock Heights Yavapai Yavapai Ridge View Yavapai Ridge Casitas # 1 Yavapai County Ridge on Sedona Golf Resort, The Ridge at Sedona, The Subdivision Name 17 North 17 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 17 North 12 North 17 North 15 North 15 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 14 North 13 North 16 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 15 North 11 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North Township 6 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 9 East 5 East 3 East 3 East 2 West 5 East 5 East 5 East 4 East 5 East 3 East 2 West 2 West 2 West 5 East 5 East 10 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East Range Location Verde River Basin A M 279 A 277 278 A A 275 276 A M 267 A A 266 274 A 265 273 A 264 A A 263 272 A 262 A A 260 261 M M 259 271 M 258 270 A M 257 I A 253 A A 252 255 A 251 256 Map Location 2 Map Key 7 15 27 12 12 24 23, 24 24 24 15 31 26 2 2 34 12 12 13 3 6 34 15 23 14, 15, 23 1 36 32 13 24 24 24 Section 12 39 118 40 16 225 192 94 19 1 NA 2 59 36 200 40 40 116 18 34 12 17 52 35 32 36 20 8 106 48 50 No. of Lots 22-400124 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 22-300273 22-400907 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 22-300340 22-300401 22-300148 22-300071 22-300144 22-300329 22-300079 22-300008 22-400653 22-300547 22-300330 Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1 C A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 08/21/80 08/24/99 08/28/03 09/24/90 03/25/97 08/25/97 03/31/98 06/11/96 12/04/95 11/23/81 03/28/80 01/27/76 11/13/85 01/18/94 04/11/94 09/26/75 07/24/80 09/11/78 06/28/96 03/17/89 11/17/81 07/30/97 12/08/95 05/26/95 07/07/80 02/26/02 10/19/98 09/27/89 08/05/97 10/11/85 02/28/85 Date of Determination Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Seven Canyons Water Company Oak Creek Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Abra Water Company, Inc. Arizona Water Company Oak Creek Water Company, #1 Oak Creek Water Company, #1 Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application 317 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 318 A 312 M 307 A M 306 M M 305 311 M 304 310 M 303 I A 302 A I 308 A 300 301 309 M M 297 298 M 296 299 A M 295 A A 291 294 A 290 I A 289 A A 288 292 A 287 293 A A 284 A A 283 285 M 282 286 Map Location 2 Map Key Yavapai Sunset Hills Sunrise Cliffs Sundown Acres Sun Dance Townhouses Streams at Payson # 1 Strawknolls # 4 (amended) Strawberry Mountain Shadows # 2, 3 Strawberry Mountain Shadows # 4 Strawberry Hollow, Phase I Strawberry Creek Foothills Stoneridge Stone Creek at Payson Starlight Village # 2 Solitude Trails Unit Four Solitude Trails Solitude Pines # 2,5 Solitude Pines # 1 Solair Estates # 1 Solair Estates Skyline Estates Sky Park Industrial Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Yavapai Gila Yavapai Gila Gila Gila Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Gila Coconino Silverado at Simonton Ranch Sky Line Estates Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Silver Springs Terrace # 1 Silver Springs Development Silver Springs Garden Homes Silver Springs # 1 Yavapai Yavapai Shadowbrook Condominium Sierra Verde Estates Yavapai Yavapai County Shadow Rock Seven Canyons of Sedona Subdivision Name 17 North 17 North 15 North 16 North 10 North 12 North 11.5 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 14 North 10 North 15 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 11 North 17 North 14 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 13 North 17 North 17 North 18 North Township 5 East 5 East 3 West 5 East 10 East 8 East 9 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 5 East 10 East 3 East 9 East 9 East 9 East 9 East 4 East 4 East 3 East 10 East 6 East 4 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East Range Location 19 1 24 13 4 22 35 35 26 20 31 4, 5 3 31 31 31 31 11 11 3 32 17 25 3 3 3 3 15, 16 11 1 27 Section 466 6 8 58 72 8 264 134 41 96 54 130 32 10 73 255 115 2 42 34 64 11 252 22 26 48 80 30 54 34 300 No. of Lots 22-400383 22-400904 22-400061 22-300580 22-401481 22-401916 22-300262 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1, A2 C A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1, A2 C Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 03/21/74 08/21/86 12/16/74 02/28/80 09/06/85 11/12/82 02/11/81 03/31/77 09/12/00 03/13/80 07/21/03 04/21/99 01/16/81 08/16/99 09/28/94 09/11/85 07/30/84 04/28/83 10/23/79 12/13/04 12/29/83 06/21/91 11/14/05 04/07/81 07/11/94 10/29/86 11/12/80 04/12/82 02/22/88 03/21/80 10/29/97 Date of Determination Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Big Park Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Big Park Water Company Town of Payson Arizona Water Company E & R Water Company E & R Water Company Strawberry Hollow Development, Inc. Myers Water Company Camp Verde Water System Inc. Town of Payson Solitude Trails Domestic Water Improvement District Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. E & R Water Company E & R Water Company E & R Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Town of Payson Arizona Water Company Camp Verde Water System Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT A A I I M I I 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 Yavapai Ventana Vista Valley View Estates Valley Shadows Two Ponds Estates Trailwood # 3 Trailwood # 2 Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 15 North 16 North 17 North 14 North 10 North 10 North 10 North Gila Gila 21 North Coconino Trailwood # 1 Town Homes at Flagstaff Meadows 10 North 10 North 15 North 17 North 17 North 17 North Gila Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 15 North 17 North 17 North 12 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 14 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 17 North Township Town & Country Estates Timber Ridge Estates II Tierra Verde Subdivision Thunderbird Hills South #2 Tierra Sienna Condominium Thunderbird Hills East # 2 Yavapai Thunder Mountain Ranch # 2 Thunder Ridge Yavapai Gila Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai County Thunder Mountain Ranch Terra Pine Talking Rock Ranch Phase 1 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 2&3 