ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 6 WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Arizona Department of Water Resources DRAFT September 2007 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 6 - WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA CONTENTS PREFACE SECTION 6.0 Overview of the Western Plateau Planning Area 6.0.1 Geography 6.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 6.0.3 Climate 6.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas and Wilderness Areas Managed Waters 6.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 6.0.6 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 6.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand  Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 6.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Western Plateau Planning Area Studies, Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups Issue Surveys 6.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES SECTION 6.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.1 Geography of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.2 Land Ownership in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.3 Climate of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 1 1 3 5 5 11 15 18 18 22 22 22 24 28 29 30 33 33 35 36 37 37 39 41 45 46 47 47 49 50 51 55 61 62 64 67 70 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.7 Water Quality of the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Coconino Plateau Basin 6.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 6.0 SECTION 6.2 Water Resource Characteristics of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.1 Geography of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.2 Land Ownership in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.3 Climate of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.7 Water Quality of the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Grand Wash Basin 6.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Grand Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 6.0 SECTION 6.3 Water Resource Characteristics of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.1 Geography of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.2 Land Ownership in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.3 Climate of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.7 Water Quality of the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Kanab Plateau Basin 6.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 6.0 SECTION 6.4 Water Resource Characteristics of the Paria Basin 6.4.1 Geography of the Paria Basin 6.4.2 Land Ownership in the Paria Basin 6.4.3 Climate of the Paria Basin 6.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Paria Basin ii 77 82 88 91 96 101 112 113 114 116 118 121 126 129 134 137 140 142 147 149 150 152 154 157 163 167 172 175 179 182 191 193 194 196 198 201 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Paria Basin 6.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Paria Basin 6.4.7 Water Quality of the Paria Basin 6.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Paria Basin 6.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 6.0 SECTION 6.5 Water Resource Characteristics of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.1 Geography of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.2 Land Ownership in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.3 Climate of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.7 Water Quality of the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 6.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Shivwits Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 6.0 SECTION 6.6 Water Resource Characteristics of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.1 Geography of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.2 Land Ownership in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.3 Climate of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.7 Water Quality of the Virgin River Basin 6.6.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Virgin River Basin 6.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 6.0 206 209 214 217 221 224 230 231 232 234 236 239 244 247 251 254 257 259 264 265 266 268 270 273 279 282 287 290 294 297 304 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 305 APPENDIX A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Western Plateau  Planning Area through 2005  308 APPENDIX B Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Western Plateau Planning Area (2005) 310 DRAFT iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 FIGURES Figure 6.0-1 Figure 6.0-2 Figure 6.0-3 Figure 6.0-4 Figure 6.0-5 Figure 6.0-6 Figure 6.0-7 Figure 6.0-8 Figure 6.0-9 Figure 6.0-10 Figure 6.0-11 Figure 6.0-12 Figure 6.0-13 Figure 6.0-14 Figure 6.1-1 Figure 6.1-2 Figure 6.1-3 Figure 6.1-4 Figure 6.1-5 Figure 6.1-6 Figure 6.1-7 Figure 6.1-8 Figure 6.1-9 Figure 6.1-10 Figure 6.1-11 Figure 6.1-12 Figure 6.2-1 Figure 6.2-2 Figure 6.2-3 Figure 6.2-4 Figure 6.2-5 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Western Plateau Planning Area 4 Generalized stratigraphic section of the Coconino Plateau, Arizona 6 Geologic cross section of the Shivwits Plateau, Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau Basins  9 Western Plateau Planning Area USGS Watersheds 12 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 16 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Western Plateau Planning Area from 1930-2002  17 Winter precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988  18 Western Plateau Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 20 Western Plateau Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 23 Water supplies utilized in the Western Plateau Planning Area 2001-2003 33 Western Plateau Planning Area Contamination Sites 38 Western Plateau Planning Area Average Cultural  Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2003 39 Average total basin water demand per year in acre-feet, 2001-2003 40 Coconino Plateau Basin Geographic Features 63 Coconino Plateau Basin Land Ownership 66 Coconino Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 69 Annual flows at Little Colorado River near Cameron, water years 1948-2006 71 Coconino Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions 76 Coconino Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 81 Coconino Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions 84 Coconino Plateau Hydrographs 85 Coconino Plateau Basin Well Yields 87 Coconino Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions 90 Coconino Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demands 95 Coconino Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations 100 Grand Wash Basin Geographic Features 115 Grand Wash Basin Land Ownership 117 Grand Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 120 Grand Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions 125 Grand Wash Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams iv DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.2-6 Figure 6.2-7 Figure 6.2-8 Figure 6.2-9 Figure 6.3-1 Figure 6.3-2 Figure 6.3-3 Figure 6.3-4 Figure 6.3-5 Figure 6.3-6 Figure 6.3-7 Figure 6.3-8 Figure 6.3-9 Figure 6.3-10 Figure 6.3-11 Figure 6.3-12 Figure 6.4-1 Figure 6.4-2 Figure 6.4-3 Figure 6.4-4 Figure 6.4-5 Figure 6.4-6 Figure 6.4-7 Figure 6.4-8 Figure 6.4-9 Figure 6.4-10 Figure 6.4-11 Figure 6.5-1 Figure 6.5-2 Figure 6.5-3 Figure 6.5-4 Figure 6.5-5 Figure 6.5-6 Figure 6.5-7 Figure 6.5-8 Figure 6.6-1 Figure 6.6-2 Figure 6.6-3 and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Grand Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions Grand Wash Basin Hydrographs Grand Wash Basin Well Yields Grand Wash Basin Water Quality Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Geographic Features Kanab Plateau Basin Land Ownership Kanab Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows Colorado River near Grand Canyon 1923-2005 Kanab Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Kanab Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Hydrographs Kanab Plateau Basin Well Yields Kanab Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions Kanab Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand Kanab Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations Paria Basin Geographic Features Paria Basin Land Ownership Paria Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Paria Basin Surface Water Conditions Paria Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Paria Basin Groundwater Conditions Paria Basin Hydrographs Paria Basin Well Yields Paria Basin Water Quality Paria Basin Culture Water Demand Paria Basin Adequacy Determinations Shivwits Plateau Basin Geographic Features Shivwits Plateau Basin Land Ownership Shivwits Plateau Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Shivwits Plateau Basin Surface Water Conditions Shivwits Plateau Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Shivwits Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions Shivwits Plateau Basin Hydrograph Shivwits Plateau Basin Water Quality Conditions Virgin River Basin Geographic Features Virgin River Basin Land Ownership Virgin River Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation DRAFT 128 131 132 133 136 151 153 156 158 162 166 169 170 171 174 178 181 195 197 200 205 208 211 212 213 216 220 223 233 235 238 243 246 249 250 253 267 269 272 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.6-4 Figure 6.6-5 Figure 6.6-6 Figure 6.6-7 Figure 6.6-8 Figure 6.6-9 Figure 6.6-10 Figure 6.6-11 Figure 6.6-12 Annual Flows Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona, water years 1930-2006 Virgin River Basin Surface Water Conditions Virgin River Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Virgin River Basin Groundwater Conditions Virgin River Basin Hydrographs Virgin River Basin Well Yields Virgin River Basin Water Quality Conditions Virgin River Basin Cultural Water Demand Virgin River Basin Adequacy Determinations vi 274 278 281 284 285 286 289 293 296 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 TABLES Table 6.0-1 Table 6.0-2 Table 6.0-3 Table 6.0-4 Table 6.0-5 Table 6.0-6 Table 6.0-7 Table 6.0-8 Table 6.0-9 Table 6.0-10 Table 6.0-11 Table 6.0-12 Table 6.0-13 Table 6.0-14 Table 6.1-1 Table 6.1-2 Table 6.1-3 Table 6.1-4 Table 6.1-5 Table 6.1-6 Table 6.1-7 Table 6.1-8 Table 6.1-9 Table 6.1-10 Table 6.2-1 Table 6.2-2 Table 6.2-3 Table 6.2-4 Table 6.2-5 Table 6.2-6 Table 6.2-7 Table 6.2-8 Table 6.2-9 Instream flow claims in the Western Plateau Planning Area Listed threatened and endangered species in the Western Plateau Planning Area Wilderness areas in the Western Plateau Planning Area 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Western Plateau Planning Area Communities in the Western Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 500 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Plateau Planning Area as of 2005 Active contamination sites in the Western Plateau Planning Area Average annual municipal water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area (2001-2003) in acre-feet Water providers serving 100 acre-feet or more water per year in 2003 in the Western Plateau Planning Area Agricultural demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area  Industrial demand in selected years in the Western Plateau Planning Area Golf course demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area Groundwater level trends reported by 2004 survey respondents by groundwater basin Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Western Plateau Planning Area  Climate Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Surfacewater Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Coconino Plateau Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Coconino Plateau Basin Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin Groundwater Conditions in the Coconino Plateau Basin Water Quality in the Coconino Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Coconino Plateau Basin Effluent Generation in the Coconino Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin Climate Data for the Grand Wash Basin Streamflow Data for the Grand Wash Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Grand Wash Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Grand Wash Basin Springs in the Grand Wash Basin Groundwater Data in the Grand Wash Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Grand Wash Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Grand Wash Basin Effluent Generation in the Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 22 25 26 30 31 32 37 41 42 45 46 46 51 51 68 72 73 74 78 83 89 92 93 97 119 122 123 124 127 130 135 138 139 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-10 Table 6.3-1 Table 6.3-2 Table 6.3-3 Table 6.3-4 Table 6.3-5 Table 6.3-6 Table 6.3-7 Table 6.3-8 Table 6.3-9 Table 6.3-10 Table 6.4-1 Table 6.4-2 Table 6.4-3 Table 6.4-4 Table 6.4-5 Table 6.4-6 Table 6.4-7 Table 6.4-8 Table 6.4-9 Table 6.4-10 Table 6.5-1 Table 6.5-2 Table 6.5-3 Table 6.5-4 Table 6.5-5 Table 6.5-6 Table 6.5-7 Table 6.5-8 Table 6.5-9 Table 6.5-10 Table 6.6-1 Table 6.6-2 Table 6.6-3 Table 6.6-4 Table 6.6-5 Table 6.6-6 Table 6.6-7 Table 6.6-8 Table 6.6-9 Table 6.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Grand Wash Basin Climate Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Streamflow Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Kanab Plateau Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Kanab Plateau Basin Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin Groundwater Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Water Quality Data in the Kanab Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Kanab Plateau Basin Effluent Generation in the Kanab Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations n the Kanab Plateau Basin Climate Data for the Paria Basin Streamflow Data for the Paria Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Paria Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Paria Basin Springs in the Paria Basin Groundwater Data for the Paria Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Paria Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Paria Basin Effluent Generation in the Paria Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin Climate Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Streamflow Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Groundwater Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Effluent Generation in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Climate Data for the Virgin River Basin Streamflow Data for the Virgin River Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Virgin River Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Virgin River Basin Springs in the Virgin River Basin Groundwater Conditions in the Virgin River Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Virgin River Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Virgin River Basin Effluent Generation in the Virgin River Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin viii 141 155 159 160 161 164 168 173 176 177 180 199 202 203 204 207 210 215 218 219 222 237 240 241 242 245 248 252 255 256 258 271 275 276 277 280 283 288 291 292 295 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 6 – WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Preface Volume 6, the Western Plateau Planning Area, is the sixth in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 6.0-1). 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. Also included in Volume 1 is general background information for the state, a description of data sources and methods of analysis for the tables and maps presented in the Atlas, and appendices that provide information on water law, management and programs, and Indian water rights claims and settlements. There are additional, more detailed data available to those presented in this volume. They may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department). 6.0 Overview of the Western Plateau Planning Area The Western Plateau Planning Area is composed of six groundwater basins located in northwestern Arizona. About half of the planning area lies in the part of Arizona north of the Colorado River referred to as the “Arizona Strip”. The planning area contains large tracts of federally protected lands including almost all of Grand Canyon National Park. Elevation ranges from over 12,000 feet on the San Francisco Peaks to about 1,200 feet at Lake Mead. Parts of Coconino County (46% of the county) and Mohave County (38% of the county) are contained within the planning area. There are four Indian reservations including the Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab-Paiute and Navajo Indian Reservations located within the planning area. The planning area is relatively sparsely populated. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 17,200 with basin population ranges of just 12 in the Shivwits Plateau Basin to over 9,100 in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Colorado City is the largest community with about 3,334 residents in 2000. Other population centers include Williams, Fredonia, Grand Canyon Village and the Beaver Dam/Littlefield area. An average of over 8,800 acre-feet of water is used annually in the planning area for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand). Of this total demand, approximately 5,100 acre-feet is from well pumpage, 3,500 acre-feet is from surface water diversions and almost 300 acre-feet is effluent reuse. The agricultural demand sector is the largest with approximately 4,500 acre-feet of demand a year – 51% of the total demand. The municipal sector demand is about 3,400 acre-feet a year and industrial demand is about 900 acre-feet a year. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 KAIBABPAIUTE 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 Springerville TONTO-APACHE LA PAZ COUNTY CA P COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES Payson 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 Florence AK-CHIN Gila Bend Clifton 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 6.0-1 Arizona Planning Areas c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.0.1 Geography The Western Plateau Planning Area encompasses about 13,700 square miles and includes the Coconino Plateau, Grand Wash, Kanab Plateau, Paria, Shivwits Plateau and Virgin River basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 6.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the State of Utah, on the east by the Eastern Plateau Planning Area, on the south by the Central Highlands and Upper Colorado River planning areas and on the west by the State of Nevada (Figure 6.0-1). The planning area includes parts of three watersheds, which are discussed in Section 6.0.2. The Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation (188 square miles) and the Havasupai Indian Reservation (294 square miles) are located entirely within the planning area. In addition, the western portion of the Navajo Indian Reservation (1,177 square miles) and the northeastern portion of the Hualapai Indian Reservation (741 square miles) are located within the planning area (Figure 6.0-1). Almost all of the planning area is within the Plateau Uplands physiographic province characterized by horizontally stratified sedimentary rocks that have eroded into numerous incised canyons and high desert plateaus (See Volume 1, Figure 1-2). The extreme western part of the planning area, encompassing the western portions of the Virgin River and Grand Wash basins, extends into the Basin and Range Lowlands physiographic province, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys. The basin with the largest elevational range in the planning area occurs in the Coconino Plateau Basin with ranges from 1,400 feet where the Colorado River exits the Coconino Plateau Basin in the Grand Canyon to over 12,000 feet in the San Francisco Peaks at the southeastern edge of the basin. A unique geographic feature of the planning area is the Grand Canyon, primarily incised by the Colorado River and its tributaries over a 5-6 million year period. The average depth of the canyon is 4,000 feet over its entire 277 miles, and 6,000 feet at its deepest point, with an average width of 10 miles. The geologic record at the Grand Canyon is unique in the variety of rocks and their clear exposure in the canyon walls. Nearly half of the earth’s 4.6-billion-year history is displayed in the Canyon (NPS, 2005). Most rocks in the Grand Canyon date from the Paleozoic Era (550-250 million years ago) but there are scattered remnants of Precambrian Vishnu Schist as old as 2 billion years old found in the inner gorge. With the exception of Kaibab limestone, younger Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks (250 million years old to the present) are largely missing at Grand Canyon, having been either never deposited or worn away. The different rock layers in the canyon respond differently to erosion leading to the Canyon’s distinctive shape (NPS, 2005). Lava flows ranging in age from 1,000 to 1 million years old are found in the western part of the Canyon. The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River form a significant physical barrier between the Arizona Strip and the rest of the planning area and the state. Highway 89A at Navajo Bridge and Highway 89 at Glen Canyon Dam are the only highways that span the Colorado River and link the Arizona Strip to the rest of the state. By contrast, there are a number of road links between the Arizona Strip and Utah. As a result, the Arizona Strip has strong historic, cultural and economic ties to Utah. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 4 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 South and east of the Colorado River, the Coconino Plateau marks the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau which covers 130,000 square miles across southeastern Utah, northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and western Colorado. The Coconino Plateau stretches east toward the Colorado River surface water divide and south to the Mogollon Rim, which is less well defined to the northwest. The Coconino Plateau groundwater basin boundary is considered to be north of the Rim. Most of the Coconino Plateau is above 5,000 feet in elevation and consists of low hills, mesas, broad valleys and lava flows in the southern portion. The Plateau is defined by large elevational changes along its margins including the south rim of the Grand Canyon (Bills, et al. in press). Other significant geographic features are numerous high plateaus, steep cliffs, deeply incised canyons and few surface water features. In the extreme northwest corner of the planning area, the Virgin River cuts through the Beaver Dam Mountains creating the spectacular Virgin River Gorge. West of the gorge, the topography abruptly changes to a broad alluvial valley with numerous washes that drain the upland and mountain areas. The Virgin Mountains, south of the river, form the southwest edge of the Colorado Plateau. 