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 4a Talking Rock Ranch Phase 5a, 5b & 6 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 8 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 9 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 26 Talking Rock Ranch Phase 27 Sycamores II Sycamore Farms Swinging Bridge Estates Sunup Ranch Sunset Plaza Subdivision Name 3 East 3 East 5 East 4 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 5 East 10 East 10 East 3 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 5 East 8 East 3 West 3 West 3 West 3 West 3 West 3 West 3 West 3 West 5 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 5 East Range Location Verde River Basin A A 331 343 A 330 A A 329 A A 328 342 A 327 341 M 326 I M 325 A M 324 339 M 323 340 M M 320 M M 319 321 M 318 322 A A 315 A A 314 316 A 313 317 Map Location 2 Map Key 15 17 14 12 4 4 4 1 3 4 3 13 14 14 25 10 10, 11 36 22 33 15 22 15, 22 19 15, 22 15, 16, 22 1 35 34 14 11 Section 69 28 158 4 123 86 104 105 19 22 39 32 8 16 230 43 100 30 38 38 107 80 73 10 127 198 6 17 18 16 8 No. of Lots 22-300469 22-300028 22-401224 22-400231 22-300147 22-300586 22-300118 22-300509 22-300070 22-401175 22-401355 22-401417 22-401206 22-400831 22-400758 22-400675 22-400519 22-401418 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 B, C A1 A2 A1, A2, C A1, A2 A1 A1, C A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 01/18/94 06/17/98 03/21/74 07/24/80 07/26/95 12/07/94 04/14/94 03/15/04 01/26/00 05/22/96 12/22/98 11/25/87 10/15/75 10/07/75 07/12/96 09/01/98 11/21/95 01/02/80 02/18/04 09/08/04 09/08/04 02/18/04 10/08/02 07/30/02 03/14/02 08/17/01 08/26/83 01/01/79 06/12/79 09/15/04 05/14/76 Date of Determination Cordes Lakes Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Utility Source, LLC Town of Payson Town of Payson Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Oak Creek Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company E & R Water Company ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association, Inc. ICR Water Users Associations, Inc. ICR Water Users Association, Inc. ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association ICR Water Users Association Arizona Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application 319 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 A A A A A A 349 350 351 352 353 354 I 375 320 I I 372 I I 371 373 M 370 374 A M I 369 A 366 367 368 M 365 362 A I 361 M A 360 364 A 359 363 A M 358 A A 348 357 A 347 A A 346 A A 345 355 A 344 356 Map Location 2 Map Key Wilma Overal Property Woodland Meadows # 4 Woodland Meadows # 3 Gila Gila Gila Gila Woodland Meadows # 2 Gila Woodhill #1-8 Gila Yavapai Yavapai Woodland Meadows # 1 (amended) Wonder Valley Wineglass Lake Estates Gila Yavapai Wildwood Maricopa Whitney Ranch Estates Yavapai Yavapai Gila Yavapai Yavapai Gila Coconino Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Wild Turkey Townhouses # 2 Whispering Canyon Westward Western Manor Western Hills # 2 Western Hills Walnut Glen Vista Ridge Manor Vista Montana Vista Grande Ranch Villas on Elm Villages Estates Village Park Verde West Acres # 2 Yavapai Yavapai Verde Valley Business Park Verde Village # 6 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai County Verde Santa Fe Verde Ranchettes Verde Park Verde Outpost Verde Monterey Verde Cliffs Subdivision Name 10 North 10 North 10 North 10 North 11 North 11 North 18 North 17 North 10 North 16 North 6 North 16 North 17 North 11 North 17 North 17 North 12 North 17 North 17 North 15 North 15 North 16 North 16 North 14 North 15 North 14 North 15 North 15 North 13 North 14 North 15 North 14 North Township 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 10 East 3 West 5 East 10 East 5 East 9 East 3 West 5 East 10 East 5 East 5 East 8 East 6 East 5 East 3 East 3 East 5 East 6 East 4 East 3 East 4 East 4 East 4 East 5 East 5 East 3 East 5 East Range Location 4, 5 4 4, 5 4, 5 33 11 13 27 5 13 7 33, 34 2, 11 33, 34 11 2, 11 29 18 12 3 2 13 18 14 10, 11 15 6 17 9, 16 31 11 31 Section 24 84 91 102 396 8 117 1 99 82 20 400 25 26 63 79 29 8 60 48 110 25 25 16 19 23 103 17 59 28 14 208 No. of Lots 22-300033 22-400580 22-300488 22-401483 22-401469 22-300170 22-401142 22-300257 22-401354 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate ADWR File ADWR Adequacy Determination No.3 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A1, A2 A2, C A1 A1, A2 A1, A2 C C D Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination4 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 04/12/88 06/20/84 11/09/82 01/06/81 05/31/95 08/22/75 10/15/93 08/10/89 07/20/83 12/26/78 08/19/97 03/07/02 03/25/80 12/27/74 06/12/79 08/15/77 12/12/74 09/20/82 04/08/81 07/22/98 12/01/04 12/03/04 09/10/80 06/09/75 09/06/96 01/12/04 02/21/97 02/04/85 01/26/82 03/12/80 10/01/84 07/21/04 Date of Determination Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Town of Payson Co-op water system Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Payson Big Park Water Company ICR Water Users Association Whitney Ranch Estates Property Owners' Arizona Water Company United Utilities Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company E & R Water Company Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Cottonwood Water Works, Inc. Cottonwood Water Works Arizona Water Company Big Park Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Cordes Lakes Water Company Camp Verde Water System Verde Santa Fe Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Camp Verde Water System Camp Verde Water System, Inc. Cordes Lakes Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 M = Figure 5.5-11; I = Inset; A = Figure 5.5-11A 3 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 4 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 Table 5.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Verde River Basin (cont'd) 1 321 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 322 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT 324 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Verde River Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division.* _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division.* Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005.