6.0.2 Hydrology1 Groundwater Hydrology The Western Plateau Planning Area is generally characterized by relatively flat-lying alternating sequences of sandstones, limestones and shales. Faults and monoclines control groundwater movement along the regional gradient. The westernmost basins contain basin-fill sediments composed of silt, sand and gravel. Relatively few hydrologic studies have been conducted in the planning area and general hydrologic characteristics are described below. Coconino Plateau Basin The Redwall-Muav (R-aquifer or limestone aquifer) is the primary water-bearing unit of the Coconino Plateau Basin. The Kaibab, Coconino and Supai formations comprise the regional Coconino Aquifer (C-aquifer) that overlies the R-aquifer. The Moenkopi and Chinle formations, volcanic rocks and unconsolidated sediments overlie the C- and R-aquifers and provide locally important sources of water. A stratigraphic section of the Coconino Plateau that illustrates the relationship between these various units is shown on Figure 6.0-3. Perched aquifer zones in association with volcanic rocks occur primarily in the central and southern part of the basin and in consolidated sedimentary rocks west and northwest of the volcanic fields. These perched aquifers are dependent on recharge from precipitation and runoff and may be undependable water supplies. An exception is the “Inner Basin Aquifer” of the San Francisco Peaks where the water-bearing zone is contained in glacial outwash and volcanic rocks and is used by the City of Flagstaff as a water supply (USBOR, 2006). The R-aquifer underlies the entire Coconino Plateau Basin at a depth of greater than 3,000 feet below land surface in most areas (Bills, et al., in press). Relatively few wells have been completed 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 6.0 Overview DRAFT 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-3 Generalized stratigraphic section of the Coconino Plateau, Arizona (Bills and Flynn, 2002) 6 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 in the R-aquifer in the basin due to its extreme depth. In the northeast part of the basin the R-aquifer is in partial hydraulic connection with the C-aquifer through faults and other fractures. Shale units within the R-aquifer impede downward flow. Lateral movement of groundwater occurs through fracture zones and solution cavities and is generally northward toward the Grand Canyon where springs discharge along the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers and Havasu Creek. Regional structures in the basin, including the Mesa Butte Fault and the Cataract syncline, direct flow to major discharge areas on the lower Little Colorado River and in Cataract Canyon (USBOR, 2006). Water quality is generally good in the basin but poor locally where there is leakage from overlying units or other factors. Water levels in wells are typically quite deep in the basin and yields in the R-aquifer are relatively low depending on the occurrence of fractures, faults and solution channels. Tusayan’s water supply plan reports water level depths of 2,347 and 2,425 feet in two system wells with well yields of 65-80 gallons per minute (gpm) (HydroResources, 2007). While water has been found in perched aquifers near Williams at depths less than 950 feet deep, yields from these more shallow wells are generally less than five gallons per minute. At Williams, three of the four water system wells are drilled to depths exceeding 3,500 feet below land surface. Water level depths in these wells are between 2,740 and 2,875 feet. Water in the deepest of the Williams wells is of poor quality with elevated metals concentrations, including arsenic, and high corrosivity (City of Williams, 2007). Widely-spaced faults and monoclines affect the movement of groundwater in the region. Local flow characteristics are poorly understood because of the complex geologic structure and because aquifer depths limit exploratory drilling and testing. The varying chemistry of springs and residence time for groundwater discharge suggests that water discharging from the R-aquifer is from many different recharge areas and follows different flow paths (USBOR, 2006). The C-aquifer, consisting of hydraulically connected sandstones, limestones and shales occurs primarily in the far eastern and southeastern portion of the basin. Although perched zones occur, it is largely drained of water in the rest of the basin, coincident with the northeast-southwest trending Mesa Butte Fault (Bills et al., in press). Infiltration of precipitation through volcanic rocks and the Kaibab Formation is the primary source of recharge to the C-aquifer. Groundwater movement through the water-bearing units of the C-aquifer is likely through faults and fractures (USBOR, 2006). In the northeastern portion of the Coconino Plateau basin, groundwater moves relatively rapidly from the C-aquifer to the R-aquifer through solution channels and fractures. Within the R-aquifer, groundwater moves along the northern part of the Mesa Butte Fault and other faults and discharges at Blue Springs on the Little Colorado River (Montgomery, et al., 2000). The Blue Springs area is considered the primary groundwater drain from the Little Colorado River Basin, although the primary source of the water is not well known (Hart, et al., 2002). Water quality in the upper and middle parts of this aquifer is good, but generally degrades due to salts at increasing depths. Grand Wash Basin The Grand Wash Basin, in the western part of the planning area, is located along the boundary of the Plateau Uplands and Basin and Range provinces. Groundwater is found in recent stream alluvium, basin fill, and sedimentary rocks of the Muddy Creek Formation and underlying Cottonwood Wash Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Formation. The Muddy Creek Formation is composed of siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates with interbedded basaltic lavas in the northern part of the basin. The Cottonwood Wash Formation is composed of sandstones and siltstones. Only 12 wells are registered in the basin and two of these have depths that range from about 20 feet to over 500 feet (see Figure 6.2-6). In the southwestern corner of the basin, surface water from Lake Mead has saturated adjacent rocks and deposits in quantities greater than pre-lake conditions. This saturated zone is estimated to extend less than half a mile inland from the lake. Recharge from precipitation or local surface runoff is small. There is a relatively well-defined basin fill aquifer interbedded with basalt flows between Grand Wash and Gyp Wash (located west of the Grand Wash Cliffs, see Figure 6.2-1). This aquifer is underlain by the Muddy Creek Formation which is a confining unit in the area, preventing the downward movement of water. This area was identified as favorable for groundwater development in a geohydrologic reconnaissance study of Lake Mead National Recreation Area conducted by the USGS (Bales and Lacy, 1992). Water quality is generally good in the basin although total dissolved solids concentrations equal or exceeds drinking water standards at several springs. Kanab Plateau Basin The Kanab Plateau Basin is characterized by high plateaus, plains and incised canyons. The basin contains a flat-lying to gently sloping sequence of alternating sandstones, limestones and shales. Groundwater is found in several aquifers composed of these formations. Water bearing units in the vicinity of Pipe Spring National Monument include alluvium, Navajo Sandstone, the Kayenta and Moenave Formations, and the Shinarump Formation (Truini et al., 2004). The two basin hydrographs available for the study period (See Figure 6.3-7) are wells completed in the Kayenta Formation at Moccasin, with a recent water level of 87 feet below land surface, and one in “sedimentary rock” south of Fredonia and north of Kanab Creek with a recent water level of 611 feet. These aquifers are generally isolated and not hydraulically connected. Within the aquifers, faults act as conduits for vertical and lateral groundwater movement. Major faults include the Toroweap and Sevier faults. Groundwater also occurs in recent stream alluvium, including the Cane Beds area west of Moccasin. The median well yield from ten large wells in the basin was 70 gpm. Elevated levels of total dissolved solids and lead have been measured at some sites although water quality is generally good for most uses. Paria Basin The geologic structure of the Paria Basin is typical of the Colorado Plateau with a gently-sloping sequence of limestone, sandstone and shale formations. The principal aquifer in this basin is the N-aquifer composed of Navajo Sandstone and the Kayenta and Moenave Formations. Groundwater development is relatively small with only 12 wells registered in the basin. Well yields vary from 30 to 1,400 gallons per minute, with the largest yields coming from wells completed in sedimentary rocks. Water levels in wells are relatively deep, ranging from about 480 feet to 1,500 feet deep. In some places in the Paria Basin, precipitation collects in sand deposits in limited quantities and may be recovered from shallow wells (Bush and Lane, 1980). Groundwater movement is generally from south to north with discharge at springs in the Paria River Canyon. However, some groundwater moves south toward the Vermilion Cliffs, which form the southern basin boundary. Arsenic concentrations above the drinking water standard have been measured at a number of wells in the Wahweap area (see Table 6.3-7). 8 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Agway Valley Grassy Mountain PLATEA U VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X2 Parashant Canyon Temple Butte Formation Shivwits Plateau Basin Shivwits Plateau SHIVWITS Toroweap Formation Bright Angel Shale Hurricane Fault Kanab Plateau Basin Tapeats Sandstone Uinkaret Plateau Coconino Plateau Basin Recent Stream Alluvium Coconino Plateau 9 SEA LEVEL 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 METERS 2,500 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Coconino Sandstone Figure 6.0-4 shows a cross section of the geology in the Shivwits Plateau, Kanab Plateau and the western portion of the Coconino Plateau basins. The cross section begins in the west-central portion of the Shivwits Plateau Basin (T33N, R12W) and proceeds at a southeastern diagonal across the Shivwits Plateau and Kanab Plateau basins, ending just across the Colorado River in the Aubrey Cliffs in the Coconino Plateau Basin (T32N, R7W). The cross section is a general indication of the location of the water bearing units and their depth and thickness in this particular area. The diagram also shows the impact of the Hurricane Fault on the depth and occurrence of the geologic units. Dellenbaugh Fault Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 1524 meters = 5000 feet SEA LEVEL 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 METERS 2,500 Whitmore Canyon Figure 6.0-4 Geologic cross section of the Shivwits Plateau, Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau Basins (modified from Billingsley and Welmeyer, 2003) Colorado River Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Shivwits Plateau Basin Most of the Shivwits Plateau Basin covers a high plateau with elevations of 4,000 to 6,000 feet. The basin contains an alternating sequence of limestones, sandstones and shales with alluvial sands and gravels along larger washes and canyons. There are only 18 registered wells in the basin. Recent water levels in wells range from 10 feet to over 960 feet (see Figure 6.5-7). Stream alluvium is the major aquifer in the basin with well yields ranging from 2 to 35 gallons per minute. A number of dry wells have reportedly been drilled into the sedimentary rocks but some encountered water in faults and fractures. Groundwater recharge occurs from infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt. Water from springs and seeps tends to be of slightly better quality than well water, although arsenic at levels that equal or exceed drinking water standards has been detected in one spring. Virgin River Basin Located in the northwestern corner of Arizona, the Virgin River Basin extends into Utah and Nevada. It contains a broad alluvial valley in the western half of the basin and the relatively high elevation Beaver Dam and Virgin Mountains along its southern and eastern boundary. Principal aquifers are basin fill in the Virgin River Valley and Beaver Dam Wash, and the Muddy Creek Formation. The eastern, mountainous part of the basin is composed of sedimentary and igneous rocks with little groundwater development. The basin fill aquifers are composed of a younger floodplain unit and an older underlying unit of semi-consolidated silts, sands, gravels and boulders. In the Virgin River Valley, the basin fill aquifer contains floodplain and terrace alluvium southwest of Littlefield and includes the alluvialfan deposits of the Virgin Mountains. Groundwater is unconfined and flows toward the southwest. In Beaver Dam Wash, the basin fill aquifer is largely isolated from other water bearing units in the basin and is unconfined. Groundwater flow is toward the Virgin River Valley. The Muddy Creek Formation is a series of siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates that is utilized as a water supply in the western part of the basin and by the City of Mesquite, Nevada adjacent to the basin along Interstate 15 (Black and Rascona, 1991). It is several thousand feet thick in places and forms the land surface over much of the basin north of the Virgin River. The Muddy Creek Formation is underlain by saturated Paleozoic carbonate rocks. South of the Virgin River, alluvial deposits from the Virgin Mountains overlie the Muddy Creek Formation. Fault and fracture zones in this formation control groundwater movement and may have groundwater development potential (Dixon and Katzer, 2002). Between Littlefield and the Virgin River Mountains and south of the Virgin River, a shallow, basin fill aquifer overlies a limestone formation known locally as the “Littlefield Formation”. Few wells are completed in the shallow aquifer but a number of springs emanate from groundwater flowing over or through the Littlefield formation (Black and Rascona, 1991). Well yields range widely in the basin, as shown on Table 6.6-6, from a reported 10 gpm in the Virgin River basin fill aquifer to over 5,000 gpm during a pump test in the Beaver Dam Wash basin fill aquifer (Black and Rascona, 1991). The median yield from 53 large diameter wells completed in the basin is 650 gpm. Water quality ranges from very good to poor due to high concentrations 10 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 of arsenic, chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids. Salt concentrations in groundwater increase downstream in the floodplain area along the Virgin River. 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 Little Colorado River; the Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead; and the Upper Colorado River, Lake Powell Area (Figure 6.0-5). (A very small portion of the Verde River Watershed is located east of Williams and is not discussed in this volume). The Little Colorado River The Little Colorado River Watershed extends over a large portion of northeastern Arizona, including most of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Within the Western Plateau Planning Area, this watershed covers the eastern portion of the Coconino Plateau Basin from The Gap and Desert View south toward Flagstaff. The Little Colorado River is the major drainage in the entire Coconino Plateau Basin, flowing east to west to join the Colorado River. The only perennial flow in this portion of the planning area is a 13-mile stretch of the Little Colorado River below Blue Springs, which has a discharge of over 101,000 gpm. Blue Springs is the only large spring in the area. An active gage on the Little Colorado River at Cameron has been in operation since 1947. Flow is highest in the winter at this gage, with a median annual flow of over 138,000 acre-feet. Maximum annual flow at this gage was over 603,000 acre-feet in 1993 (see Figures 6.1-4 and 6.1-5 and Table 6.1-2). Upper Colorado River, Lake Powell Area The boundary of the Upper Colorado River watershed in Arizona coincides generally with the Paria Basin boundary. It includes the Paria River Canyon and a small portion of the Kanab Plateau Basin. The Paria River originates in south-central Utah, draining an area of about 1,410 square miles before discharging to the Colorado River north of Lees Ferry. The Paria River and the Colorado River are the only perennial streams in this portion of the planning area. The single streamflow gage in the area is located on the Paria River at Lees Ferry. With 79 years of record, the average annual flow is over 20,000 acre-feet and maximum flow was almost 48,000 acrefeet in 1980. There are two nearby gages on the west side of the Colorado River in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. The gage below Glen Canyon Dam was installed after dam construction and reflects regulatory/managed releases from Lake Powell. Prior to construction of the dam in 1963, the average flow was about 12.9 million acre feet (maf) per year. The average annual flow at the gage below Glen Canyon Dam is now 8.4 maf. Downstream, flow records at the gage on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry show 20.3 million acre-feet. This gage has been in operation since 1921. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 12 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 In May 1983, a heavy snowpack in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River combined with sudden warming and rainfall caused severe flooding along the Colorado River, forcing use of the Glen Canyon Dam spillways for the first time since dam completion in 1964. The total discharge peaked at 92,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the reservoir level topped out on July 15th, six feet below the crest of the dam (Hannon, 2003). By contrast, releases from Glen Canyon Dam in July 2007 were 13,100 cfs on average and, due to prolonged drought, the reservoir was at 53% capacity. Since 1999 inflow to Lake Powell has been below average in every year except one (USBOR, 2007a). Lake Powell provides water storage to meet flow obligations at Lees Ferry under the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact. (See Volume 1, Appendix A) The Compact apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basin states the beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 maf of water to each basin annually, measured at the Colorado River at the Compact Point near Lees Ferry. The reservoir has a total storage capacity of 27 maf, generally equivalent to the average annual flow of the Colorado River over a two-year period, making it the second largest reservoir in the country. The Glen Canyon Power Plant consists of eight generating units and provides most of the electrical energy generated by the Colorado River Storage Project. Total generating capacity is 1,296,000 kilowatts (USBOR, 2005). There are no major springs (>10gpm) in this portion of the planning area although springs reportedly have supported domestic and stock watering uses (Bush and Lane, 1980). The Paria River has been identified as an impaired reach for its entire 29-mile length in Arizona, due to a high concentration of suspended sediments (ADEQ, 2002). Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead Most of the Western Plateau Planning Area is included in the Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead watershed, which extends into the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. The watershed is drained by the Colorado River, which flows southwest from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. There are a number of perennial streams in the Kanab Plateau Basin that flow to the Colorado River including Kanab, Bright Angel, Nankoweap, Shinumo and Tapeats Creeks. None of these streams have flow gages. In the Coconino Plateau Basin, major perennial tributaries are Havasu and Diamond Creeks. The only other perennial streams in the planning area west of Diamond Creek are the Virgin River, which flows through the planning area from its headwaters in Utah to Lake Mead in Nevada and an approximately one-mile reach of a tributary, Beaver Dam Wash. The Virgin River drains an area of about 6,100 square miles. Prior to construction of Hoover Dam, it flowed to the Colorado River. Now, its lower 20-30 mile former reach has been inundated by the Overton Arm of Lake Mead. Colorado River Flow in the Colorado River downstream from Lake Powell is controlled by releases from Glen Canyon Dam, which has significantly impacted flow volumes and historic seasonal variations in flow as mentioned in the previous watershed discussion. There are five streamflow gages along this reach of the Colorado River in addition to three gages in the Lake Powell area. The three Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 easternmost gages are located on the north side of the river above the Little Colorado River and near Bright Angel Creek (see Figure 6.3-5). The two westernmost gages are located on the south side of the river near Havasu Creek and Diamond Creek (see Figure 6.1-5). The easternmost gages have varying periods of record and show average annual flows of 8.5 to 11.2 maf a year. A gage with 79 years of record, the only pre-dam gage, has the highest mean flow and a maximum flow of 20.5 maf in 1984. The only currently operating downstream gage has a similar flow regime to the gage above the Little Colorado River. The preceding statistics and the relative uniformity of seasonal flows reflect the controlled releases of water from Glen Canyon Dam (See Tables 6.1-2 and 6.3-2). Prior to construction of the Dam, flow in the Colorado was highly unpredictable with wide year-to-year variability and spring flooding. Operation of the dam for electrical generation requires large water releases with daily and weekly fluctuations and releases during historically low flow seasons. Provisions of the Record of Decision (1996) for the Glen Canyon Dam Final EIS and the Glen Canyon Dam Operating Criteria (1997) set restrictions on daily and hourly flows. The maximum flow may not exceed 25,000 cfs except for beach/habitat-building flows, habitat maintenance flows, or when necessary during above average hydrologic conditions. Minimum flows are restricted to 5,000 to 8,000 cfs depending on the time of day. Further, daily fluctuation limits are 5,000 cfs to 8,000 cfs depending on monthly release volumes. (USBORb, 2007) A tree-ring-based reconstruction of over 500 years of Colorado River streamflow found as many as eight droughts similar in severity to the 2000-2004 drought period. The reconstruction also suggests that the last 100-year period was wetter than the average for the last five centuries, and that average annual flows regularly vary from one decade to the next by more than one maf. The most severe sustained drought (based on the lowest 20-year average) in the Upper Colorado River basin apparently occurred in the last part of the 16th century. (Meko et al, 2007) Virgin River and Beaver Dam Wash Average annual flow in the Virgin River above the Narrows gage is about 92,600 acre-feet. Downstream, the stream gage near Littlefield, with a much longer period of record (72 years), shows an average annual flow of 174,502 acre-feet and a maximum flow of 506,912 acre-feet in 1983. Below the Narrows gage, flow increases downstream to the Littlefield gage and beyond due to springs and groundwater inflow (Dixon and Katzer, 2002). (See Figure 6.6-5 for gage locations) Older reports indicate that flow in the Virgin River disappeared into the riverbed before the river entered Arizona from Utah and reappeared about five miles above Littlefield due to spring discharge. More recently, the AGFD report that the entire reach within Arizona is perennial (see Figure 6.6-6). Post 1990 gage data and seepage measurements suggest that historical seepage losses to the groundwater system in Utah are no longer occurring. Based on seepage measurements along the Virgin River in Arizona, it appears that between 20 to 30 cfs of Virgin River flow is lost upstream of the Narrows gage in Arizona through infiltration (Cole and Katzer, 2000). Studies estimate that 20 to 50 cfs (14,500 to 36,200 acre-feet per year) reenters the river via springs and groundwater discharge between the Narrows and the Littlefield gage. These springs are collectively referred to as the Littlefield Springs, consisting of eight springs over a distance of seven miles between the 14 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 two gages (Trudeau, et al., 1983). The springs are difficult to measure because they are located in the Virgin River channel and can only be observed during low flow when the sediment load is near zero (Dixon and Katzer, 2002). Springs support perennial flow in Beaver Dam Wash, which discharges to the Virgin River above the Littlefield gage. These springs collectively discharge over 1,100 gpm. A number of major springs issue from the Redwall and Muav Limestones and to a lesser extent, the Tapeats Sandstone, in the vicinity of the Colorado River in the Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau basins. The largest are Havasu Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin with a discharge of about 28,500 gpm, and Tapeats Spring in the Kanab Plateau Basin with a discharge of about 18,700 gpm. Havasu Creek is perennial below Havasu Spring, located upstream of the village of Supai, and contains moderate levels of calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate from the springs along its course. Calcium carbonate precipitates out of the spring water, forming travertine deposits along the creek bottom/bed. Roaring Springs, located 3,000 feet below the North Rim, emanates from a cave in the Muav Limestone above the intersection of the Roaring Springs and Bright Angel faults. It has a discharge of almost 2,000 gpm and is the water supply for the North and South Rims of Grand Canyon National Park (USBOR, 2002). A group of major springs with discharge rates between 11 and 90 gpm are found in the vicinity of Moccasin and Kaibab in the north-central part of the Kanab Plateau Basin. Studies at Pipe Spring National Monument indicate that spring discharge is from a sandstone unit of the Kayenta Formation. Fine-grained sediments below the unit create a confining layer that restricts vertical water movement and forces groundwater to move along bedding planes and fractures in the Navajo Sandstone and the upper unit of the Kayenta Formation. In the monument, discharge at Pipe Spring declined between 1976 and 2003 but increased at Tunnel Spring for reasons that are unclear. The combined spring discharge declined about 0.5 gpm per year between 1986 and 2001 (Truini, et al., 2004). A handful of major springs are found in the other basins in the watershed. In the Grand Wash Basin, three major springs, (Tassi, Whiskey and an unnamed spring) discharge from the basin-fill aquifer where it overlies a confining unit, the Muddy Creek Formation (Bales and Lacy, 1992). This may be the case with other springs in the basin. The only major spring in the Shivwits Plateau Basin, with a measured discharge of 331 gpm is found at the mouth of Spring Canyon at the Colorado River. 