* _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005.* _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005.* _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005.* _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005.* _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005.* _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10 ppb: Data file, received August 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. _____, 2001, TMDL report: Peck’s Lake. _____, 2001, Verde River TMDL for Turbidity. _____, 2002, TMDL report: Stoneman Lake. _____, 1999, TMDL report: Munds Creek - headwaters to Oak Creek. _____, 1987, TMDL report: Oak Creek - headwaters to Verde River. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us.* Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 325 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedances in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. * _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Blasch, K., Hoffman, J., Bryson, J., Flint, A., and Graser, L. 2006, Hydrologic investigations of the upper and middle Verde watersheds: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 20055198.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2003, Status of Water Quality in Arizona – 2004: ADEQ draft 326 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F 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-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ.* _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ* O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Parker, J., Steinkampf, W. and Flynn, M., 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5294.* 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.* S Southwest Groundwater Consultants Inc., 2005, Big Chino ranch hydrology study.* Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 327 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 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, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005.* Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* Wirt, L., DeWitt, E., Langenheim, V. eds., 2005, Geologic framework of aquifer units and groundwater flowpaths, Verde River headwaters, north central Arizona: USGS Open –file report 2004-1411.* 328 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Alam, J., 1997, Irrigation in the Verde Valley: A report on the irrigation diversion improvement project: Verde Natural Resource Conservation District, 96 pp. Amentt, M.A., 2002, Hydrogeology and evapotranspiration of the herbaceous understory at a high-elevation riparian community, Hart Prairie, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 170 pp. Amentt, M., Springer, A.E., and DeWald, L., 2000, Restoration of perched aquifer system through manipulation of transpiration at the watershed scale: Geol. Soc. Abstracts with Programs: v. 32, p. A-141. Andersen, 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. Anning, D.W., 2004, Effects of natural and human factors on stream water quality in central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Supplement Jan.-Feb. Anning, D.W., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. Anning, D.W., 2003, Evaluation of low flow data from three streamflow gaging stations on the Upper Verde River, Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Anning, D., 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Arizona Department of Health Services, 1981, Arizona Water Quality Control Council Unique Waters Policy: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, April 1981. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 329 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2000, Verde River watershed study, 473 pp. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1996, Water supplies in the Payson, Pine Strawberry area: Information packet from ADWR, April 1996, 2 pp. Arizona Rivers Coalition, 1991, Arizona rivers, life blood of the desert – a citizen’s proposal for the protection of rivers in Arizona: March Arizona State Parks, 1991, Verde River Corridor Project Final Report and Plan of Action. Arizona Water Company, 2007, System Water Plan: Pinewood Water System, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Arizona Water Company, 2007, System Water Plan: Sedona Water System and Valley Vista Water System, submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Armour, C.L., Duff, D.A., & Elmor, W., 1991, The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems: Fisheries, vol.16, no. 1. Averitt, E. M., 1990, Verde River corridor - Clarkdale, an ecological inventory and analysis: Department of Planning, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University, April 1990. Averitt, E. M., 1991, Verde River corridor environmental planning recommendations: Department of Planning, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University, Spring 1992. Baker, M.B., 1999, History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands: USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Report GTR-29. Baldys, S., 1990, Trend analysis of selected water-quality constituents in the Verde River basin, central Arizona: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4128. Baldys, S., and Hjalmarson, H.W. 1994, Effects of controlled burning of chaparral on stream flow and sediment characteristics, east fork Sycamore Creek, central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 93-4102, 33 pp. Barnett, L.O., and Hawkins, R.H., 2002, Reconnaissance watershed analysis on the upper and middle Verde watershed: School of Renewable Resources, University of Arizona, 116 pp. Big Park Water Company (Sedona, AZ), 2007, Water Supply Plan: Big Park Water Company and Little Park Water Company, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Black Canyon City Water Improvement District, 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the 330 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Arizona Department of Water Resources. Black and Vetch, 2006, Town of Payson Blue Ridge Reservoir Water Supply Pipeline and Treatment Plant. Black, C. Ajami, H., Guertin, P., Levick, L and Uhlman, K., 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan: Verde Watershed, available at www.ArizonaNEMO.org Bouchard and Associates, 1994, Fossil Creek hydrology and travertine geomorphology: Arizona Public Service Report. Breninger, J.O., 2002, Perceptions of water supply in the Pine Strawberry area: Pine – Strawberry Water Improvement District, August 2002, 10 p. Brooks, P, 2004, Recent findings on snow/vegetation impacts on runoff: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. BRW Inc., 1990, Camp Verde land use and transportation study: Final report, March 15. Bryson, J., 2004, Determination of groundwater flow paths by the use of geochemical Tracers - upper and middle Verde River watersheds, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Byrkit, J. W., 1978, A log of the Verde: The taming of an Arizona river: Journal of Arizona History, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 31-54. Camp Verde Water System, Inc. 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Carpenter, T.L., 2001, The origin of isotopically anomalous waters of the Mogollon Rim region of Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 107 pp. Clifton, C., 1989, Effects of vegetation and land use on channel morphology: In Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management, An Educational Workshop, Bureau of Land Management publication. City of Cottonwood, 2006, Drought and Water Shortage Preparedness Plan, Chapter 13.16 Cottonwood Municipal Code. City of Cottonwood, 2003, Cottonwood General Plan: Water Resources Element, Adopted December 16, 2003. City of Sedona, 2002, Sedona Community Plan: Water Resources Element, Adopted December Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 331 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 10, 2002 Cook, E.A., et al., 1991, Verde River corridor - Environmental planning recommendations: Department of Planning, Arizona State University, Spring, 1991. Cordy, G.E., Gellenbeck, D.J., Gebler, J.B., Anning, D.W., Coes, A.L., Edmonds, R.J. Rees, J.A., and Sanger, H.W., 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Corkhill, F., 2000, Report on the drilling of an exploratory borehole near Strawberry, Arizona: ADWR Hydrology section investigation for the Northern Gila County Water Plan Alliance, 33 p. 145. Darr, M., J., 1989, Hydrogeology of Oak Creek, Verde Valley Arizona: Northern University of Arizona, M. S. thesis. Dava and Associates, Inc., 2003, Yavapai County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Dent, C.L., 1999, The effects of ecosystem configuration on nutrient dynamics in a Sonoran Desert stream ecosystem: Arizona State University, Ph. D. dissertation, 267 pp. Deslauriers, E.C., 1977, Geophysics and hydrology of the lower Verde River valley, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 61 p. Enzel, Y., Ely, L.L., House, P.K., Baker, V.R., and Webb, R.H., 1993, Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Flora, S., and Springer, A., 2003, Variability of discharge for selected springs in the Verde River watershed, central Arizona: Implications for regional hydrogeology: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Flora, S., and Springer, A., 2003, Summary table of physical parameters of middle Verde watershed springs: Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, 1 pp. Flora, S. P., and Springer, A. E., 2003, Implications for regional hydrogeology of an Arizona rural watershed based on spring discharge variability and recharge response: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35. Flora, S.P. and Springer A.E. 2002. Hydrogeological characterization of springs in the Verde River watershed, central Arizona: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, p. 25. Garrett, L.G., and Petersen, R., 1996, Green Valley Park Groundwater Recharge Project: 332 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrologic Society Symposium, September 1996, p.107. Gavin, A.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and numerical simulation of a spring-dominated high-elevation riparian community, Hart Prairie, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 177 pp. Gavin, A.J., and Springer, A.E., 1997, Conservation of a rare riparian community through hydrological restoration: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, p. 178. Gavin, A.J., Springer, A.E., DeWald, L., Silbert, S., Smith, E., 1996, Restoration of the volcanic hydrogeology of a critical high-elevation riparian community in Arizona: Geological Society of America, 28th annual meeting. Denver, CO, United States, Oct. 2831, 1996, Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America. 28; 7, p. 347-348. Gebler, 2000, Organochloride compounds in streambed sediments and in biological tissue from streams and their relation to land use, central Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 00-4041, 21 pp. Gellenbeck, D.J., and Anning, D.W., 2001, Occurrence and distribution of pesticides and volatile organic compounds in groundwater and surface water in central Arizona basins, 1996-1998, and their relation to land use: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4144, 107 pp. Geraghty, and Miller Inc, 1992, Water resources plan, town of Camp Verde, phase I- current management, legal framework and short and long term strategies: consultant report for town of Camp Verde, 68 pp . Goodwin, P.G., Olade, M., and Ruddiman, W., 1996, Characterization and interim remediation of tetrachloroethene plume in the Payson Granite aquifer:in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, p.115. Governor’s Riparian Habitat Task Force, 1990, Streams and riparian resources: Final report and recommendations. Graybill, D.A., 1989, The reconstruction of prehistoric Salt River stream flow: in The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Environment and Subsistence: Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No.162. Hanrahan, C., 1997, Modeling the Beaver Creek research watershed, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J., and Flynn M.E., 2002, Generalized hydrology and groundwater Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 333 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin, and parts of Verde and Salt River basin, Arizona and New Mexico: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4026, 47 pp. Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Jones, C., 2003, Public policy, cows, riparian areas, drought, sustainability and the Tonto National Forest: in Sustainability Issues and Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona . Kaczmarek, M., 2003, Investigation of groundwater availability for the Pine-Strawberry Water Improvement District: Morrison Maierle Inc. Keadle, D.A., Brown, C.A., Eichberg, S., Musielak, W.D., Whitmer, T., Rall, K.L., 1999, Verde River watershed study: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Kelly, S., Springer, A., and Vanderbilt, M., 1999, Recharge mechanisms for the CoconinoSchnebly Hill aquifer in the Lake Mary area, Coconino County, Northern Arizona: 12th Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 9-10, 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Knauth, P., and Greebie, M., 1997, Stable isotope investigation of groundwater-surface water interactions in the Verde River headwaters area: Arizona Department of Water Resources Report Konieczki, A.D., and Leake, S.A., 1997, Hydrogeology and water chemistry of Montezuma well in Montezuma Castle National Monument and surrounding area, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4156. Langenheim, V.E., DeWitt, E., and Wirt, L., 2006, Geophysical framework based on analysis of aeromagnetic and gravity data, Upper and Middle Verde River watershed, Yavapai County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5278, 25 p. Leon, E., 2004, Numerical groundwater flow model of the Verde River headquarters area, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Lopez, S.M., and Springer, A.E., 2001, Upper Verde Valley riparian area historical analysis: Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, 18 pp. 334 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Lopez, S.M., and Springer, A.E., 2001, Assessment of human influence on riparian change in the Verde Valley, Arizona: Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, 43 pp. Maguire, Rita, 2005, An Analysis of the Water Budgets of Buckeye, Payson and Prescott Valley, Think AZ. Mclaughlin, C., 2003, Evaporation as a nutrient retention mechanism in Sycamore Creek: Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 56 pp. McGavock, E., 2003 Big Chino Aquifer: Knowns, unknowns and conflicting interpretations: Errol L Montgomery & Assoc., Tri-City Water Forum, 2003, 4 pp. McGavock, E., 2002, Water in the Verde River watershed: in Water Transfers, Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. McGavock, E., 1996, Overview of groundwater conditions in the Verde Valley, Arizona: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p. 65. Manera, P.A., 1994, Geohydrologic evaluation of the Portal IV subdivision, Pine, Gila County, Arizona: Austin Myers Development Co., March 1994, 22 pp. Melis, T.S., 1990, Evaluation of Flood Hydrology on Twelve Drainage Basins in the Central Highlands Region of Arizona: An Integrated Approach: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 135 pp. Mondry, Z., 2002, Drought, storms, and stream flow and temperature observations from the Coconino and Prescott National Forests: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Moore, D., 1989, Opportunities for riparian ecosystem preservation in the Verde River Basin, Arizona: in Headwaters’ Hydrology: American Water Resources Association’s Symposium, June 1989, Missoula, MT. Navarro, L.F., Springer, A.E., Maslansky, S.P., 2000, Modeling sustainable yield in a semi-arid, shallow groundwater basin supporting riparian vegetation and perennial springs: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 32 p. 141. Navarro, L.F., 2002, Characterization and ground-water flow modeling of the Mint Wash/ Williamson Valley area, Yavapai County: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 158 pp. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 335 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Navarro, L.F., Springer, A.E., and Maslansky, S.P., 1999, Characterizing the impacts of the conversion of a semi-arid ground water basin from rural to suburban development: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 31, p. 351. Nemecek, E.A., 2003, Sustainability of Arizona’s few remaining perennial streams: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Northern Arizona University, 2001, Proceedings, Verde watershed symposium-state of the watershed in 2001:Verde Watershed Research and Education Program, Center for Sustainable Environments. Ostenaa, D.A., Schimschal, U.S., King, C.E., Wright, J.W., Furgerson, R.B., Harrel, H.C., and Throner, R.H., 1993, Big Chino Valley Groundwater Study: Bureau of Reclamation, Denver office, Geologic Framework Investigations, 31 pp. Qureshi, T. and Baker, L.A., 1994, Sources and implications of arsenic in the Salt and Verde river watersheds: in Approaching the Millennium- Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 67. Oureshi, M.T.A., 1995, Sources of arsenic in the Verde River and the Salt River watersheds, Arizona: Arizona State University, M.S. thesis, 116 pp. Pearthree, P.A. 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Verde River: AZGS Open-File Report 9613, 26 pp. Pearthree, P.A., 1993, Geologic and geomorphic setting of the Verde River from Sullivan Lake to Horseshoe Reservoir: AZGS Open – File Report 93-4, 25 pp. Pedler, W. H., and Kennard, M. 1992, Hydro-physical logging: an advance wellbore technology for hydrologic and containment characterization of aquifers: in Arizona Water 2000: Proceedings from the 5th annual Commission on the Arizona Environment and Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1992, , p. 259-265. Discusses Payson Pierce, H.A., 2001, Structural controls on groundwater conditions and estimated aquifer properties near Bill Williams Mountain, Williams Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 01- 4058. Pierce, H.A., 1996, Groundwater availability in the vicinity of Payson, Arizona-transition zone between the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, p.103. 