6.0.3 Climate2 The average annual temperature of the Western Plateau Planning Area (57.9°F) is somewhat cooler than the statewide average (59.5°F). Average annual precipitation in the planning area is 12.1 inches, the same as the statewide average. Annual totals vary widely across the area, from 6-9 inches at low elevation (less than 5000 ft.) and rain shadow stations such as Wahweap, Fredonia, and Beaver Dam, to greater than 20 inches at Williams and Bright Angel Ranger Station in Grand Canyon National Park. On average, the Western Plateau Planning Area exhibits the bi-modal precipitation pattern characteristic of Arizona (see Figure 6.0-6); however, the northwestern part 2 Information in this section was provided by Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, September, 2007. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 of the planning area, near the borders of Nevada and Utah, exhibits a stronger late winter peak, whereas the eastern and southern part of the area shows a stronger summer peak. Figure 6.0-6 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 80 3.0 Precipitation Temperature 75 2.5 65 Precipitation (in.) 2.0 60 1.5 55 50 1.0 45 0.5 40 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 35 Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: Gregg Garfin, CLIMAS Frontal storm systems moving west-to-east, guided by the jet stream, deliver the area’s winter and spring precipitation. Summer monsoon thunderstorms arrive later in this part of the state than elsewhere, and August is clearly the peak month, on average, for summer precipitation. However, year-to-year summer precipitation variability is pronounced, with some years showing July peaks. The area shows a strong response to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, with El Niño winters registering wet conditions 52% of the time and dry conditions less than 30% of the time; La Niña winters are dry 54% of the time and wet only 21% of the time. 16 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Temperature (F) 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-7 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Western Plateau Planning Area from 1930-2002 22 62 20 60 18 59 16 Precipitation (in.) Temperature (F) 61 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 58 57 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 14 12 56 10 55 8 54 6 53 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 4 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Year Horizontal lines are average temperature (57.9 °F) and precipitation (12.1 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: Gregg Garfin, CLIMAS. Average annual temperatures in the Western Plateau Planning Area have been increasing since the 1930s, and especially rapidly since the mid-1970s (see Figure 6.0-7). The long-term trend is superimposed on decadal variability generated primarily by Pacific Ocean and atmosphere variations. Decadal variations are particularly obvious in the instrumental record of precipitation. Drought conditions are apparent for the decades of the 1940s-early 1970s and since the mid-1990s, whereas the 1930s and mid-1970s through the mid-1990s were relatively wet. Winter precipitation records dating to 1000 A.D., estimated from tree-ring reconstructions for Arizona climate divisions, show extended periods of above and below average precipitation in every century (Figure 6.0-8). A climate division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona has been divided into seven climate divisions. Notably dry periods in the Western Plateau Planning Area include the late 1500s, which feature the driest decade in this part of the state, and the late 1200s. The Western Plateau Planning Area was relatively wet during the late 1400s, early 1600s, and early 1900s. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-8 Winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988 2.0 Precipitation anomaly (inches) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Year 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: Gregg Garfin, CLIMAS. 6.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions reflect the geography, climate and cultural activities in an area and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development. Discussed in this section is vegetation, riparian protection through the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program, instream flow claims, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected from development as national parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness areas, and managed waters. Vegetation3 Information on ecoregions and biotic (vegetative) communities in the planning area are shown on Figure 6.0-9. Three of Arizona’s six ecoregions are included in the planning area: the Colorado Plateau Shrublands, which covers most of the area, the Mojave Desert in the western portion, and the Arizona Mountains Forests ecoregion in the eastern section. Biotic communities range from Mohave desertscrub at lower elevations to a small area of alpine tundra above 12,000 feet on the 3 Except as noted, information in this section is from AZGF, 2004. 18 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 San Francisco Peaks in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Much of the planning area is covered by Great Basin conifer woodland and plains grassland. Alpine tundra communities are found only at the highest elevations on the San Francisco Peaks, generally over 12,000 feet. Because of the relatively harsh climate, only specially-adapted species can survive. Plants are commonly small and ground-hugging and include mosses, lichens and herbs. An area of the Peaks has been closed to travel to protect an endemic groundsel (Senecio franciscanus), a threatened species. The Peaks are the southernmost climatic alpine area in the United States. Small areas of subalpine grassland are also found on the San Francisco Peaks and on the Kaibab Plateau at elevations above 8,500 feet that receive from 30 to 45 inches of annual rainfall (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). High elevation subalpine conifer forests are limited to relatively small isolated mountaintop stands on the Kaibab Plateau and the San Francisco Peaks area at elevations of 8,500 to almost 12,000 feet with annual precipitation from 30 to 40 inches a year. These forests consist of dense stands of fir, spruce and aspen trees and receive much of their annual precipitation as snow. Summer precipitation is also a substantial component of annual precipitation. Bristlecone pine stands occur at elevations around 11,000 feet on the San Francisco Peaks (Brown, 1982). Significant stands of aspen occur in places, especially in areas that have been burned. Natural fires are relatively uncommon in subalpine conifer forests with patchy crown fires occurring about every several hundred years, and surface fires occurring every 15 to 30 years (Graham and Sisk, 2002). Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean Montane conifer forests commonly occur between about 7,200 to 8,700 feet. Above 8,000 feet in areas that receive from 25 to 30 inches of annual rainfall, the forest contains a mix of conifers that may include Douglas-fir, white fir, limber pine, blue spruce, and white pine, with ponderosa pine joining the mix on warmer slopes. Aspen and Gambel oak are prominent in these forests following disturbances. Below 8,000 feet in areas that receive about 18 to 26 inches of annual precipitation, the mix of species gives way to almost pure stands of ponderosa pine, particularly on the Kaibab Plateau and at the south rim of the Grand Canyon. About half of the precipitation occurs during the growing season, which permits forests to exist on less than 25 inches of annual rainfall, making them some of the driest forests in North America (Brown, 1982). 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. While drought conditions improved in 2004 and 2005, by 2006, Ponderosa pine mortality due to Ips beetles increased, with 6,850 acres infested on the Kaibab National Forest. Other beetle species have also attacked trees on the Kaibab Plateau and on the San Francisco Peaks (USDA, 2006). Based on aerial surveys conducted in 2004 by the U.S. Forest Service, substantial bark beetle-caused ponderosa pine mortality occurred in a swath of forest stretching northeast from Williams and on forest lands south of the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. Great Basin Conifer (piñon-juniper) woodlands cover large areas below the ponderosa pine forest at elevations between about 5,000 and 7,500 feet that receive about 10 to 20 inches of annual precipitation. Extensive stands exist throughout the planning area as shown on Figure 6.0-9. Piñon Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 19 MOHAVE COUNTY SHIVWITS PLATEAU Great Basin Subalpine Conifer Forest Subalpine Grassland Alpine Tundra GRAND WASH VIRGIN RIVER 20 Biotic Communities Source: AGFD, 1993 Ecoregions Source: World Wildlife Fund, 2004 COUNTY Utah Nevada Groundwater Basin Mohave Desertscrub Plains Grassland Southwestern Interior Chaparral Great Basin Desertscrub Great Basin Conifer Woodland Rocky Mountain/Madrean Montane Confifer Forest NEVADA COCONINO PLATEAU COCONINO COUNTY KANAB PLATEAU UTAH Biotic Communities PARIA Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Chihuahuan Desert Arizona Mountains Forest Sierra Madre Occidental Pine-oak Forests Sonoran Desert Mojave Desert Colorado Plateau Shrublands Ecoregions ¨ Figure 6.0-9 Western Plateau Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 pine dominates at higher elevation while junipers are the dominant species at lower and drier areas that may include open grasslands. Bark beetle infestations have killed large areas of piñon pine southeast of Valle and smaller areas south of the South Rim in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Plains grasslands, primarily composed of mixed or short-grass communities, are widespread in the planning area at elevations above about 4,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches of annual precipitation. These areas are located primarily in the Coconino Plateau, Kanab Plateau and Shivwits Plateau basins. On the Arizona Strip, Great Plains grassland, which is drier and receives a larger percentage of annual rainfall in the winter and spring, transitions with plains grasslands (Brown, 1982). Native bunchgrasses have been largely replaced by Eurasian annual species such as cheatgrass due to grazing and fire-suppression practices (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). Interior chaparral occupies mid-elevation foothill, mountain slopes and canyons in the Virgin Mountains in the Virgin River and Grand Wash basins, and in several isolated locations in the southern part of the Shivwits Plateau Basin. It is found in areas between about 3,500 and 6,000 feet in elevation that receive 15 to 25 inches of annual precipitation (Brown, 1982). Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Typical shrubby species are mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and manzanita. Chaparral plants are well adapted to drought conditions. Great Basin Desertscrub occurs in northern Arizona mostly at elevations of 4,000 to 6,500 feet where an average of about 7 to 12 inches of rainfall occurs. This vegetative community is dominated by multi-branched, aromatic shrubs with evergreen leaves, primarily sagebrush, blackbrush and shadscale. Great Basin Desertscrub is found in all basins in the Western Plateau Planning Area except the Paria Basin. In addition to shrubs, vegetation consists primarily of grasses. Grazing has heavily impacted native grasses in this community, which have been replaced by exotic species including cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is highly flammable, and where it is a significant component of sagebrush stands, the incidence of fire is greatly increased (Brown, 1982). Mohave Desertscrub covers a transitional zone between the higher and cooler Great Basin desert and the lower, hotter Sonoran desert. It is found along the Colorado River and in the western part of the planning area at elevations below about 3,500 feet. While many of the same plants found in the other deserts occur here, some are found only in the Mohave Desert such as the Joshua tree. The Mohave Desert is rich in endemic ephemeral plants, most of which are winter annuals (Brown, 1982). There are reaches of riparian vegetation along the few watercourses in the planning area including Kanab Creek, the Paria River and the Colorado River. However, these areas are not well mapped. Tamarisk and strand communities exist along the Virgin River. Dixon and Katzer (2000) estimated that nearly 10,000 acre-feet of water is used by phreatophytes along the Virgin River from the Littlefield gage to the state line. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Eight restoration projects in the Western Plateau Planning Area have been funded by the AWPF through 2005. Five projects were funded in the Coconino Plateau Basin and primarily involve research. Three Kanab Plateau Basin projects funded research, exotic species control, revegetation and watershed enhancement. A list of projects and project types funded in the Western Plateau Planning Area through 2005 is found in Appendix A of this volume. A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Appendix C of Volume 1. Instream Flow Claims An instream flow water right is a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. Seven applications for instream flow claims were filed by the Bureau of Land Management in the Virgin River Basin. Six applications have been filed on reaches of the Virgin River and one has been filed on a reach of Beaver Dam Wash. All applications are currently pending. Applications are listed in Table 6.0-1 and shown on Figure 6.0-10. Table 6.0-1 Instream flow claims in the Western Plateau Planning Area Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 1 Beaver Dam Wash BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94843.0 Pending Pending 8/24/1989 2 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94819.0 Pending Pending 6/1/1989 3 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94865.0 Pending Pending 10/20/1989 4 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-96159.0 Pending Pending 12/23/1991 5 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-94866.0 Pending Pending 10/20/1989 6 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-96134.0 Pending Pending 10/30/1991 7 Virgin River BLM (Arizona Strip) 33-96133.0 Pending Pending 10/30/1991 ADWR 2005a Threatened and Endangered Species A number of listed threatened and endangered species may be present in the Western Plateau Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of May 2006 are shown in Table 6.0-2.4 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. 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.” 22 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 A unique example of endangered species management in the planning area is that of the California condor. Considered one of the most endangered birds in the world, condors were placed on the federal endangered species list in 1967 and in 1987, with only 22 individuals known to exist, a controversial decision was made to bring all remaining condors into captivity in order to conduct a captive breeding program with the goal of reintroducing the species to the wild. Beginning in 1996, six to ten birds have been released each year from the Vermilion Cliffs in the Paria Basin. There are now over 60 condors in Arizona. In Arizona, reintroduction of the condor was conducted under a special provision of the ESA that allows for the designation of a nonessential experimental population. Under this designation, endangered species protections are relaxed, providing greater flexibility for management of a reintroduction program (AZGF, 2006). National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas and Wilderness Areas The Western Plateau Planning Area has the greatest number of federally protected areas as parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness areas of any planning area. It contains almost all of Grand Canyon National Park, three national monuments and small parts of two national recreation areas. In total there are 2.68 million acres of protected federal lands in the planning area, accounting for 31% of the land area. The Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument make up most of the total with more than 2 million combined acres. Ten wilderness areas are entirely within the planning area as well as part of another. 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 6.0-3. Five wilderness areas are within the boundaries of national monuments. Grand Canyon National Park, a World Heritage Site, encompasses 1,218,375 acres. It was given Federal protection in 1893 as a Forest Reserve and later as a National Monument, and achieved National Park status in 1919. It receives almost five million visitors each year. Water for both the North and South Rims of the Park come from Roaring Springs, located 3,000 feet below the North Rim, and transported via pipeline to both rims (see Section 6.0.7) (USBOR, 2002). Park lands exist in every groundwater basin except the Virgin River and Paria basins, stretching from the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers west to Lake Mead (see landownership maps in the basin sections). The Grand Canyon is of great geologic significance, with a record of three of the four eras of geological time, a rich and diverse fossil record, a huge variety of geologic features and rock types, and numerous caves containing extensive geological, paleontological, archeological and biological resources. Incised by the Colorado River, the Canyon is considered one of the finest examples of arid-land erosion in the world, averaging 4,000 feet deep for its entire 277 miles (NPS , 2005). The Park contains a diversity of biotic communities ranging from Mohave Desertscrub to Subalpine Conifer Forest. It serves as an ecological refuge, with relatively undisturbed remnants of dwindling ecosystems, including desert riparian communities. It is home to numerous rare, endemic, and federally protected plant and animal species (NPS, 2007). 24 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Western Plateau Planning Area Common Name Threatened Brady Pincushion Cactus Bald Eagle Endangered X X Elevation/Habitat 3,400-5,200 ft/Gravelly alluvium with sparse vegetation on gently sloping benches and terraces Varies/Large trees or cliffs near water California Brown Pelican X Varies/Lakes and rivers California Condor X 2,000-6,500 ft/Steep terrain with rock outcroppings, cliffs and caves Desert Tortoise (Mohave Population) 1,000-4,000 ft./Sandy loam to rocky soils in valleys, bajadas and hills X Holmgren Milk-Vetch X 2,480-2,999 ft./Skirt edges of hill and plateau formations slightly above or at the edge of drainage areas Humpback Chub X 1,530-4,400 ft/Turbulent, high gradient, canyon-bound reaches of large rivers Jones' Cycladenia Kanab Amber Snail Mexican Spotted Owl X X X Sentry Milk-Vetch Siler Pincushion 3,200 ft./Marshes watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone cliffs or limestone 4,100-9,000 ft./Canyons and dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure X Razorback Sucker San Francisco Peaks Groundsel 4,000 to 6,800 ft/ Mixed desert shrub and scattered piñon-juniper communities X <6,000 ft./Riverine and lacustrine areas, not in fast moving water >10,900 ft./Alpine tundra X 7,000-7,960 ft/Uppermost layer of Kaibab limestone that is weathered in small, shallow pockets and networks of small cracks 2,800-5,800 ft/Low red or gray gypsiferous badlands X Southwestern Willow Flycatcher X <8,500 ft./cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams Virgin River Chub X 1,540-2,360 ft/Swift but not turbulent areas of the Virgin River Welsh's Milkweed 4,700-6,250 ft/Open, sparsely vegetated sand dunes or sagebrush, juniper, pine and oak communities X Woundfin X 1,900-10,000 ft./Swift parts of silty streams Yuma Clapper Rail X <4,500 ft./Fresh water and brackish marshes Source: USFWS 2006, USDOI 2007 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-3 Wilderness areas in the Western Plateau Planning Area Wilderness Area Acres Basin Description Rugged mountains, alluvial plains and several miles of the Virgin River Navajo sandstone cliffs, canyons and pinnacles, willow and cottonwoods in wetter canyons Beaver Dam Mountain 19,600 Virgin River Cottonwood Point 6,860 Kanab Plateau Grand Wash Cliffs* 37,030 Grand Wash Kachina Peaks 18,615 Coconino Plateau (part) Kanab Creek 68,340 Kanab Plateau Kendrick Mountain 6,510 Coconino Plateau Mt. Logan* 87,900 Grand Wash Mt. Trumbull* 7,880 Kanab Plateau Paiute* 87,900 Grand Wash, Virgin River Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs* 112,500 Kanab Plateau, Paria (part) Paria Canyon and Vermillion Cliffs, red rock amphitheaters, sandstone arches, towering walls and hanging gardens Saddle Mountain 40,610 Kanab Plateau Nankoweap rim, narrow drainage bottoms and steep scarp slopes. Marks transition zone between Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range provinces and contains many canyons Mt. Humphrey's and only arctic-alpine vegetation in the state Kanab Creek and a maze of water and wind carved fins, knobs and potholes Remnant of San Francisco Mountain volcanic field Basalt ledges, cinder cones and large eroded amphitheater Large basalt-capped mesa Virgin Mountains and canyons Source: BLM 2006, USFS 2007 *Wilderness areas are within the boundaries of a National Monument Construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam has significantly altered Colorado River flows and the sediment, wildlife and habitat along the river in Grand Canyon National Park. A number of studies and actions have been taken and are underway to manage releases from the dam to protect the Park’s resources and to mitigate the impact of dam operations. (See “Managed Waters” below). The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument was created by Presidential Proclamation in January 2000. At 1.05 million acres, it is described in the Proclamation as a geological treasure and as a “vast, biologically diverse, impressive landscape…” The physical remoteness of the monument has helped preserve important biological and archeological resources. The monument encompasses the lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau Basin, considered an important watershed for the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon, almost all of Grand Wash Basin and a small area north of Toroweap in the Kanab Plateau Basin (USDOI, 2007). The Monument is jointly administered by the National Park Service (NPS), (211,100 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), (808,727 acres). In November 2000, President Clinton also established the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument by proclamation. Encompassing 294,000 acres, the entire monument is within Arizona. Most of the Paria Plateau Basin and adjoining lands in the Kanab Plateau Basin are within the monument 26 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 boundaries. The monument was established to protect geologic features including the 2,500foot deep Paria Canyon, the Paria Plateau, the spectacular cross-bedded sandstones at Coyote Buttes and the 3,000-foot Vermilion Cliffs escarpment, the Arizona release site of the endangered California condor. In March 2007, the Arizona Strip Proposed Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was released. The Proposed Plan/FEIS serves multiple functions. It is a revised Resource Management Plan for the Arizona Strip Field Office, a new management plan for the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument and a new management plan for the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. It is also a Proposed General Management Plan/Final EIS for the NPS portion of the Grand CanyonParashant National Monument, since that monument is jointly administered by the BLM and NPS. The Proposed Plan/FEIS describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing over 3.3 million acres of lands. Major issues include management of access, management of areas having wilderness characteristics, protection of natural and cultural resources, management of livestock grazing, and recreation. There will be three final management plans that result from this effort with four records of decision signed by the BLM and NPS later in 2007 (BLM, 2007). Over 8,500 comments were received during the public scoping process conducted in preparation of the draft EIS. Most comments were related to concerns about vehicular access and wilderness and resource protection. Both monuments are withdrawn from mineral entry. Grazing is allowed with adjustments to meet management objectives and adjustments will be made to routes as necessary. Further evaluation of routes in the entire area will continue for several years (USDOI, 2007). Pipe Spring National Monument, established in 1923, is located in the Kanab Plateau Basin south of Kaibab and Moccasin. It is a cultural park occupied by several cultures over a period of about 2,000 years due to the occurrence of springs, which have supported farming and ranching activities. There are four springs within the monument boundaries: West Cabin, Main, Spring Room and Tunnel. Main Spring and Spring Room have man-made discharge points constructed by Mormon pioneers and are believed to represent the flow of the original natural spring known as Pipe Spring. Since 1976, NPS staff has measured spring discharge on a monthly basis due to concerns about declines in discharge rates (Truini, et al., 2004). About 3% of the 1.2 million-acre Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is located in the northeastern corner of the Paria Basin. The Recreation area was created by Congress in 1972 to provide for recreational use of Lake Powell and adjacent lands and to preserve scenic, scientific, and historic features. It surrounds and includes Lake Powell from Lees Ferry to the Orange Cliffs in Utah. The principal recreation area development within the planning area is Wahweap, which includes a marina, campground and visitor center. Fluctuations in the lake level affect recreational activities in the area. Since designation of the Grand Canyon-Parashant N.M., the only remaining portion of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in the planning area is Lake Mead itself. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Managed Waters The Colorado River is among the most managed rivers in the United States. The river is impounded behind Glen Canyon Dam, which is managed for both electrical generation purposes and to store water to meet flow obligations at Lees Ferry under the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact. As a result, the river’s flow and the ecosystem it supports have been fundamentally altered. The Colorado River was a warm, sediment-laden river that historically carried a daily average of 275,000 tons of sediment through the Grand Canyon. Water temperature varied through the year and large spring floods and varying flow patterns deposited sediment along the riverbanks and provided habitat, including calm spawning pools, for a number of native fish species. Operation of the dam for electrical generation requires large water releases during historically low flow seasons with daily and weekly fluctuations. The flow regime is governed by the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam EIS and the Glen Canyon Operating Criteria (see section 6.0.2). The water released from the bottom of the reservoir is now consistently cold year round and considerably less sediment is now carried downstream, impacting beach building along the riverbank. Vegetative communities, wildlife and native fish have been affected by the modified river flow (Tellman, et al. 1997). The Colorado pike minnow and bonytail chub no longer occur in the Grand Canyon, and the humpback chub and razorback sucker are listed as endangered species. Beginning in 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation initiated the multi-agency interdisciplinary Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Studies to evaluate the impact of Glen Canyon Dam and how its operation could be modified to address wildlife and recreational values downstream of the dam. In 1989, work on an EIS began to consider options for the operation of the dam. The EIS was completed in 1995 and findings indicated that there were a number of uncertainties regarding the downstream impact of water releases from the Dam. While the EIS was being developed, Congress passed the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Act) of 1992 (Public Law 102-575), which required operation of the dam in a manner that would protect and mitigate adverse impacts to Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. In compliance with this Act, the EIS proposed an adaptive management process to monitor and assess the effects of dam operations on downstream resources. (USBOR, 2007c) In 1997, then Secretary of Interior (Secretary), Bruce Babbitt, established an Adaptive Management Program (AMP) to “provide an organization and process for cooperative integration of dam operations, downstream resource protection and management, and monitoring and research information…”. Critical to the program is the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a federal advisory committee. The AMWG incorporates stakeholders into the decisionmaking process and makes recommendations to the Secretary on how to protect resources. The group completed a draft strategic plan in 2001 and current focus includes recovery of humpback chub, management of sediment resources and experimental releases of water from Glen Canyon Dam (USBOR, 2007c). Before release of the EIS, the Secretary authorized an artificial flood in the Grand Canyon that would mimic historic spring flows, in order to help build beaches and habitat. The flood temporarily restored beaches and improved backwater habitat, but pre-flood conditions quickly returned. As part of the AMP effort, the Bureau of Reclamation completed a scoping report in March 2007 28 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-term Experimental Plan EIS. The proposed plan would implement a long-term program in the Colorado River below the dam that could potentially involve dam operations, modifications to the dam’s intake structures and other management actions such as removal of non-native fish (USBOR,2007c). Another activity that will impact how releases are managed from Glen Canyon Dam is the development of guidelines for the operation of the reservoir under shortage conditions. Each year, the Secretary is required to declare whether the Colorado River water supply is in a normal, surplus or shortage condition for the Lower Basin States (Arizona, California, Nevada). Regulations and operations criteria have never been established for shortage conditions. Following multiple years of drought and decreasing water supplies in storage, in May 2005 the Secretary directed that the Bureau of Reclamation develop guidelines for the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead under low reservoir conditions. These guidelines will provide more predictability regarding expected annual water deliveries. An EIS is being completed for this effort, expected to be finalized in September 2007 (USBOR, 2007d). The preferred alternative under shortage conditions includes: adoption of guidelines to identify under what circumstances the Secretary would reduce the annual amount of water available to the Lower Basin States from Lake Mead below 7.5 maf/year; adoption of guidelines for the coordinated operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell to improve operations under low reservoir conditions; and adoption of guidelines to allow storage and delivery of conserved water in Lake Mead to increase the flexibility of meeting water needs under drought and low storage conditions. The final EIS will include a determination of the environmental impact of the preferred alternative (USBOR, 2007e). Unlike the Colorado River, the Virgin River flows uninterrupted from its headwaters above Zion National Park to Lake Mead. Water is diverted from the Virgin River for municipal and agricultural needs in Utah and for agricultural use in Arizona. This river, particularly its upper reaches, is recognized for its recreational and scenic values but is not federally managed or protected. 6.0.5 Population The Western Plateau Planning Area is the most sparsely populated planning area in the state although there are some rapidly growing areas. Census data for 2000 show about 17,200 residents in the planning area. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections suggest that the planning area population will more than double by 2050, to about 35,000 residents. Historic, current and projected basin population is shown in the cultural water demand tables for each basin in Sections 6.1-6.6. The most populous basin is the Coconino Plateau with about 9,500 residents in 2000. The Shivwits Plateau and Grand Wash basins have very low populations with 12 and 15 residents, respectively. The 2000 Census populations for each basin and Indian reservation, listed from highest to lowest, are shown in Table 6.0-4. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-4 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Western Plateau Planning Area Basin/Reservation Coconino Plateau Havasupai Navajo Kanab Plateau Kaibab-Paiute Virgin River Paria Grand Wash Shivwits Plateau 2000 Census Population 9,164 650 3,068 5,930 1,532 555 15 12 196 Shown in Table 6.0-5 are incorporated and unincorporated communities in the planning area with 2000 Census populations greater than 500 and growth rates for two time periods. Communities are listed from highest to lowest population in 2000. The planning area population grew by 25% between 1990 and 2000. There are only two incorporated communities within the planning area, Colorado City and Williams. Rapid growth is occurring in several areas including Beaver Dam/ Littlefield, Colorado City, Valle and recently, Williams. The unincorporated areas of Beaver Dam/ Littlefield and nearby Scenic, Arizona, are growing rapidly in large part due to growth in Mesquite, Nevada, the state’s fastest growing community. Mesquite experienced an annual growth rate of almost 9% between 2000 and 2005, fueled by development of retirement communities and its growing popularity as a resort destination. Population Growth and Water Use Arizona has limited mechanisms to address the connections between land use, population growth and water supply. A legislative attempt to link growth and water management planning is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) which requires that counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) include planning for water resources in their comprehensive plans. Of the two counties in the planning area, only Mohave County fit the size criteria in 2000. The Mohave County water resources element will develop a water budget for each of the groundwater basins in the county and will prioritize this effort based on growth potential, water availability, number of wells and other factors (Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005). However, the County’s key water issues are related primarily to that part of the County south of the Colorado River. The Act also requires that twenty-three communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. In the Western Plateau Planning Area this requirement applies only to Colorado City. Plans must consider water demand and water resource availability in conjunction with growth, land use and infrastructure. Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state are required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans to the Department. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning 30 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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 serving 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 the large systems of City of Williams and Colorado City, and by the small systems of Grand Canyon National Park and HydroResources-Tusayan. These plans were used to prepare this document. Table 6.0-5 Communities in the Western Plateau Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 500 Basin 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Percent Change 1990-2000 2005 Pop. Estimate Percent Change 2000-2005 Projected 2050 Pop. Kanab Plateau 2,426 3,334 37% 4,080 22% 8,887 City of Williams* Coconino Plateau 2,532 2,842 12% 3,145 11% 4,587 Grand Canyon Village Coconino Plateau 1,499 1,460 -3% NA NA 2,693 Town of Cameron Coconino Plateau 1,011 1,231 22% NA NA 4,157 Virgin River 762 1,053 38% NA NA NA Town of Fredonia Kanab Plateau 1,207 1,036 -14% 1,110 7% 1,462 Town of Tusayan Coconino Plateau NA 562 NA NA NA 774 Town of Valle Coconino Plateau 123 534 334% NA NA 1,010 Total >500 9,560 12,052 21% NA NA NA Other 3,382 5,156 34% NA NA NA Total 12,942 17,208 25% NA NA 35,266 Communities Colorado City* Beaver Dam/Littlefield Source: DES 2005: www.workforce.az.gov, U.S. Census Bureau 2006, BOR 2006 Notes: 2005 population estimates not available for unincorporated communities NA = not available * = incorporated communities The Department’s Water Adequacy Program also relates water supply and demand to growth to some extent, but does not control growth. Developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 years. If the supply is inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. Legislation adopted in June 2007 (SB 1575) authorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a provision, by unanimous vote, which requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If adopted, cities and towns within the county may not approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate water supply. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy before the final plat can be approved. 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 6.0-6. As shown, there were a limited number of subdivisions with a water adequacy determination in the planning area. All subdivisions were found to have an inadequate water supply in the Coconino Plateau Basin while all subdivisions were found to have an adequate supply in the Paria Basin. Since 2005, additional applications have been filed in the Virgin River Basin. The largest is a pending application for Beaver Dam Ranch, a 1,840-acre development with a projected demand of 5,300 acre-feet per year at build out. Table 6.0-6 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Plateau Planning Area as of 2005 Number of Subdivisions Number of 1 Lots Lots w/ Adequate Determ. Lots w/ Inadequate Determ. Approx. Percent of Lots w/ Percent Inadequate Determ. 27 >1194 0 >1194 100% none none none none none Kanab Plateau 9 360 201 159 44% Paria 6 991 991 0 0% none none none none none 10 >627 >601 26 4% Basin Coconino Plateau Grand Wash Shivwits Plateau Virgin River Source: ADWR 2006 Notes: Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions; actual number is larger 1 No water providers in the planning area are designated as having an adequate water supply for their entire service area. A service area designation exempts subdivisions from demonstrating water adequacy if served by the provider. 32 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.0.6 Water Supply Water supplies in the Western Plateau Planning Area include groundwater, surface water and effluent. As shown on Figure 6.0-11, groundwater is the primary water supply, accounting for about 58% of the demand. Surface water is used for agricultural irrigation in the Virgin River and Kanab Plateau basins and for municipal use in the Coconino Plateau and Kanab Plateau basins. It is estimated that about 39% of the total water demand is met with surface water. Effluent is utilized for golf course irrigation and for landscape irrigation in the Coconino Plateau Basin, contributing 3% 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 6.0-11 Water supplies utilized in the Western Plateau Planning Area in acre-feet (average annual use 2001-2003) Effluent, 273 Surface Water, 3,470 Groundwater, 5,090 Surface Water About 3,500 acre-feet per year of surface water diverted from streams or springs is used on average in the planning area. Surface water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation but also as a municipal and industrial water supply. Municipal and Industrial Supply Surface water from Roaring Springs, located 3,000 feet below the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, is the primary water supply for both the North and South Rims. Spring water is pumped to the Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 33 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 North Rim from the Roaring Springs pump station and delivered via the trans-canyon pipeline. The trans-canyon pipeline delivers water by gravity flow to Indian Gardens, located below the South Rim, where it is pumped from the Indian Garden pump station through a directional bore hole to water storage tanks on the South Rim. A small portion of the water flowing to Indian Gardens is diverted from the pipeline to Phantom Ranch and Cottonwood Campground. The pipeline has experienced failures an average of 10 to 12 times a year due to washouts during high flow events and bends in the pipeline. For this reason, the Park is studying alternatives to provide reliable, long-term water supplies. Potential alternatives that have been identified include construction of wellfields, diversion of Colorado River Water to the South Rim, trucking in water, construction of an infiltration gallery and pumping plant on Bright Angel Creek to supply the South Rim and Phantom Ranch, and other alternatives (USBOR, 2002). There are concerns regarding use of current and future supplies and potential impacts on seeps and springs in the Grand Canyon. Several Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects have funded studies to help research these impacts. In the Coconino Plateau Basin, the City of Williams historically relied on surface water stored in five small reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 893 million gallons (2,740 acre-feet). The reservoirs, constructed between 1892 and 1952, collect inflow from snowmelt. Evaporation and seepage from the reservoirs is substantial, with losses greater than the city’s annual demand. Two dry years in a row can result in significant stress to the supply system. When surface water supplies were seriously impacted in 1996 the City began a well drilling program to supplement its surface water supplies during periods of shortage (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). Havasu Creek, which flows from springs emanating from the Redwall-Muav Formations, is a water supply for the Havasupai Tribe at Supai. Surface water is used as both a municipal and agricultural supply on the reservation. In the Kanab Plateau Basin, about half of Fredonia’s municipal water supply is surface water from springs, the rest is water delivered from Utah. Jacob Lake Lodge uses about seven acre-feet of spring water a year from Warm Spring. Surface water from springs is also a supply for Twin City Water (Colorado City) and Badger Creek Water in the small community of Vermilion Cliffs. Marble Canyon Co. has a Colorado River contract for 70 acre-feet per year. The springs at Pipe Springs National Monument have historically been used for domestic, ranching and farming purposes. A pipeline from Tunnel Spring conveys water outside the monument to maintain water-use agreements with the local cattleman’s association. In 1971, a well was drilled outside the monument to meet the growing needs of the monument and the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Tribe (Truini, 2004). In the Virgin River Basin, a small amount of surface water is diverted from Beaver Dam Wash for golf course irrigation. Agricultural Supply In the Kanab Plateau Basin, between 1,400 to 1,850 acres of alfalfa, pasture and a minor amount of grain and corn were historically irrigated with surface water from Kanab Creek, diverted between the Kanab Dam and the Fredonia Dam (ADWR, 1998). It is not known precisely how many acres 34 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 are currently actively irrigated but based on a cursory observation of the area in August 2007 and recent aerial photos, there appears to be far less irrigated land and surface water use now than in the past. The Arizona Strip Partnership (now inactive) identified the lack of sufficient surface water supplies for agriculture as an issue in Fredonia. In 2000, about 1,700 acres in the Littlefield area in the Virgin River Basin were in cultivation. However, due to recent flood damage and conversion to domestic uses, agricultural acreage is presently about 500-600 acres. It is estimated that about 225 of these acres are irrigated with approximately 1,500 acre-feet of surface water diverted from the Virgin River. The location of surface water resources for each basin in the planning area are shown on surface water condition maps, and maps showing perennial and intermittent streams and major springs. Tables with data on streamflow, flood ALERT equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs are also presented in the basin sections (6.1 – 6.6). Groundwater Groundwater is the principal water supply in the planning area where it is pumped from relatively shallow local aquifers or from deep regional aquifers. Groundwater pumpage averaged about 5,100 acre-feet during the period 2001 to 2003. Groundwater is a supply for municipal, industrial and agricultural users in the planning area. Aquifer depth is a significant factor in groundwater availability in the area since it is both expensive to drill wells and to pump water to the surface. Groundwater is pumped from depths exceeding 2,000 feet below land surface at Tusayan and Williams. In addition, well yields from sedimentary rocks of the deep regional aquifers are generally low unless fractures or faults are encountered. The median yield of 16 wells in the Coconino Plateau Basin completed in sedimentary rock aquifers is about 45 gpm. Areas of unconsolidated sediments are relatively limited as shown on the groundwater conditions maps for each basin in sections 6.1-6.6. Extensive areas of unconsolidated sediments that comprise basin fill aquifers are found only in the western portions of the Virgin River and Grand Wash basins. Other basin fill aquifers in the planning area are generally narrow and bordered by low water yielding consolidated rocks. Areas of relatively high well yield include basin-fill deposits and the Muddy Creek Formation in the Virgin River Basin with a median well yield of 650 gpm based on data from 53 wells. Few hydrologic studies have been conducted in the planning area and as a result, there is uncertainty regarding groundwater resources including recharge rates and groundwater in storage. Estimates of both aquifer recharge and storage are only available for the Virgin River Basin and estimates of groundwater in storage are only available for the Coconino Plateau and Paria basins. 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 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 35 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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 four sites in the planning area, three of which were USGS sites. There is currently one automated Department-operated site in the planning area located west of Littlefield in the Virgin River Basin. Index well hydrographs, which display historic water level behavior in 14 index wells in the planning area (primarily in the Virgin 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 sections 6.1-6.6. Municipal and Industrial Supply With the exception of Fredonia, which utilizes surface water to meet about half of its demand and Grand Canyon Village, all other large communities in the planning area rely on groundwater supplies. Although groundwater may be difficult to access in many parts of the planning area, it is more reliable than the currently limited surface water supplies, particularly during drought. Since 1999, the City of Williams has drilled four wells, three of which have static water levels greater than 2,700 feet below land surface, as a backup to their surface water supplies. Some of the well drilling attempts have been unsuccessful. As of 2002, Williams had spent about seven million dollars to drill six wells, three of which are producing (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). The City currently has four operational wells but one yields only 40 gpm, and another has poor water quality with elevated concentrations of dissolved oxygen, metals and arsenic. Tusayan relies on two 3,000-foot deep wells in the Redwall-Muav aquifer as its primary water supply but also maintains a fleet of semi-tankers for emergency trucking of water if necessary (HydroResources, 2007). Groundwater is also an industrial supply for two golf courses in the Virgin River Basin. Agricultural Supply Groundwater is an agricultural water supply primarily in the Littlefield and Beaver Dam area in the Virgin River Basin. It is also used to a lesser degree for agricultural irrigation in the Kanab Plateau Basin at Colorado City, Moccasin/Kaibab and Cane Beds areas. In general, use of groundwater for irrigation is declining in the planning area. Effluent Due to the relatively limited groundwater and surface water supplies in the Coconino Plateau Basin, innovative reuse of effluent is occurring at several locations. About 3% of the total water demand is met by effluent. Effluent is used for golf course irrigation and municipal uses totaling about 270 acre-feet annually. Effluent supplies about half of the water requirements of the Elephant Rock Golf Course at Williams. Effluent generated at Tusayan is reused for toilet flushing in hotels and businesses and for landscape irrigation. Wastewater at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon is reused for toilet flushing, landscape irrigation and other uses. At Valle, effluent is used for 36 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 landscape irrigation and fire protection. Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, state designated sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. Of these various contaminated sites, LUST and VRP sites are found in the planning area. Table 6.0-7 lists the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of the single VRP site. The location of all contamination sites in the planning area is shown on Figure 6.0-12. Table 6.0-7 Active contamination sites in the Western Plateau Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT GROUNDWATER BASIN Voluntary Remediation Sites Heliport Lease Lot #1, Grand Canyon Soil, Groundwater - Jet A Fuel, Hydrocarbons Coconino Plateau Sources: ADEQ 2002, ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b There are 27 active LUST sites in the planning area. There are 11 sites at Fredonia, six at Jacob Lake, five at Williams, three at Tusayan, and one each at Cameron and Wahweap. The active VRP site is a heliport site at Tusayan in the Coconino Plateau Basin where soil and groundwater has been contaminated with hydrocarbons and jet fuel. The VRP is a state administered and funded voluntary cleanup program. Any site that has soil and/or groundwater contamination, provided that the site is not subject to an enforcement action by another program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a single point of contact for projects that involve more than one regulatory program (Environmental Law Institute, 2002). 6.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Several recent studies provide detailed information on cultural water uses in the Coconino Plateau Basin. These studies are primarily related to developing additional water supplies to meet future water demands and include the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study (USBOR, 2006), North Central Arizona Water Demand Study, (Pinkham and Davis, 2002), Grand Canyon National Park Water Supply Appraisal Study (USBOR, 2002) and the EIS for Tusayan Growth (USDA, 1999). Total cultural water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area averaged approximately 8,800 acre-feet per year during the period from 2001-2003. As shown in Figure 6.0-13, the agricultural demand sector is the largest use sector with approximately 4,500 acre-feet of demand, 51% of the total. With the exception of small pastures, agricultural demand occurs only in the Kanab Plateau and Virgin River basins. About 44% of this agricultural demand is met by surface water diverted Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 38 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 from the Virgin River and Kanab Creek. Municipal demand represents about 39% of the total planning area demand with an average of 3,400 acre-feet during the period 2001-2003. Municipal demand is primarily met by groundwater and the municipal sector is the only sector that utilizes effluent. Industrial demand, primarily related to golf course irrigation, accounted for 900 acrefeet, 10% of the total demand during this period. Tribal water demand is included in these totals. Figure 6.0-13 Western Plateau Planning Area Average Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2003 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 2,000 273 acre-feet 3,000 effluent 1,250 2,500 surface water groundwater 2,000 1,500 2,500 1,000 1,900 500 220 690 0 Agricultural Municipal Industrial Cultural demand volumes vary substantially between planning area basins and ranges from 150 acre-feet a year in several basins to over 4,500 acre-feet a year in the Virgin River Basin (see Figure 6.0-14). Tribal Water Demand The largest Indian reservation in the planning area is the western portion of the Navajo Reservation, the largest reservation in terms of size in Arizona. All of the Havasupai and Kaibab-Paiute Reservations and the eastern portion of the Hualapai Reservation are also within the planning area. The portion of the Hualapai Reservation within the planning area is sparsely populated and its water demand is not known. Total tribal water demand in the planning area is estimated to be less than 450 acre-feet per year. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.0-14 Average total basin water demand per year in acre-feet, 20012003 Coconino Plateau, 1,520 Grand Wash, 150 Virgin River, 4,530 Kanab Plateau, 2,330 Shivwits Plateau, 150 Paria, 150 Water demand on the portion of the Navajo Reservation within the Western Plateau Planning Area is associated with domestic and tourism-related uses at several communities including Cameron, Gray Mountain, Cedar Ridge and Bodeway (The Gap). Stockwatering is also a likely use. Approximately 250 acre-feet is used annually in this area (USBOR, 2006). The Kaibab-Paiute Reservation contains five villages, the largest of which is Kaibab. The Tribe maintains its tribal headquarters, a visitor’s center and other services adjacent to Pipe Springs National Monument near the village of Kaibab. The tribal economy is centered on livestock and tourism as well as agriculture. The tribe owns a 1,300 tree fruit orchard and may expand agricultural activities (ITCA, 2003). Demand is estimated at less than 100 acre-feet per year. The nearby community of Moccasin is not located on reservation land and has been the site of the Mohave County Consolidated Court for over 50 years, serving all of Mohave County north of the Colorado River. The Havasupai use surface water from Havasu Creek and from wells in shallow stream alluvium along the creek to support the community of Supai and tourism activities. There is also a small amount of farming on the reservation and stock watering. Tourism is the economic base for the tribe with more than 12,000 annual visitors to nearby Havasu Falls (ITCA, 2003). Water demand is likely less than 100 acre-feet per year on the reservation. 40 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Municipal Demand Municipal demand is summarized by groundwater basin and water supply in Table 6.0-8. Average annual demand during 2001-2003 was over 3,400 acre-feet. Fifty-five percent of the municipal demand is met by groundwater. Surface water is used in the Coconino Plateau Basin by Williams and Grand Canyon National Park-South Rim, and in the Kanab Plateau Basin by Fredonia, Grand Canyon National Park-North Rim, Jacob Lake and in the vicinity of Marble Canyon. Effluent is used for golf course irrigation in Williams, toilet flushing and irrigation at Tusayan and irrigation and fire protection at Valle. Table 6.0-8 Average annual municipal water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area (2001-2003) in acre-feet Basin Groundwater Total Effluent2 Surface Water1 Coconino Plateau 300 950 273 1,523 Grand Wash <300 <300 Kanab Plateau 1,000 300 1,300 Paria <300 <300 Shivwits Plateau <300 <300 Virgin River <300 <300 Total Municipal 1,900 1,250 273 3,423 Sources: USGS 2005b, ADWR 2005c Notes: Volume <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes 1 Shown on Table 6.0-8 is water utilized within the basin. The Cultural Demand Tables for the Kanab Plateau and Coconino Plateau basins in Sections 6.1.8 and 6.3.8 reflect water withdrawn in the basins. 2 Effluent figures are for golf course, turf irrigation and municipal reuse in Tusayan, Grand Canyon Village and Williams in 2006 Primary municipal demand centers are Colorado City, Fredonia, Grand Canyon National Park, Tusayan and Williams. It is estimated that about 65% of the planning area population is served by a water provider. Six water providers in the planning area served 100 acre-feet or more of water in 2003. These providers and their demand in 1991, 2000 and 2003 are shown in Table 6.0-9. In 2003, municipal utilities served the communities of Fredonia and Williams. Municipallyowned 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 6.0.8. City of Williams The City of Williams was until recently completely reliant on surface water. Due to drought conditions which impacted surface water supplies, Williams has developed a groundwater system to use during periods when reservoir levels are low or to blend with surface water to aid in the water treatment process. In 2003, Williams used about 590 acre-feet of water- 336 acre-feet of surface water and 254 acre-feet of groundwater. Annual water demand and the supply used fluctuates from year to year. In 2005, Williams used a total of just 386 acre-feet of which only 29 acre-feet was groundwater (City of Williams, 2007). Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 41 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-9 Water providers serving 100 acre-feet or more water per year in 2003, excluding effluent, in the Western Plateau Planning Area Basin/Water Provider Coconino Plateau Basin City of Williams Grand Canyon National Park Water Utility - South Rim HydroResources-Town of Tusayan Kanab Plateau Basin Centennial Park DWID - Colorado City Fredonia Water Department Twin City Water Company - Colorado City 1992 (acre-feet) 2000 (acre-feet) 2003 (acre-feet) 450 528 135 620 528 125 590 528 129 NA NA NA NA 417 NA 613 440 960 Sources: ADWR 2005c, ADWR 2004, City of Williams 2006, Coconino County 1997, Town of Colorado City 2006 NA = Not Available Notes: Williams began using groundwater in 2000. Grand Canyon National Park receives its water from Roaring Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin, about 88% of the total demand for the Park is used at the South Rim. In 1992 water in Tusayan was provided by the Canyon Squire Inn well (64 af), water hauled from Williams and Bellemont (40 af) and Grand Canyon National Park (30 af). Estimate of water served by Centennial Park DWID includes some water use for agriculture. Fredonia served 440 af in 2003, however, 220 af is water from Utah. Twin City Water Company water use is from 2006 and includes water from wells in Utah. Municipal uses include residential, commercial and the only municipal golf course in the planning area. The Elephant Rock Golf course uses approximately half surface water and half effluent for irrigation. As the “Gateway to the Grand Canyon”, tourism is an important part of the local economy with hotels, restaurants, gas stations and other services. Williams maintains a metered standpipe for water haulers, restricted to households built as of June 2000. In 2000, Williams had 495 registered non-commercial water hauling customers. Some of the water used in the unincorporated residential community of Red Lake, located north of Williams, is hauled from Williams. Use of the standpipe service to commercial haulers is restricted during drought (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). While growth in Williams has been relatively slow, it has approved water allocations to more than 1,000 future lots. Expansion of both its water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant may be needed in the near future. Because much of the area surrounding Williams relies on hauled water and delivers septic tank waste to the city wastewater treatment plant, the City is in the position of providing these services outside of its service area. Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon National Park, with about five million visitors a year and a year round population of almost 1,500 at Grand Canyon Village on the South Rim, is one of the largest municipal users in the planning area with about 600 acre-feet of surface water used in 2003. The South Rim receives most of the Park’s visitors and uses 90% of the water. Seasonal employees at Grand Canyon Village increase the summer population by about 40%. The Village includes a school, medical clinic, fire station, administrative offices and other services in addition to hotels, restaurants and campgrounds. By contrast, the North Rim is closed from mid-October to mid-May, has limited services compared to the South Rim and receives one-tenth the number of visitors. (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). 42 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Grand Canyon National Park Water Utility services all the developed areas within the Park boundaries using water transported from Roaring Springs located below the North Rim in the Kanab Plateau Basin. The utility serves the South Rim, Desert View, North Rim, Roaring Springs, Phantom Ranch and Indian Gardens and provides hauled water to four sites on the South Rim that are not connected to the distribution system (NPS, 2006). Some of the treated wastewater from the South Rim is reused for toilet flushing at the visitor center and employee rest rooms, to wash down portions of a kennel, for the railroad steam engine, dust control, revegetation efforts and on a small amount of turf at the El Tovar Lodge. While the reclaimed water distribution system is relatively extensive, one-site plumbing is incomplete. It is estimated that about 130 acre-feet of effluent is used annually at the South Rim. Tusayan The small, unincorporated community of Tusayan is located about a mile south of the entrance to the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. It is surrounded by public land and has a population of about 560. Tusayan’s economy is based on tourism including hotels, restaurants, an airport and visitor service establishments (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). HydroResources-Tusayan serves about seventy-five percent of the water demand at Tusayan utilizing two 3,000 foot deep wells that produce 65 to 80 gallons per minute. It delivers about 130 acre-feet of groundwater annually. Other water systems are ADOT, which serves the Grand Canyon Airport, and Anasazi Water (HydroResources, 2007). Anasazi Water has one well, receives some water from HydroResources and uses a relatively small amount of hauled water from Williams or Valle. Both HydroResources and Anasazi Water wholesale water to the Tusayan Water Development Association, which bills water customers but does not operate the water systems. The two systems are interconnected to ensure uninterrupted service to the community and HydroResources owns a well in Valle from which water may be trucked to Tusayan in the event of an emergency. The water systems relied heavily on hauled water prior to 1995 when wells and reclaimed water began to be used (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). All water used indoors in Tusayan is treated at the South Grand Canyon Sanitary District wastewater treatment plant. Water is treated to ADEQ A+ standards and is used extensively for toilet flushing and irrigation. In 2001, almost 70 acre-feet of effluent was reused. It is estimated that reclaimed water use accounts for 30-50 percent of the total water use at some of the hotels (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). The Grand Canyon Airport demand is about 10 acre-feet per year. A rainwater collection system, consisting of 5 acres of Hypalon plastic, provides potable water to the terminal, office, hangar facilities and a dozen homes. The airport also uses reclaimed water for irrigation (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). The airport has a connection to the HydroResources water system but rarely needs additional water. However, in 2004, HydroResources sold about 6 acre-feet of groundwater to the airport (HydroResources, 2007). Colorado City Colorado City is located in the Kanab Plateau Basin in Mohave County on the northern border Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 43 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 of Arizona, adjacent to Hildale, Utah. The two communities have close cultural and economic ties, with nearly half of the population employed in Hildale. The community was initially settled by ranchers in the early 1900’s but around 1930 a group of religious fundamentalists from Utah settled in the area and played a major part in shaping the present-day community (USDOI, 2007). Colorado City is the largest community and municipal demand center in the planning area with over 1,600 acre-feet of annual demand served by two systems and a population of more than 3,300. Most of Colorado City is served water pumped from wells owned by Twin City Water Works, which also serves Hildale Utah. Some of the Twin City Water Works wells are located in Arizona. The City buys water wholesale from Twin City Water Works, treats it to drinking water standards, and delivers it to customers through its water delivery infrastructure. The southeastern part of Colorado City is served by Centennial Park Domestic Water Improvement District, which also provides water for agricultural irrigation. Municipal water uses include residential, commercial and light manufacturing. The wastewater treatment plant in Colorado City was closed in 2002 and wastewater is now treated at a plant in Hildale. Fredonia Fredonia, in the Kanab Plateau Basin is the largest town in Coconino County on the Arizona Strip. It was founded in 1885 with an economy based on agriculture, timber and mining. Its sawmill closed in 1995 and tourism, government activities and agriculture are the current economic drivers. The population of Fredonia declined between 1990 and 2000 by about 14% but is now slowly increasing. In 2003, about 440 acre-feet of water was served by the municipal utility. About half of the Town’s water supply is from springs in Arizona and the remainder is water transported by pipeline from Utah. Approximately 160 acre-feet of effluent is produced at Fredonia but not reused. Other Communities The communities of Beaver Dam, Littlefield, Scenic and the surrounding area in the Virgin River Basin are experiencing development pressure due primarily to the rapidly growing community of Mesquite, Nevada. These communities provide housing for much of Mesquite’s workforce and for retirees (USDOI, 2007). Currently, the area is served by private water systems or domestic wells. There are several pending applications for water adequacy determinations in the area, the largest of which is an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply for the Beaver Dam Ranch Development totaling 5,300 acre-feet per year. This and other planned developments will result in substantial increases in municipal water demand in the Virgin River Basin from the current demand of less than 300 acrefeet a year. In anticipation of development, some agricultural lands north of Beaver Dam Wash and near Littlefield have gone out of production. Valle, located between Williams and Tusayan, is a small but rapidly growing community served by two water systems with wells over 3,000 feet deep. One of these systems is owned by the Grand Canyon Inn, which also operates a wastewater treatment plant and a standpipe for water haulers. The Inn uses wastewater to irrigate landscaping at the hotel and for fire protection. The other system, HydroResources-Valle serves the Grand Canyon Valle Airport, a mobile home park and operates two standpipes for water haulers. A small wastewater treatment plant serves users 44 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 on this system and effluent is used to irrigate a ballpark. The area surrounding Valle is primarily composed of large lot development without sewer or water service. Most residents must haul water and use septic systems for wastewater disposal. Despite the lack of services, there is significant subdivision activity in the area (Pinkham and Davis, 2002). The community grew by 334% between 1990 and 2000. Agricultural Demand Agricultural demand in the planning area is about 4,500 acre-feet a year, primarily for pasture irrigation (Table 6.0-10). Aside from small domestic pastures and gardens, agricultural irrigation is found only in the Kanab Plateau and Virgin River basins. It should be noted that the data source for the cultural demand maps in the groundwater basin sections is from satellite imagery collected between 1999-2001 and may not accurately represent agricultural demands in the planning area. Table 6.0-10 Agricultural demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area 1991-1995 (acre-feet) 1996-2000 (acre-feet) 2001-2003 (acre-feet) Kanab Plateau Groundwater 1,500 1,500 Surface Water <1,000 <1,000 Total 2,000 2,000 Virgin River Groundwater 8,300 7,800 Surface Water 5,800 6,200 Total 13,600 14,500 Source: USGS 2005c, ADWR 2005d Notes: Volume <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acre-feet for computational purposes <1,000 <1,000 1,000 2,000 1,500 3,500 There is considerable uncertainty about the amount of acreage currently in production in the Kanab Plateau Basin. Observations in the Colorado City, Cane Beds (east of Colorado City) and Fredonia areas suggest that in the summer of 2007 there was considerably less land irrigated than historic levels. It is estimated that current agricultural demand in the basin is about 1,000 acre-feet a year. About half the agricultural demand occurs in the Fredonia area, primarily within the boundaries of the Fredonia Consolidated Irrigation and Manufacturing Company District. The District owns and operates the Fredonia Dam, constructed in 1918, and a concrete-lined distribution ditch. District lands are located primarily east of Kanab Creek south of the town. Historically, the district delivered surface water diverted from Kanab Creek and it is assumed that this is still the source of water (ADWR, 1998). Irrigation in the Colorado City and Cane Beds area is assumed to be less than 1,000 acre-feet of groundwater a year. Large fallow areas, previously irrigated with center pivot systems were observed in the Colorado City area in summer 2007. There is a small amount of agricultural activity, including a 1,300 tree fruit orchard, on the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation and in nearby Moccasin. Estimated groundwater demand is about 50 acre-feet a year. In the Virgin River Basin, irrigation demand has declined from an annual average of 14,500 acrefeet during the period 1996-2000 to an annual average of 3,500 acre-feet during 2001-2003. This Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 45 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 decline has occurred due to recent flood damage along the Virgin River and Beaver Dam Wash and to urbanization. It is estimated that about 525 acres are still in production in the Littlefield/Beaver Dam area (Kyle Spencer, NRCS, personal communication 3/25/05). With the exception of a small nursery operation at Beaver Dam, most of the irrigated land in the area is pasture. Industrial Demand Industrial demand in the planning area is relatively small, averaging about 900 acre-feet annually during the period 2001-2003. As shown in Table 6.0-11, quantified industrial demand in the planning area consists of two golf courses served by facility water systems and a small dairy. Both industrial golf courses are in the Virgin River Basin and use both surface water and groundwater. The Meadowayne Dairy, located on the north side of Colorado City in the Kanab Plateau Basin has an annual demand of about 30 acre-feet. Table 6.0-11 Industrial demand in selected years in the Western Plateau Planning Area 1991 2000 Water Use (acre-feet) Type Golf Course Total 880 Virgin River Groundwater 660 Surface Water 220 Dairy/Feedlot Total 30 Kanab Plateau 30 Groundwater Source: ADEQ 2005, ADWR 2005e, USGS 2005b 2003 880 880 660 220 30 660 220 30 30 30 Golf courses in the planning area are shown in Table 6.0-12. Hamilton Ranch Golf Course is located in the community of Beaver Dam. Flooding in 2006 washed out all but 8 holes. Irrigation of the course uses about 220 acre-feet/year of groundwater and surface water diverted from Beaver Dam Wash. The other industrial golf course, The Palms, located in Scenic adjacent to the Nevada state line, is an 18-hole course that uses about 440 acre-feet/year of groundwater. The only other golf course in the planning area is Elephant Rock, a municipally-served golf course at Williams with an annual demand of about 150 acre-feet met by a combination of effluent and untreated surface water. Table 6.0-12 Golf course demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area Facility Basin # of Demand Water Supply Holes (acre-feet) Elephant Rock Golf Club Coconino Plateau 18 150 SW/Effluent Hamilton Ranch* Virgin River 8 220 GW/SW The Palms Golf Course* Virgin River 18 441 GW Source: ADWR 2005e Notes: * These golf courses are served by their own wells and, therefore, considered to be industrial users 46 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 There is additional industrial demand in the planning area not reflected in the table, primarily sand and gravel operations in the Virgin River Basin and elsewhere. Some of the operations are identified on the cultural demand maps. Water is used for aggregate washing, dust control, vehicle washing and equipment cooling. Typically, relatively little water is consumed at these sites. The three small mines shown on the Kanab Plateau Basin cultural demand map are uranium mines (Figure 6.3-11). Not all uranium mines are shown. Denison Mines owns the Arizona One mine with plans to begin mining in 2008 as well as two other mines, Canyon and Pinenut, which could be operated in the future. At least eleven mining companies are currently exploring the Arizona Strip and placing claims on breccia pipes for the purpose of uranium mining. The highest grade uranium deposits in the United States occur in breccia-pipe environments in northwest Arizona. A breccia pipe is a vertical pipe-like column of broken rock. On the Colorado Plateau in northwestern Arizona, these pipes formed when sedimentary rocks collapsed into solution cavities in the underlying Redwall limestone. Mineralizing fluids passing through the pipes deposited metallic minerals, sometimes including uranium. A typical pipe is about 300 feet in diameter and can extend as much as 3,000 feet. (Wenrick, 2007) It is anticipated that if developed, these mining operations would involve minimal water use. Water is used primarily in ore processing, which would occur elsewhere. The minor amount of water needed for mining on site would come from stormwater collection and/or shallow groundwater encountered in perched aquifers on site. (Nyals Neimuth, ADMMR, personal communication, 6/07) 6.