336 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Pine Water Company, Inc., 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Ploughe, M., and Conway, C.M., 2002, Finding water in the cracks, Payson, Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Raney, W., 1989, Verde Valley, a geological history: Plateau Vol. 60, No. 3. Reiboldt, A., Schlinger, C., and Springer, A., 2002, Wastewater treatment plant effluent discharges in northern Arizona: Perennial flow as a successor to ephemeral flow in a fractured and faulted setting: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 pp. Rogers, S.B., 1999, Geochemistry and Natural Attenuation of Acid Mine Drainage at the Iron King Mine, Cottonwood, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 121 p. Rusinek, W., 1986, Battle for the Verde River: Water, power and politics in Arizona, 1890-1934: Arizona Historical Society Symposium, May 1987, Douglas, Arizona. Sayers, R.C., 1994, Potential impact of stream flow diversion on riparian vegetation: Fossil Creek, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M. .S. thesis. Schlinger, C., 2003, Sediment transport evaluation for dam removal scenarios, Fossil Springs Diversion Dam, Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Schwab, K.J., 1995, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Big Chino sub-basin of the Verde River Basin, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, Arizona Department of Water Resources HMS No. 28 - 000243 Sommerfield, M.R., Athey, P.V., and Mueller, B.C., 1980, Impact of recreation on the water quality of the East Verde River: in Water Quality Monitoring and Management: Proceedings from the Arizona Water Resources Association Symposium, October 1980, Tucson, Arizona, p. 51-69. Springer, A.E., Bills, D., 1998, Exploration for and ecological importance of shallow and deep ground-water around San Francisco Mountain: in Duebendorfer, E.M., ed., Geologic excursions in northern and central Arizona, p. 27-33. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 337 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Steiner, F., et al, 1990, Verde River Corridor-Clarkdale: Arizona State University, Department of Planning, December 1990. Steiner, F., et.al, 1991, Draft environmental impact statement, Central Arizona Project, Verde River water transfers, Yavapai County, Arizona: Arizona State University, Department of Planning. Sullivan, M.E., 1993, Functions and values of the Verde River riparian ecosystem and an assessment of adverse impacts to these resources: Supporting document for the initiation of the Verde River advance identification: USEPA, Region 9, March, 364 pp. Thornburg, T. and Tabor, P., 1991, Verde River corridor project, final report and plan of action: Arizona State Parks, June 1991. Town of Camp Verde, 2005, General Plan: Water Resources Element, Ratified by Voters March 8, 2005. Town of Payson Water Department, 2006, System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Town of Payson Water Department, 2006, Town of Payson Water Resources Management 2005 Status Report. Town of Payson Water Department, 2005, Town of Payson Water Resources Management 2005 Status Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2003, Water Use Projections Verde Valley Arizona. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Appraisal level study of Water Delivery System Analyses: North Central Arizona Regional Water Supply Project. United States Congress, 1990, The Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of1990: 161st Congress, 2nd session, Senate committee on Indian Affairs, Report no. 101-479. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1982, Verde River: Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement: USFS, Southwestern Region, September 1982. U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Aquifer framework and groundwater flow paths in the Big and Little Chino basin: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-078. U.S. Geological Survey, 1991, Basin characteristics and stream flow statistics in Arizona as of 1989: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4041. 338 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, Advance identification of functions and values of the Verde River, Arizona: Final Study Plan Verde Watershed Association and the USDA, 1996, Summary report, Verde Cooperative River Basin Study, Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai counties, Arizona, 34 pp. Verde Watershed Symposium, 2001, State of the Watershed in 2001: Proceedings, Cliff Castle Lodge and Conference Center, Camp Verde, Arizona. Whitmore, W., Cook, E. A., and Steiner, F., 1991, Verde River visual assessment: Verde River Corridor Study, Tapico to Beasley Flat: Arizona State University, Department of Planning, draft report, May 1991. Weiztman, M., 2002, Geology and hydrology of the Payson, Strawberry, Diamond Ridge areas, Gila and Coconino counties, central Arizona: AZGS Bulletin CR-02-B, 17 pp. Wilkinson, R.W., 2000, Water resources of Bellemont Park, Coconino County, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 263 pp. Wirt, L., 2004, Hydrogeologic Review of the Drake Cement Project, Yavapai County Arizona: USGS Open File Report 2004-1439. Wirt, L., and Hjalmarson, H.W., 2000, Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 99-0378, 47 pp. Wirt, L., and Hjalmarson, H.W., 1999, Geologic controls on groundwater movement, upper Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Wirt, L., 1992, The use of stable isotopes and water chemistry to determine movement of water in the upper Verde River basin, Yavapai County, Arizona: in Protecting Riparian Systems-Meeting the Challenges of Urban Needs: Abstracts from the 6th annual meeting of the Arizona Riparian Council, April 1992, Cottonwood Arizona, p. 16-17. Woodhouse, B.G, and Flynn, M.E., 2002, Investigation of the geology and hydrology of the upper and middle Verde River watershed of central Arizona: A project of the Rural Arizona Initiative, USGS Fact Sheet 059-02. Woodhouse, B.G., Parker, J.T.C., Bills, D.J., and Flynn, M.E., 2000, USGS investigation of rural Arizona watersheds: Coconino Plateau, upper and middle Verde River, and Fossil Creek- East Verde River -Tonto Creek: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p. 97. Section 5.5 DRAFT Verde River Basin 339 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Index to Section 5.0 Overview of the Central Highlands Planning Area 1 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7-10 13, 14, 15-16 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Instream Flow National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Unique and Other Managed Waters Population 30 Water Supply Central Arizona Project Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 36 37-38 38, 40 41, 42 42 43, 45 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 45, 46 48, 50 51-52, 53 55 Water Resource Issues Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups and Studies Issue Surveys 340 20, 21, 23 23 23 28 28, 30 55 56, 57 59, 60 Section 5.5 Verde River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAWS ACC ADMMR ADWR ADEQ AGFD ALERT ALRIS AMA AWPF AZMET BIA BLM CAP CERCLA CLIMAS CPC DES DOD EPA ESA FCD GIS gpcd gpm GWSI HIA HSR HUC ITCA LUST maf M&I NEMO NHD NOAA NPS NRCD NRCS NWIS NWS Pan ET PCE Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Game and Fish Department Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Bureau of Land Management Central Arizona Project Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Climate Assessment for the Southwest Center for Plant Conservation Arizona Department of Economic Security United States Department of Defense Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Flood Control District Geographic Information System Gallons per capita per day Gallons per minute Groundwater Site Inventory System Historically Irrigated Acres Hydrographic Survey Report Hydrologic Unit Code Intertribal Council of Arizona Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Municipal and Industrial Non-point Education for Municipal Officials National Hydrography Dataset National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water Information System National Weather Service Pan Evaportranspiration tetrachloroethene DRAFT 341 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 PDO SNOTEL SRP TDS USBOR USDA USFS USFWS USGS VRP WAC WIFA WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP Pacific Decadal Oscillation SNOpack TELemetry Salt River Project Total Dissolved Solids United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Voluntary Remediation Program Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant 342 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix A DRAFT 343 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Central Highlands Planning Area through 20051 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Agua Fria 96-0007 Ash Creek Riparian Protection Project Stream Restoration Agua Fria 03-117 Lynx Creek Restoration at Sediment Trap #2 Stream Restoration Salt River 95-021 Lofer Cienega Restoration Project Fencing & Habitat Protection Salt River 95-022 Gooseberry Watershed Restoration Project Stream Restoration Salt River 99-083 Cherry Creek Enhancement Demonstration Project Stream Restoration Salt River 05-128 Canyon Creek Riparian Restoration Project, Reach 4-5 Fencing & Habitat Protection Tonto Creek 95-019 Quantifying Anti-Erosion Traits of Streambank Graminoids Tonto Creek 99-097 Dakini Valley Riparian Project Upper Hassayampa 99-088 Wickenburg High School Stream Habitat Creation Verde River 95-001 Stable Isotope Assessment of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction – Application to the Verde River Headwaters Research Verde River 95-003 Sycamore Creek Riparian Management Area Fencing Verde River 95-004 Road Reclamation to Improve Riparian Habitat Along the Hassayampa and Verde Rivers Revegetation Verde River 95-006 Critical Riparian Habitat Restoration Along a Perennial Reach of a Verde River Tributary Stream Restoration Verde River 95-017 Restoration of Fossil Creek Riparian Ecosystem Research Verde River 97-030 Walnut Creek Center for Education and Research – Biological Inventory Research Project Title Project Category Research Fencing & Revegetation Constructed Wetland Restoration 1 A map with all Arizona Water Protection Fund grant locations can be found in Volume 1, Appendix C 344 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA (con’t.) Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Verde River 98-047 Upper Verde Adaptive Management Unit Verde River 98-050 Watershed Restoration of a High Elevation Riparian Community Project Title Project Category Fencing Watershed & Stream Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Verde River 98-055 Horseshoe Allotment: Verde Riparian Project II Verde River 98-057 Upper Verde Valley Riparian Area Historical Analysis Research Verde River 98-058 Effects of Removal of Livestock Grazing on Riparian Vegetation and Channel Conditions of Selected Reaches of the Upper Verde River Research Verde River 98-059 Verde River Headwaters Riparian Restoration Demonstration Project Verde River 99-078 Aquifer Framework and Ground-Water Flow Paths in Big and Little Chino Basins Research Verde River 99-091 Effects of Livestock Use Levels on Riparian Trees on the Verde River Research Verde River 03-118 Verde River Riparian Area Partnership Project Verde River 04-120 Verde River Headwaters 3-D Hydrogological Model Framework and Visualization Research Verde River 05-133 Verde Wild and Scenic River Fence Exclosure Fencing DRAFT Channel Restoration Exotic Species Control 345 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 5 Appendix B 346 DRAFT Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council Watershed Partnership Coconino County Sedona Tusayan ADEQ NRCD ADWR State Land NAU USBoR USGS USFS BLM Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon NRA NRCS Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Navajo Nation Havasupai Tribe TNC Grand Canyon Trust Doney Park Water Co. Flagstaff Williams Page Primary Participants x x x x x x x x x x x 4 categories of potential water augmentation projects have been identified along with their associated costs. Groundwater study and conceptual model completed Phase I Water Demand Study for Coconino Plateau Growth Impacts Study Western Navajo Pipeline Study Development of study for importing C aquifer groundwater east of Flagstaff has been completed. Flagstaff, Hopi and Navajo are exploring cooperative opportunities for developing C aquifer groundwater. Flagstaff purchased Red Gap Ranch for possible future development of groundwater. Hopi