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Western Plateau Planning Area Water resource issues in the Western Plateau Planning Area 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. Studies, Planning and Conservation A number of water resource studies have been conducted in the planning area south of the Colorado River. Studies have been conducted in response to environmental concerns, growth and limited water supplies. A primary objective has been to better understand the water supply, water demand and hydrology of the area in order to develop a regional approach to water resource planning. A major effort has been the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study, which involved the cooperation of the Bureau of Reclamation, Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, the Grand Canyon Trust, City of Williams, the City of Flagstaff, the City of Page, Coconino County, the Department of Water Resources, the USGS and USFWS. The next step is to secure funding to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate water supply alternatives. On the Arizona Strip, the EIS for the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs national monuments and for other BLM lands (BLM, 2007) is a comprehensive study of much of the area north of the Colorado River. While the focus is on land management to preserve the objectives of the monuments and other areas, water resources and demands are included as a component of the cooperative management of the area. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 47 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 The National Park Service has conducted numerous studies and management activities in Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The water resources of the Park have been of particular concern given development on the South Rim and nearby areas and the potential impact of associated water development activities on seeps and springs in the Canyon. Development and implementation of new management strategies through the Adaptive Management Program will affect the environmental conditions downstream of Glen Canyon Dam throughout much of the planning area. There is a significant amount of interplay between resource development and environmental needs in the planning area given the significant amount of federally protected lands as parks, monuments, recreation areas and wilderness areas. Because of relatively scarce water supplies, communities have made extraordinary efforts to develop new water supplies and reuse existing resources such as effluent and graywater. As mentioned previously, Grand Canyon Village and the community of Tusayan have taken extreme measures to conserve existing resources and reuse effluent for multiple purposes, including widespread use of effluent for toilet flushing. The rainwater harvesting system at the Tusayan airport, which supplies most of its potable supply, is unprecedented in Arizona. The City of Williams and Tusayan’s well drilling programs are excellent examples of local efforts to improve supply reliability and better utilize available resources. The City of Williams water conservation program includes incentives to retrofit old plumbing fixtures and install drought tolerant landscaping and several other water systems in the planning area provide water conservation information to customers. As mentioned in the population section, by January 2007, all large (>1,850 customers) community water systems in the state are required to submit System Water Plans. Small systems have until January 2008 to submit their plans. The plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. Within the planning area plans have been submitted by the City of Williams and Colorado City, and by two small systems, Grand Canyon National Park and HydroResources-Tusayan. By July 1, 2007, all systems were required to submit an annual water use report with data on water pumped, diverted, received and delivered to customers. 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 Community Water Planning 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. 48 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Watershed Groups Several watershed groups affiliated with the Department’s Rural Watershed Initiative Program have formed to address water resource issues. The two active groups, the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council and the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association include not only part of the Western Plateau but also part of the Eastern Plateau and Central Highlands planning areas. A watershed group had formed in the Fredonia area, (the Arizona Strip Partnership), but is no longer active. A list of participants, activities and issues of all watershed groups in the planning area is found in Appendix B. The Colorado River is a significant political, social and planning barrier as well as a physical barrier, and the area south of the River has different water resource concerns compared to areas north of the river. North of the River, the Arizona Strip is sparsely populated with few population centers. Colorado City, the largest community, has not identified any significant regional water resource issues. The Virgin River Basin is somewhat physically isolated from the rest of the Arizona Strip, and while experiencing rapid population growth, contains no incorporated communities or large water companies. However, as discussed below, a local group has formed to oppose an application to transport groundwater from the basin into Nevada, fearing the transportation will negatively impact local water supplies. In March 2005, the Department received an application from Wind River Resources, L.L.C. to transport water from Beaver Dam Wash to Mesquite Nevada, pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-291 et seq. The statute allows for transportation of groundwater out of state, conditional on seven criteria that will be evaluated before the application can be approved or denied. The proposal calls for construction of three wells in the Mormon Wells area along Beaver Dam Wash to initially withdraw 800 acre-feet/year and up to 14,000 acre-feet per year by 2045, and transport it to the Virgin Valley Water District in Mesquite. The application proposes to use the water from Arizona to mix with the District’s water, which has concentrations of arsenic in excess of the drinking water standard. The Office of Administrative Hearings held a three-day hearing in early March 2007 in Beaver Dam and took testimony and received briefs on the application. The record will remain open until October 10, 2007 for the filing of post-hearing briefs. The Administrative Law Judge has 20 days after the record closes to issue his recommended decision and the director of the Department has 30 days thereafter to issue his decision. Primary issues identified by the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative groups that pertain to the planning area are summarized as follows: Growth: Unregulated lot splits Significant projected growth Water Supplies and Demand: Limited and deep groundwater supplies Need access to water development on public lands Limited groundwater data Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 49 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Legal: Limited supplies to meet projected demands Limited water resources to meet current demands Numerous water haulers with few hauling stations that are sometimes cut-off during drought Brackish groundwater (Arizona Strip) Interstate stream issues (Arizona Strip) Inadequate surface water supplies for agriculture (Arizona Strip) Unresolved Indian Water Rights claims Proposed San Juan Paiute Indian Reservation (northeast portion of Coconino Plateau Basin) 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 Environmental: Potential for groundwater development to impact springs in Grand Canyon and Havasupai and Hualapai Indian Reservation water supplies Other: Unsafe dam issues (Williams and Fredonia) 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, and a report of the findings from the survey was subsequently completed (ADWR, 2004). Only one water provider in the planning area responded to the 2003 survey. The Department conducted another, more concise survey of water providers in 2004. This was done to supplement the information gathered in the previous year in support of developing the Arizona Water Atlas, and to reach a wider audience by directly contacting each water provider. Through this effort, ten water providers in the Western Plateau Planning Area, with a total of approximately 2,400 service connections, participated and provided information on water supply, demand, and infrastructure and ranked a list of seven issues. There were five respondents from the Virgin River Basin, three from the Kanab Plateau Basin and two from the Coconino Plateau Basin. With regard to a question of groundwater level trends in their service area, most respondents reported stable water levels as shown by basin with the corresponding number of respondents in Table 6.0-13. One respondent in the Kanab Plateau Basin reported falling water levels and one in the Virgin River Basin reported rising water levels. 50 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.0-13 Groundwater level trends reported by 2004 survey respondents by groundwater basin (10 respondents) Basin Rising Stable Coconino Plateau 1 Kanab Plateau 2 Virgin River 1 Falling Variable Don't Know 1 1 4 Source: ADWR 2005c Water providers were asked in the 2004 survey to rank 7 issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. All water providers responded, but two reported no concerns. Results are shown in Table 6.0-14 for the eight providers that ranked issues of concern. The most highly ranked issue, inadequate capital for infrastructure improvements, was identified primarily by respondents located in the Virgin River Basin. Inadequate storage was primarily an issue in the Kanab Plateau Basin. Table 6.0-14 Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Western Plateau Planning Area (7 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 Moderate concern Major concern Total Percent of respondents reporting issue was a major or moderate concern 0 3 3 43% 0 1 1 14% 2 1 3 43% 1 2 3 43% 1 1 2 29% 0 5 5 71% 0 2 2 29% 6.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics Sections 6.1 through 6.6 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the groundwater basins in the Western Plateau Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Section 1.3 of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes general information that applies to all of the basins and the purpose of the information. Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 51 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 This information is organized in the order in which the characteristics are discussed in Sections 6.1 through 6.6. 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. 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 (ASLD, 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 52 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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 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 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 53 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the necessary information to the Department. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. In addition to these subdivision determinations for which a water adequacy report is issued, water providers may apply for adequacy designations for their entire service area. If a subdivision is to be served water from one of these water providers, then a separate adequacy determination is not required. (See Appendix A, Volume 1 for more information about the Adequacy Program). 54 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 REFERENCES Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Accessed August 2005 at www.workforce.az.gov Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.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 Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Water Management Division _____, 2005a, Database of instream flow applications: ADWR Office of Water Management _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 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 use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning _____, 2005f, Water Protection Fund database: ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 1998, Water Service Organizations in Arizona _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. Arizona Game and Fish (AZGF), 2006, California Condor Recovery: Accessed August 2007 at http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/california_condor.shtml _____, 2004, Explore Arizona: Accessed January 2007 at http://explore.azgfd.gov Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 55 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Bales, J.T. and R.L. Lacey, 1992, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation Area-Virgin River, Nevada, to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91- 4185 Billingsley, G.H., Wellmeyer, J.L., 2003, Geologic Map of Mt. Trumbell 30x60 Quadrangle, Mohave and Coconino Counties, Northwestern Arizona: USGS Geologic Investigation Series I-2766. Bills, D.J., Flynn, M.E., Monroe, S.A., in press, Hydrogeology of the Coconino Plateau and Adjacent Areas Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5222. Bills, D.J., Flynn, M.E, 2002, Hydrologic Data for the Coconino Plateau and Adjacent Areas, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 02-265. Black, K.R. and S.J. Rascona, 1991, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Virgin River Basin Mohave County, Arizona, Lincoln and Clark Counties, Nevada—1991. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 22 Brown, D. and 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 Brown, D., ed., 1982, Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4. Numbers 1-4, Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum Bush, A. L. and M.E. Lane, 1980, Preliminary Report on the Mineral Resource Potential of the Vermillion Cliffs-Paria Canyon Instant Study Area, Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, Utah. USGS Open-File Report 80-1056 City of Williams, 2007, City of Williams System Water Plan submitted to ADWR Coconino County, 1997, Tusayan Area Plan and Design Review Overlay, Area Plan Approved by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors April 7, 1995 & Amended May 5, 1997. Cole, E. and Katzer, T., 2000, Analysis of Gains and Losses in Virgin River Flow between Bloomington, Utah, and Littlefield, Arizona: Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, 57 pp. 56 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Dixon, G.L. and Katzer, T., 2002, Geology and Hydrology of the Lower Virgin River Valley in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, Prepared for the Virgin Valley Water District Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Grahame, J.D. and Sisk, T.D., ed. 2002. Canyons, cultures and environmental change: An introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau. Accessed July, 2007 at http:// www.cpluhna.nau.edu/ Hannon, S., 2003, The 1983 Flood at Glen Canyon: Accessed August 2007 at www.glencanyon. org Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J. and Flynn, M.E., 2002, Generalized Hydrogeology and GroundWater Budget for the C Aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin and Parts of the Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and New Mexico: Water-Resources Investigations Report 024026. HydroResources, 2007, Tusayan System Water Plan: Submitted to the ADWR. Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, Hualapai Indian Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Indian Tribe: Accessed July, 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Meko D. M., Woodhouse C. A., Baisan C. H., Knight T., Lukas J. J., Hughes M. K. and Salzer M. W., 2007, Medieval drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34(10, L10705). National Park Service (NPS), 2007, Grand Canyon - Nature and Science: Accessed July 2007 at http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/index.htm ______, 2006 Grand Canyon National Park System Water Plan. Submitted to ADWR ______, 2005, The Geologic Story at Grand Canyon: Accessed July 2007 at http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/grandcanyon/quicklook/Geologicstory.htm Pinkham, R. and Davis, B., 2002, North Central Arizona Water Demand Study Phase 1 Report, submitted to the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council 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 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 57 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Trudeau, D.A, Hess, J.W., and Jacobson, R.L., 1983, Hydrogeology of the Littlefield Springs, Arizona. Truini, M., Fleming, J.B. and Pierce, H.A., 2004, Preliminary Investigation of Structural Controls of Ground- Water Movement in Pipe Spring National Monument, Arizona, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5082 U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2007, Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan Revision, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Management Plan (jointly managed with the National Park Service), and Vermilion Cliffs National Monument Management Plan: Accessed August, 2007 at http://www.blm.gov/az/lup/strip/strip_plan. htm ______, 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/ wildarea.htm U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2007a, Lake Powell-Glen Canyon Dam-Current Status: Accessed August 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html ______, 2007b, Draft Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs 2008, August 17, 2007. ______, 2007c, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Accessed August 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/index.html ______, 2007d, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead: Accessed August, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/ lc/region/programs/strategies.html ______, 2007e, Colorado River Reservoir Operation: Development of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Description of Preferred Alternative to be Considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ______, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings, 91pp ______, 2005, Glen Canyon Powerplant: Accessed August 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/power/ data/sites/glencany/glencany.html ______, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park Water Supply Appraisal Study, Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, Prepared for National Park Service Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona 58 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2006, Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2006 ______, 1999, Executive Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Tusayan Growth Coconino County, Arizona U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), 2007, Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final EIS for the Arizona Strip Field Office, the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the BLM Portion of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, and a Proposed General Management Plan/Final EIS for the NPS Portion of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, Volumes 1&3 U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007, Wilderness Areas: Accessed March, 2007 at http://www. fs.fed.us/r3/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 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), 2005a, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater #chpwater _____, 2005b, 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. Wenrick, K.J., 2007, Projects: Uranium Mining in Arizona – High Grade and Safe. Accessed July, 2007 at http://www.libertystaruranium.com Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT 59 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 60 Section 6.0 Overview DRAFT Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 61 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.1 Geography of the Coconino Plateau Basin The Coconino Plateau Basin, located in the western part of the planning area is 5,812 square miles in area and the largest basin in the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.1-1. The basin is characterized by high-elevation mountain ranges, plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include Mohave and Great Basin desertscrub, plains grasslands, Great Basin conifer woodland and Rocky Mountain montane conifer forest. There are small areas of subalpine conifer forest and alpine tundra in the San Francisco Mountains in the southeast corner of the basin. (See Figure 6.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.1-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Tusayan and Williams o Other communities and places of Bitter Springs, Desert View, Cameron, Grand Canyon, Rose Well, Supai, The Gap and Valle o The Colorado River and Grand Canyon forming the northern basin boundary o Numerous streams that flow into the Colorado River including Diamond Creek, Havasu Creek and the Little Colorado River o Coconino Plateau in the center of the basin o Aubrey Cliffs in the eastern portion of the basin o San Francisco Peaks in the southeastern portion of the basin, including the highest peak in the basin and planning area, Mt. Humphries at 12,633 feet. 62 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 63 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.2 Land Ownership in the Coconino Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Coconino Plateau Basin is shown in Figure 6.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large blocks of tribal lands and the checkerboard pattern of state trust and private land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. Indian Reservation • 37.3% of the land is under tribal ownership. • The basin includes all or parts of three reservations; the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the entire Havasupai Indian Reservation and the Navajo Indian Reservation. • This basin contains the largest percentage of tribal lands in the planning area. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, recreation and ranching. Private • 22.0% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the center of the basin and is interspersed with state trust lands. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. National Forest and Wilderness • 17.8% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness. • Forest lands in the basin are part of the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. • The basin contains approximately 25,000 acres in two wilderness areas, Kendrick Mountain in the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests and Kachina Peaks in the Coconino National Forest. • Land uses include recreation, grazing and timber production. State Trust Land • 15.4% of the land is held in trust for the public schools and seven other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • Most state land is located in the center of the basin interspersed in a checkerboard pattern with private land. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 7.4% of the land is of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Grand Canyon National Park. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Hassayampa Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • The small portion of BLM land is southwest of the Grand Canyon. • Primary land use is grazing. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 64 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 65 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 66 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.3 Climate of the Coconino Plateau Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 6.1-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.1-3. Figure 6.1-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Coconino Plateau Basin does not contain AZMET stations. 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 6.1-1A • Temperatures at the five NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations range from an average annual high of 83.0°F at Supai to an average annual low of 29.3°F at Grand Canyon National Park. • All stations report highest average seasonal rainfall in the summer season (July-September) when about 32% of the annual rainfall occurs. • The highest average annual precipitation is 21.37 inches at Williams and the lowest average annual precipitation is 8.76 inches at Supai. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 6.1-1B • There is one evaporation pan station in the basin, Grand Canyon National Park 2. This pan is at 6,790 feet and has an annual evaporation rate of 44.04 inches. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 6.1-1D • There are four SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations in the basin, one at the Grand Canyon and the others located in the San Francisco Peaks area. • The highest average monthly snowpack at most stations is in April. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 40 inches at the southeastern tip of the basin and as low as four inches along the Colorado River. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 67 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-1 Climate Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Grand Canyon N.P. 6,890 1971-2000 69.2/Jul 29.3/Jan 4.38 1.92 5.73 3.65 15.68 Grand Canyon N.P. 2 6,970 1971-2000 67.0/Jul 30.4/Jan 5.20 2.17 5.40 3.73 16.50 Grand Canyon N.P. 3 6,960 1957-1977 1 69.0/Jul 30.5/Jan 2.92 1.84 3.89 3.87 12.51 1 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Supai 3,200 1956-1987 83.0/Jul 40.7/Jan 2.36 1.20 3.02 2.18 8.76 Williams 6,750 1971-2000 68.3/Jul 33.4/Jan 6.77 2.28 7.28 5.04 21.37 Source: WRCC, 2003 N.P. = National Park Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Period of Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in inches) for Averages Station Name Elevation (in feet) Grand Canyon N P. 2 6,790 1976 - 2002 Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 44.04 Source: WRCC, 2003 C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Snowpack, as Snow Water Content, at the Beginning of the Month, in Inches (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June Bear Paw 10,100 1968 - current 9.8(16) 11.7(27) 17.8(36) 20.8(37) 18.1(20) 7.1(11) Grand Canyon 7,500 1947 - current 1.2(22) 2.3(56) 2.1(57) 0.7(54) 0(0) 0(0) Snowslide Canyon 9,750 1968 - current 6.7(16) 9.0(27) 13.4(36) 15.2(37) 9.1(20) 0.7(10) 9,730 1998 - current 6.3(7) 8.4(7) 12.6(7) 14.0(7) 8.7(7) 0(7) Snowslide Canyon (SNOTEL) Source: NRCS, 2005 68 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 69 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Coconino Plateau Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 6.1-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 6.1-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.1-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.1-5. 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 6.1-2. • Data from 12 stations located at eight watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 6.1-5. Six of the 12 stations have been discontinued and four of the six remaining stations are real-time stations. • Average seasonal flow is relatively similar in all seasons at most stations due to regulated flow on the Colorado River or proximity to springs. Notable exceptions are, Moenkopi Wash near Cameron and Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon. Moenkopi Wash reports highest seasonal flow in the summer (July-September) when 78% of the average annual flow occurs and Bright Angel Creek receives highest seasonal flow in the spring (AprilJune) when 50% of the average annual flow occurs. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 15.97 million acre feet in 1997 at the Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs station with a contributing drainage area of 144,660 square miles. • All eight streams in this basin have a mean and median annual flow of over 10,000 acrefeet. Two of those eight streams, Little Colorado River and the Colorado River, have a mean annual flow of over 100,000 acre-feet. • The main tributary to the Colorado River, the Little Colorado River has a mean annual flow of 162,000 acre-feet near Cameron. As shown on Figure 6.1-4, there is significant variability in year to year flow. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 6.1-3. • As of October 2005 there were two stations in the basin, one is a precipitation/ stage station and the other is a repeater/precipitation station. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.1-4. • The basin contains 12 large reservoirs. The largest is Dogtown with a maximum storage capacity of 1,390 acre-feet. • The most common use of the large reservoirs is for fire protection or as a stock or farm pond. Dogtown, Kaibab and Cataract Reservoirs provide water supply for the City of Williams. • Most large reservoirs with a 50-acre surface area or greater in this basin are either dry or Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 • • intermittent lakes. Surface water is stored or could be stored in 45 small reservoirs in the basin. There are 757 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.1-5. • Average annual runoff is highest, two inches per year or 106 acre-feet per square mile, in the southeastern portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, along most of the Colorado River. Figure 6.1-4 Annual flows (acre-feet) at Little Colorado River near Cameron, water years 1948-2006 (Station #9402000) 900,000 800,000 Annual Flow, in af 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 Average Annual Flow 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1948 1958 71 1968 1978 1988 1998 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 26,578 NA 101 NA 2,600 2,898 2,811 Little Colorado River near Cameron Little Colorado River above the mouth near Desert View Cottonwood Spring above confluence with Cottonwood Creek near Grand Canyon Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon Hermit Creek above Tonto Trail near Grand Canyon Havasu Creek at Supai Havasu Creek above Havasu Falls near Supai Havasu Creek above the mouth near Supai 9402000 9402300 9402450 9403000 9403043 9404110 9404112 9404115 Diamond Creek near Peach Springs 280 144,660 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7,390 NA NA 6,300 NA Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 29 25 8/1983-current (real time) 5/1993-current (real time) 24 25 25 25 18 34 6 Winter 7/1983-4/1996 (discontinued) 11/1990-current 9/1995-6/2000 (discontinued) 9/1995-current 10/1994-1/2003 (discontinued) 10/1923-4/1993 (discontinued) 10/1994-1/2003 (discontinued) 5/1990 - current (real time) 6/1947-current (real time) 10/1953-1/1965 (discontinued) Period of Record 18 25 22 24 24 25 50 26 3 Spring 31 28 32 27 27 26 16 27 78 Summer 14 13 Fall Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 6,936 138,315 10,215 (2000) Median 3,671 (1960) Minimum 162,519 21,502 25,165 22 23 22 24 25 24 2,209 (2002) 8,450,947 (2002) 8,246,104 (1990) 50,474 (2002) 39,022 (1996) 46,985 (1996) 2,629 9,254,765 8,542,935 52,176 39,964 47,421 2,967 10,426,177 8,526,042 52,574 40,090 47,514 No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 11,366 (1972) No statistics run; less than 3 years of data 16 9,981 Mean 5,026 (1999) 15,974,970 (1997) 8,789,087 (1991) 55,471 (1992) 41,412 (1998) 47,930 (1998) 65,737 (1941) 816,449 (1973) 19,909 (1963) Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) No statistics run; less than 3 years of data Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3year of 12 month records. Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 9404208 9404200 143,279 26,091 Moenkopi Wash near Cameron 9401500 Colorado River above National Canyon near Supai Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs 2,662 USGS Station Name 9404120 Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number Table 6.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin 9 13 3 4 4 7 51 55 11 Years of Record 72 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 City Dam in Williams Manzanita Repeater 3920 7540 73 Station Type Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available at this time Station Name Station ID NA 9/23/2005 Install Date ADWR Responsibility Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Mohave County FCD Table 6.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Coconino Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Coconino Plateau Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Dogtown City of Williams 1,390 F,R,S State 2 Kaibab City of Williams 967 F,R,S State 3 Long Point AZ Land Dept/ Babbitt Ranches 946 2 P State 4 Cataract (West Cataract Creek) City of Williams 860 2 R,S State Private 776 O Landowner 5 3,5 Gonzales Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005, City of Williams 2007 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)4 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 6 Davenport Kaibab NF 252 P Federal 7 Red Lake Tank Kaibab NF 200 P Federal 8 Dog Knob Kaibab NF 178 P Federal 9 Stone Kaibab NF 153 P Federal 10 Tule Havasupai Tribe 108 P Tribal 11 Laguna Hualapai Tribe 89 P Tribal 12 Smoot Private 50 P Landowner 5 6 5 6 5 C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 8 Total maximum storage: 892 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 37 Total surface area: 521 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 757 1 F=fish & wildlife pond; O=Other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond; R=recreation; S=water supply Normal capacity < 500acre-feet 3 The height of this dam is less than 6 feet. It is not regulated by State or Federal government. 4 Capacity data not available to ADWR 5 Intermittent lake 6 Dry 2 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 74 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 75 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 76 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.1-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 6.1-6. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • Numerous perennial streams are located along and in the vicinity of the northern basin boundary. All perennial reaches, aside from the Colorado River, are short, spring fed and flow into the Colorado River. • Intermittent streams are found along the Colorado River and in the vicinity of Williams. The Little Colorado River is intermittent for most of its length in the basin. • There are 28 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 1994. • Most springs are located along the Colorado River. The greatest discharge rate, 101,600 gpm, was measured at the Blue springs area which support perennial flow in the Little Colorado River. • Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.1-5B. There are 27 minor springs in this basin. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 71 to 80, depending on the database reference. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 77 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-5 Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Map Key Name 1 Blue-springs area2 360700 1114137 101,600 1950-1993 2 Havasu 361303 1124112 28,500 8/23/1994 3 Artesian at River Mile 182 361025 1130711 2,230 5/28/1995 4 Hawaii 360414 1121305 398 4/11/2001 5 Warm (multiple) 361148 1130459 390 5/28/1995 6 Hermit Creek 360417 1121307 328 11/21/2002 7 Diamond 354248 1131538 251 5/19/1993 8 Diamond Creek 354311 1131352 244 6/9/1994 9 Unnamed3,4 361627 1124331 200 5/20/1950 10 Hance at campground3 360106 1115732 179 4/8/2001 11 Three Springs3 355308 1131829 170 3/24/2004 12 Blue Mountain Canyon3 354302 1131747 100 6/9/1994 13 Unnamed3,4 361535 1124226 100 5/20/1950 14 Beecher 360957 1130802 90 5/28/1995 15 West Elk 352248 1115917 70 6/6/1979 16 Granite Spring Canyon3 354855 1131833 575 5/19/1993 17 Matkatamiba 362032 1124017 54 11/10/2003 18 East Elk 352236 1115912 47 6/6/1979 19 Garden Creek below Tonto Trail 360440 1120740 45 11/9/2000 20 National Canyon (total flow) 361518 1125239 33 10/21/1997 21 Colorado River Mile 1403 362338 1123516 256 6/22/1950 22 Newman 352418 1115149 20 6/5/1979 23 Monument3 360356 1121032 18 11/21/2002 24 Unnamed 362837 1115042 15 4/29/1976 25 Granite Park3 355750 1131836 14 10/13/1993 26 Monument Creek3 360455 1121110 13 8/23/2003 27 Pipe Creek 360409 1120557 125 12/7/2000 28 Unnamed2,3 361627 1124226 10 5/20/1950 78 Date Discharge Measured Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-5 Springs in the Coconino Plateau Basin (cont'd.) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Fern 361524 1124204 8 8/24/1994 Boucher east Tappen 360609 355129 1121414 1112633 8 8 4/12/2001 9/26/2001 3/23/2002 Royal Arch 361119 1122715 7 Mohawk Canyon 361246 1125815 5 5/19/2002 Cottonwood 360128 1115912 5 11/29/2000 Miner's 360059 1115817 57 11/20/1981 Burro 360436 361237 1120604 1130257 4 Honga above mouth 47 4/8/2001 10/10/1993 Pipe 360415 1120606 4 5/22/2000 Raspberry 352030 1113852 4 8/30/1978 222 Mile Canyon 354815 1131920 3 5/31/1995 Big Unnamed 355959 355502 1131227 1131959 3 2 5/20/1993 10/13/1993 Unnamed 355502 1131959 2 5/31/1995 Red Canyon 360020 1115604 2 6/3/2002 360440 360232 1120731 1120042 7 27 11/19/2001 11/29/2000 Forester Canyon 2 360039 361403 1120009 1123142 1 1 11/15/2001 1/20/2002 National Canyon 361346 1125215 1 11/6/2002 Salt Creek Clover 360436 351351 1120940 1121211 1 1 4/1/2001 8/5/1976 Sapphire 360711 1121846 1 10/23/2003 Horn 360450 1120836 1 11/22/2002 Hockey Puck 355602 1131032 1 6/9/1994 Unnamed3,4 351509 113524 1 11/1950 Pumphouse Grapevine East Grapevine Main 2 C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 71 to 80 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge is average for all springs in the lower 13 mile reach of the Little Colorado River, date measured varies by spring 3 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 4 Location approximated by ADWR 5 Spring flow is highly variable. Earlier measurement is shown, most recent measurement < 10gpm 6 Average discharge 7 Spring flow is highly variable. Earlier measurement is shown, most recent measurement < 1gpm 1 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 79 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 80 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Coconino Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.1-6. Figure 6.1-7 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.1-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.1-7. Figure 6.1-9 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods 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 6.1-6 and Figure 6.1-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include volcanic rocks, basin fill and sedimentary rocks (C- and R-aquifers and Moenkopi and Chinle Formations). • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Flow direction is toward the Little Colorado River in the eastern portion of the basin and generally toward the west in the western portion of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.1-6 and Figure 6.1-9. • As shown on Figure 6.1-9, well yields in this basin are generally less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm). However, there are several relatively high yield wells owned by the City of Flagstaff in the southeast part of the basin. • One source of well yield information, based on 16 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 45.5 gpm. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.1-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures two index wells in this basin (see Figure 6.1-8, hydrographs B and C). • All water level information is from the southern portion of the basin. The deepest water level shown on the map is 2,518 feet at Tusayan. Although not shown on the map, there are three wells with a depth to water of over 2,700 feet in the vicinity of Williams. The shallowest water level shown on the map is three feet in a perched aquifer south of Williams. • Hydrographs corresponding to selected wells shown on Figure 6.1-7 but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 6.1-8. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 82 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Coconino Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 5,812 Name and/or Geologic Units Volcanic Rock Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Moenkopi and Chinle Formations) Sedimentary Rock (C Aquifer) Sedimentary Rock (R Aquifer) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: 44 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 4-1,500 Median 45.5 (16 reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 30-100 ADWR (1990) Range 0-10 USGS (1994) N/A 3,000,000* Montgomery et al, 2000 N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1964 (5 wells measured) * Estimated by ADWR based on the assumptions by Montgomery et al (2000) of an average specific yield (drainage porosity) of 0.1%. Montgomery at al's study area was larger than and covered most of the Coconino Plateau Basin. N/A = Not Available 83 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 84 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.1-8 Coconino Plateau Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 1025 A C-aquifer 03 098-13.94X15.20 WELL DEPTH: 1292 ft USE: DOMESTIC Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1075 1125 50 100 250 1975 B 1975 C 300 1975 1985 1995 2005 volcanic rocks A-25-06 20ACC WELL DEPTH: 320 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 volcanic rocks A-24-05 11CDB WELL DEPTH: 292 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 85 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 86 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 87 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.7 Water Quality of the Coconino Plateau Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 6.1-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 6.1-7B. Figure 6.1-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.1-7. 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 6.1-7A. • Twenty-two wells or springs have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include total dissolved solids, radionuclides, thallium, nitrates, mercury and lead. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 6.1-7B. • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 28-mile stream reach, the Colorado River from Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek. This impaired reach also forms part of the border with the Shivwits Plateau Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 6.1-10 • There is one effluent dependent reach in this basin, which receives effluent from the South Rim Wastewater Treatment Plant. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 88 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Coconino Plateau Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 33 North 32 North 31 North 31 North 30 North 29 North 25 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 32 North 30 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 29 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 5 East 7 East 2 East 9 East 4 East 9 East 2 East 4 West 4 West 4 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 10 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 6 West 9 West 10 West NA 31 15 33 4 15 27 11 22 35 31 36 36 22 25 19 14 14 25 12 15 24 TDS TDS Rad Tl As NO3 TDS Pb As As, Pb As As, Hg As, Hg As As As As, TDS As As Pb As As Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Stream Colorado River (Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) 284 Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Well Spring Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key a Notes: Area of Designated Impaired Lake Use Standard3 (in acres) NA A&W Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 SSC NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1951 and 1994. 2 As = Arsenic Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate/nitrite Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Tl = Thallium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids SSC = Suspended Sediment Concentration 3 A&W = aquatic and wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. This reach forms a portion of the border with the Shivwits Plateau Basin. 1 89 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 90 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Coconino Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.1-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 6.1-9. Figure 6.1-11 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 6.1-8 and Figure 6.1-11. • Population in this basin increased from 6,977 in 1980 to 9,164 in 2000 and is projected to reach 16,589 by 2050. This is the most populous basin in the planning area. • All cultural water use in this basin is for municipal demand. Municipal demand centers include Williams, Tusayan, Grand Canyon Village, Valle, Supai and Cameron. • Groundwater demand is small and has remained relatively constant from 1971-2003. In 2000 the City of Williams started using groundwater because surface water supplies were unavailable due to drought. Groundwater use increased to 344 acre-feet in 2003. • Data on municipal surface water use prior to 1991 is not available. From 1991-2003 municipal surface water use decreased from 500 acre-feet per year to 350 acre-feet per year due to surface water shortages in Williams. • As of 2003 there were 152 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 17 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 6.1-9. • There are eight wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for two facilities and information on effluent generation was available for five facilities. These facilities serve almost 3,700 people and generate over 1,800 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Three facilities discharge to watercourses, two discharge to an evaporation pond, four discharge for irrigation, one discharges to a golf course, two discharge for municipal uses such as toilet flushing and one discharges to an unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.1-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Coconino Plateau Basin 1 Year Recent Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Data Source 1971 1972 1973 <500 NR 1974 1975 102 1012 1976 1977 <500 NR 1978 1979 ADWR 1980 6,977 (1994) 1981 7,051 1982 7,126 9 0 <500 NR 1983 7,200 1984 7,275 1985 7,349 1986 7,424 1987 7,498 19 3 <500 NR 1988 7,573 1989 7,647 1990 7,722 1991 7,866 1992 8,010 <300 NR NR 500 NR NR 15 3 1993 8,155 1994 8,299 1995 8,443 USGS 1996 8,587 (2005) 1997 8,731 ADWR <300 NR NR 600 NR NR 2 0 1998 8,876 (2005) 1999 9,020 2000 9,164 2001 9,282 300 NR NR 350 NR NR 6 1 2002 9,401 2003 9,519 2010 10,346 2020 11,793 2030 13,187 2040 14,753 2050 16,589 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 10 WELL TOTALS: 152 17 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. NR - Not reported Note: Surface water diverted in the Kanab Plateau Basin is delivered to the Coconino Plateau Basin for use at the Grand Canyon South Rim. This diversion is not included in the table. 92 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Valle Park Supai Tusayan Private Private National Park Service Havasupai Tribe South Grand Canyon Sanitary District Williams Grand Canyon Inn Grand Canyon Valle Airport WWTP South Rim WWTP Supai Village Sewer System Tusayan WWTP Williams WWTP Williams 3,690 2,690 NA 1,000 NA NA NA NA NA Population Served 1,721 1,138 68 56 448 NA NA 11 NA Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Cataract Creek Coconino Wash Bright Angel Wash Watercourse Lagoon X X X X X Evaporation Irrigation Pond Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Total Campground National Park Service Desert View WWTP Hotel Cameron Navajo Tribe Cameron WWTP City/Location Served Ownership Facility Name Elephant Rock Golf Course X X Municipal Reuse Disposal Method Wildlife Area Table 6.