HSR initiated. Conducting Water Appraisal Study to identify current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. Developing numeric model Projects & Accomplishments x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Excessive growth throughout entire plateau region from Williams to Winslow and from Munds Park to Page 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 resulting from reserved groundwater rights of Indians Uncertainty of Indian water right settlements (LCR & Colorado River) Proposed San Juan Paiute reservation west of Flagstaff Potential impacts on springs in Grand Canyon and also on supplies to Havasupai and Hualapai reservations Access to water development on public lands Limited groundwater data for entire region Minor Arsenic issues in Woody Mtn. Well field (9-14 ppb) Unregulated lot splits Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Extremely high cost of water augmentation projects Issues APPENDIX B Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Central Highlands Planning Area (2005) MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands 347 Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) Watershed Partnership Prescott Flagstaff Cottonwood Sedona Chino Valley Prescott Valley Williams Clarkdale Payson Primary Participants x x Projected water demands through 2040 have been identified A request for 70,000 acre-feet of CAP reallocation water has been submitted to ADWR for consideration. Projects & Accomplishments x x x x x x x MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands (continued) 348 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 Issues Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership Northern Gila County Partnership(Mogollon Highlands) Watershed Partnership Pine Gila County USBoR Black Canyon City Yavapai County USFS USGS Mayer Cordes Lakes Spring Valley BLM/Agua Fria Nat. Monument USFS ADWR ADEQ Cooperative Extension State Lands Local Citizens SRP ADWR Tonto Apache Nation Brooks Utilities Rim Trails WID Pine Strawberry WID Local citizens and special interests Payson Strawberry Primary Participants CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA 349 x x x x x x x x x Watershed Reconnaissance studies Active recharge site identification study. Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model completed. Conducting Water Resources Management Appraisal Study to identify current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. Strategic Plan completed Feasibility study and cost estimates for Blue Ridge Reservoir pipeline Obtained approximately 3,500 ac-ft of surface water from Blue Ridge Reservoir. Development of a numeric groundwater model initiated. Projects & Accomplishments x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Limited water resources to meet current demands. Environmental, supply, treatment, transportation and financing costs associated with augmentation from Blue Ridge reservoir Numerous private water companies, Arizona Corporation Commission and Domestic Water Improvement District conflicts Interbasin transfer conflicts resulting from Payson’s ability to pump from two different basins Seasonal demand issues; peaking problems County encouragement of growth in Pine and Strawberry Unresolved Indian water rights settlements Environmental issues pertaining to Fossil Creek Limited groundwater data for entire region Costs associated with hauling water Access to water development on public lands Infrastructure needs for private water companies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Proposed growth in the Mayer, Bensch Ranch and Spring Valley areas Limited groundwater supplies Little or no groundwater data Groundwater and surface water supplies are very drought sensitive Potential water quality attributed to local septic systems and discharges from Prescott Valley Poorly constructed and maintained infrastructure in some areas Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Issues Upper and Middle Verde Watershed Groups (Yavapai County Water Advisory Council) (Verde Watershed Authority) Watershed Partnership Prescott Valley Paulden Sedona Clarkdale Jerome Yavapai Prescott USFS USBoR USGS USF&W ADWR ADEQ SRP NRCD Cooperative Extension NAU Yavapai Apache 24 local special interest groups TNC Prescott Chino Valley Yavapai County Camp Verde Cottonwood Primary Participants x x x x x x x x x x x CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA (continued) 350 Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model Study of geologic framework of aquifer units and groundwater flow paths of Verde River headwaters using aeromagnetic and gravity data. Verde River Watershed Study. Water educational forum conducted for WAC and public with ultimate goal of developing water management plan for Verde watershed area. Big Chino Subbasin Historical and Current Water Uses and Water Use Projections study. Riparian demand study of Middle Verde Numeric groundwater model project initiated. Prescott AMA groundwater model. Study of groundwater flow paths for upper and middle Verde using stable isotopes. Prescott purchased JWK Ranch in Big Chino to import 8,717 ac-ft annually to Prescott and Prescott Valley Groundwater monitoring program in Big Chino initiated. Projects & Accomplishments x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Potential impacts resulting from the transfer of 8,717 ac-ft from Big Chino to Prescott and Prescott Valley 25,000 to 30,000 approved lots still outstanding in Prescott AMA Multiple developments currently under construction in the tri-city region of the AMA ESA issues associated with the Verde Proposed critical habitat area in Verde Valley for Willow Fly Catcher New Arsenic standards Pending Subflow decision Political and philosophical differences between AMA and Verde Valley Countywide growth and unregulated lot splits Indian water rights Yavapai Ranch Land exchange and Title II implementation (Verde Basin Partnership) Thousands of private domestic wells already permitted and more being requested daily Potential water quality impacts on groundwater system from the thousands of septic systems Potential development rumors of the CVCF Ranch in the Big Chino Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Issues