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Coconino Plateau Basin Discharged to Another Facility X Infiltration Basins NA NA Secondary Secondary Tertiary Current Treatment Level NA NA NA NA NA Population Not Served 93 2000 2004 2001 2004 2004 2004 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 94 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 95 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 6.1-10. Figure 6.1-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 6.1-10 • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in the vicinity of Williams. Twenty-seven water adequacy determinations for 1,194 lots have been made in this basin through May, 2005, all were determinations of inadequacy. • The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the distribution system was insufficient to meet demands or the applicant proposed water hauling. The next most common reason was insufficient water supply. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 96 Canyon Vista Ranch Chaparral Heights 2 3 Junipine Estates # 2, 3 Kaibab Estates West Lake Kaibab Park Lake Kaibab Park # 1 Lake Kaibab Park # 2 Lazy "E" Lazy "E" # 2 Lazy "E" # 3 Mason Commercial Center # 1 Mi Casa Mountain Shadows Pinecrest Estates Pinecrest Estates II Red Lake Estates Unit I Red Lake Estates, Unit II Red Lake Mountain Ranch 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 Coconino 9 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Howard Mesa Ranch Phase 2 Howard Mesa Subdivision, Unit 2 &3 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino County 8 7 6 5 4 Bally Mountain 1 Highland Meadows at Williams # 1 Highland Meadows at Williams # 2 Highland Meadows at Williams # 3, Unit 1 Highland Meadows at Williams # 3, Unit 2 Subdivision Name Map Key 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 23 North 25 North 25 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 23 North 23 North 23 North Township 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 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 East Range Location 3 1 1 29 29 15, 22 33 28 31 30, 31 30 27, 35 27, 35 15, 22, 23, 26 11 20 27, 35 33 31 31 31 31 11 21 35 Section 54 23 120 84 51 14 5 4 39 18 NA 9 14 4 9 238 75 63 39 38 125 29 44 11 19 22-400932 22-400401 22-400737 22-300067 22-400126 22-400073 22-300584 22-401476 22-401256 22-400042 33-300384 22-400438 No. of ADWR File Lots No.2 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate A3 A2, A3 A2, A3 A1, A2 A1 A2, A3 A1 A1, A2 A2, A3 A2, A3 D A3 A3 A3 A2, A3 A2, A3 A2 A2 D D A1 A1 A2, A3 A1, A2 A3 Reason(s) for ADWR Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determination3 Table 6.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin1 Dry Lot Subdivision A-1 Water Service A-1 Water Service City of Williams City of Williams Dry Lot Subdivision City of Williams City of Williams Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision A-1 Water Service City of Williams D & D Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision City of Williams City of Williams City of Williams City of Williams Dry Lot Subdivision Water Hauler Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at Time of Application Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 03/21/89 05/05/03 10/30/00 07/01/02 11/20/95 07/21/99 01/16/87 08/26/93 06/18/93 07/03/86 11/23/81 04/06/94 04/27/90 04/08/91 02/03/92 09/25/73 05/14/99 12/22/98 11/24/04 04/26/04 04/14/99 12/19/97 12/01/86 12/05/00 01/14/93 Date of Determination Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Timber Canyon Williams Pine Meadows Estates 26 27 Coconino Coconino County 21 North 23 North Township 2 East 2 East Range Location 3, 4 33 Section 41 24 22-300249 No. of ADWR File Lots No.2 Inadequate Inadequate A1 A3 Reason(s) for ADWR Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determination3 01/09/95 02/04/97 Date of Determination Dry Lot Subdivision A-1 Water Service Water Provider at Time of Application Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin 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 unavailable;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not available to ADWR at this time Subdivision Name Map Key Table 6.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Coconino Plateau Basin (cont'd)1 98 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 99 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 100 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Coconino Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A 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 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.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 101 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ______, 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, 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 Bills, D.J., and Flynn, M.E., 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5222* _____, 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona: USGS Open- File Report 02-265* Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report.* _____, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report* 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 102 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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.* G Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Ponds: Inventory, Assessment and Development of Recovery Priorities: AZ Water Protection Fund 99-074.* K Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon Springs and the Redwall-Muav aquifer: Comparison of Geologic Framework and Groundwater Flow Models: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 122 p.* 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.* Montgomery, E.L., 2000, Groundwater Beneath Coconino and Sand Francisco Plateaus: Presented at the First Coconino Plateau Hydrology Workshop, October 2000, Flagstaff, Arizona.* N National Park Service, 2004, Grand Canyon springs: Electronic data file, sent November 2004* _____, 1999, Protection of spring and seep resources of the South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park by measuring water quality, flow and associated biota: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-071.* 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 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 103 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* Price, D., and Arnow, T., 1974, Summary appraisals of the nation’s groundwater resources, Upper Colorado region: USGS Professional Paper 813-C.* 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.* Taylor, H.E., Peart, D.B., Antweiler, R.C., and others, 1996, Data from synoptic water quality studies on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, November 1990 to June 1991: USGS Open File Report 96-614.* 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.* _____, 2004, Assessment of spring chemistry on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: USGS Fact sheet 096-02.* _____, 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.* _____, 2004, Priority funding list applications. Wenrich, K.J., Boundt, S.Q., and others, 1993, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes- data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, 104 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 northwestern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 93-619. 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, E., 2000, Geologic framework and numerical groundwater models of the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 72 p.* Wilson, 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 Adams, E., 2004, Spring flow and timing of the south rim springs of the Grand Canyon, Arizona using modified electrical resistance sensors: in The Value of Water; Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Amentt, M., Springer, A.E., and DeWald, L., 2000, Restoration of perched aquifer system through manipulation of transpiration at the watershed scale: Geology Society of America: Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p. A-141. Andersen, 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. Appel, C.L., Bills, D.L., 1981, Maps showing ground-water conditions in the San Francisco Peaks Area, Coconino County, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 81-914. Bennett, J.B., Parnell, R.A., Meyer, W.A., Black, C.R., Petrouson, C.R., William. K.T., and Webb K.T., 1994, Impacts of flow regulation of the Colorado River on biogeochemical cycling in riparian environments, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: in Abstracts with Programs: Geological Society of America, vol. 26, no. 7, p A. 99. Bennett, J. B. and Parnell, R. A., Jr., 1995, Nutrient Cycling in the Colorado, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, USA: 3rd Biennial Conference on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ. Bennett, J.B., 1997, A Biogeochemical Characterization of Reattachment Bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 148 p. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Black, K., Prudhom, B., and Miller, M., 2006, C aquifer water supply study: Bureau of Reclamation, Report of Findings. Carpenter, M.C., Carruth, R.L., Fink, J.B., Boling, J.K., and Cluer, B.L., 1995, Hydrology and deformation of sand bars in response to fluctuations of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4010, 16 p. City of Williams, 2006, Water System Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. City of Williams, 2002, Coconino plateau regional water study: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-093 Coconino County, 1997, Tusayan Area Plan and Design Review Overlay, Area Plan Approved by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors April 7, 1995 & Amended May 5, 1997. Enzel, Y., 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. Farrar, C.D., 1979, Map showing ground-water conditions in the Bodaway Mesa area, Coconino County, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 79-1488. Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 2002, Investigation of the geology and hydrology of the Coconino Plateau of Northern Arizona: A project of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative: USGS Fact Sheet 113-02, 4 p. Flynn, M., Hornewer, N., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999:USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Garrett, W.B., Van De Vanter, E.K., and Graf, J.B., 1993, Stream flow and sediment-transport data, Colorado River and three tributaries in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1983 and 19851986: USGS Open–File Report 93-174, 624 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Gavin, A.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and Numerical Simulation of a Spring-Dominated HighElevation Riparian Community, Hart Prairie, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 177 p. 106 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Gilbert, B.A., 1997, Hydrogeologic parameters necessary to conserve backwater habitats of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 29, p. 177. Harms, R. 2005, Grand Canyon National Park springs, seeps, hanging gardens and tinajas summary: NPS, Southern Colorado Network. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hart, R.J., Rihs, J., Taylor, H.E., and Monroe, S.A., 2002, Assessment of spring chemistry along the south rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet FS 096-02, 4 p. Hazel, J. Jr., Kaplinski, M.A., Parnell, R.A. Jr., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Effects of the 1996 beach/habitat-building flow on Colorado River sand bars and sediment storage along the Colorado River Corridor; in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Heffernon, R., Muro, M., 2001, Growth on the Coconino Plateau-potential impacts of a water pipeline for the region: Morrison Institute for Public Policy report. Hereford, R., Webb, G., and Graham, S., 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Huntoon, P.W., 1996, Large basin groundwater circulation in paleo-reconstruction of circulation leading to uranium mineralization in Grand Canyon breccia pipes, Arizona: The Mountain Geologist, vol.33, no. 3, 71-84 p. HydroResources (Town of Tusayan), 2007, Water System Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Kaplinski, M.A., Bennett, J. Hazel, J. Jr., Manone, M., Parnell, R.A. Jr., and Cain, J., 1998, Fluvial habitats developed on sand bars, Colorado River, Grand Canyon: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 49. Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J. Jr., Parnell, R.A. Jr., Manone, M., Dale, A. and Topping, D., Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 1998, Sediment storage changes following short-duration high magnitude flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Grand Canyon National Park: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 30, p 12. Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon Springs and the Redwall - Muav Aquifer: Comparison of geologic framework and groundwater flow models: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 122 p. Kessler, J.A., Springer, A.E., 2000, Comparison of digital geologic framework models of the Redwall - Muav Aquifer, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 32; 7, p. 141. Kobor, J.S., 2004, Simulating water availability in a spring fed aquifer with surface/groundwater flow models, Grand Canyon Arizona: Northern Arizona University M.S. thesis. Kobor, J.S., Springer, A.E., 2003, Predicting riparian vegetation response to groundwater withdrawals; an interdisciplinary modeling approach to a regional spring system, Grand Canyon, AZ: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35, 6, p. 374 . Melis, T.S., Phillips, W.M., Webb, R.H., and Bills, D.J., 1996, When blue-green waters turn red, historical flooding in Havasu Creek, Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations 964059. Mondry, Z., 2002, Drought, storms, and stream flow and temperature observations from the Coconino and Prescott National Forests: on Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona Manone, M., Hazel, J. Jr., Kaplinski, M.A., Parnell, R.A. Jr., and Dexter, L., 1996, Monitoring the effects of flow regulation from Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River sand bars: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 47, p. 273. Monroe, S.A., Antweiler, R.C., Hart, R.J, Taylor, H.E., Truini, M., Ruhs, J.R. and Felger, T.J., 2005, Chemical characteristics of groundwater discharge along the south rim of the Grand Canyon, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2000-2001: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5146, 71 pp. Montgomery, E.L., 2003, R-Aquifer in northern Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Montgomery, E.L., 1997, Hydrology of the Missippian-Cambrian Redwall - Muav Carbonate Aquifer (R Aquifer system) and the potential impact of development along the Grand Canyon south rim: in Arizona’s Water: Looking for the Next Waterhole: Proceedings from the 10th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1997, Carefree, Arizona, p. 24. 108 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Montgomery, E.L, 1993, Projections for decrease in spring flow resulting from proposed groundwater withdrawal near Tusayan, Arizona: Canyon Forest Village Report. National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, 2006, Water System Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. O’Day, C. M., and Leake, S. A., 1995, Ground water availability in the Flagstaff area of the Colorado Plateau, Arizona: in Water Use in Arizona: Cooperation or Conflict?: Proceedings from the 8th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1995, Tucson, Arizona, p. 2-3. Parnell, R.A. Jr., Springer, A., Stevens, L., Bennett, J., Hoffnagle, T., Melis, T., and Staniski-Martin, D., 1997, Flood-induced backwater rejuvenation along the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon, AZ.: in Symposium on the Glen Canyon Dam Beach/ Habitat-Building Flow, Patten, D. and Garrett, L. (eds.): U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/GCMRC, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 41-51. Parnell, R.A. Jr., Bennett, J., and Stevens, L., 1999, Floods bury riparian vegetation: Impacts of the 1996 controlled flood of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon on nutrient concentrations in bar/eddy complexes; in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Petroutson, W.D., 1997, Interpretive simulations of advective flowpaths across a reattachment bar during different Colorado River flow alternatives: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 159 p. Petroutson, W. D., Springer, A.E., 1995, Characterizing stage-dependent measurements of hydraulic conductivity of reattachment bars in the Colorado River: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 27; p. 34. Petroutson, W. D., Springer, A.E., Parnell, R.A., Jr., and Bennett, J.B., 1995, Hydrogeology of reattachment bars on the Colorado River: 3rd Biennial Conf. on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ. Petroutson, W. D., Bennett, J.B., Parnell, R.A., Jr., and Springer, A.E., 1995, Hydraulicconductivity measurements of reattachment bars on the Colorado River: Proceedings of the 1995 meeting of the Arizona Section, American Water Resource Association and the Hydrology Section, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, vol. 22-25, p.7-10. 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. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002, North central Arizona water demand study: Phase 1, draft report. Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990 -1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Ross, L.E., 2003, Roaring Springs, Grand Canyon, Arizona: New data sets provide tools for improved recharge area delineation: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Ross, L.E. and Springer, A.E., 2002, Interactive three-dimensional visualization for digital hydrogeologic framework models: GeoWall presentation of the Grand Canyon, 2002 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. S. S. Papadopulas & Associates, 2005, Groundwater flow model for the C-aquifer in Arizona and New Mexico: Report for Southern CA Edison, SRP, and Nevada Power Co. Semmens, B.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic characterization and numerical transport simulations of a reattachment-bar aquifer in the Colorado River: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 188 p. Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W.,, 1997, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon Arizona, USA: dam, tributary and geomorphological influences: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13:129-149. Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, geomorphology and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Ecological Applications 5:1025-1039. Smith J.D., and Wiele, S., 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Springer, A.E., 1999, Threats to the values of springs and riparian ecosystems of the Grand Canyon by ground-water mining: Geological Society of America, 1999 annual meeting, Denver, CO, United States, Oct. 25-28, 1999: Abstracts with Programs 31; 7, p.23 Springer, A.E., and Kessler, J. A., 2003, Groundwater model of the Redwall-Muav aquifer of the Coconino Plateau incorporating impacts of pumping and water conservation on small springs of the Grand Canyon: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35. Springer, A.E. and Bills, D., 1998, Exploration for and ecological importance of shallow and 110 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 deep ground-water around San Francisco Mountain: in Geologic Excursions in Northern and Central Arizona, Duebendorfer, E.M., (ed.), p. 27-33. Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. United States Forest Service, 1999, Final environmental impact statement for Tusayan growth, Coconino County, Arizona: USDA report. United States Geologic Survey, Calculated hydrographs for the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam during the experimental release, March 22-April 8, 1996: USGS Fact Sheet 083-96. Victor, W.R., Lindquist, J.C., and Montgomery, E.L., 1999, Groundwater resources and potential impacts from the development, Tusayan Growth EIS: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. Ward, J., 2002, Groundwater on the Plateau: Southwest Hydrology, Vol.1, No. 4. Wilson, E., 2000, Geologic framework and numerical groundwater models of the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 72 p. Wilson, E.S., Springer, A.E., Winter, C.L., 1999, Delineating spring capture zones for the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, using framework and numerical models: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 31, 7, p. 347. Woodhouse, B.G., 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 CreekEast Verde River -Tonto Creek: on Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p. 97. Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Index to Section 6.0 Overview of the Western Plateau Planning Area 1 Geography 3,5 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 5-7 12,13,15 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Instream Flow National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 20, 21 22 23 25, 26 Population 29, 32 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 33 34 35 36 37 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand 37 41 Water Resource Issues Watershed Groups and Studies Issue Surveys 49 50 112 Section 6.1 Coconino Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.1 Geography of the Grand Wash Basin The Grand Wash Basin, located in the western part of the planning area is 959 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.2-1. The basin is characterized by cliffs and washes. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland with small areas of Great Basin desertscrub, interior chaparral and plains grassland. (See Figure 6.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.2-1 are: o Basin places of Pakoon Spring and Tassi Spring o Lake Mead forming the southwestern basin boundary o Grand Wash in the western portion of the basin o Grand Wash and Upper Grand Wash Cliffs running north-south through the basin o Mud Mountain in the northern portion of the basin o The highest point in the basin, Last Chance Knoll, at 6,758 feet 114 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 115 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.2 Land Ownership in the Grand Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Grand Wash Basin is shown in Figure 6.2-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large portion of land, 96% of the total basin area, within the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 86.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • Most of the BLM lands in this basin are part of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, which also includes two wilderness areas, Grand Wash Cliffs (37,030 acres, entire) and Paiute (87,900 acres, portion). • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 11.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 1.8% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • All state land is interspersed with BLM land and is included within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. • Primary land use is grazing. 116 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 117 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.3 Climate of the Grand Wash Basin The Grand Wash Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 6.2-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.2-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 16 inches in the northern portion of the basin and four inches or less near Lake Mead. 118 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-1 Climate Data for the Grand Wash Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual None Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) 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 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 119 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 120 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Grand Wash Basin There are no streamflow data, flood ALERT equipment or large reservoirs in this basin. Total number of stockponds in the basin is shown on Table 6.2-4. USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 6.2-4. 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. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.2-4 • There are no large or small reservoirs. • There are 109 registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.2-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, one inch per year or 53 acre-feet per square mile, in the northern portion of the basin near Mud Mountain Road and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in most of the southern portion of the basin. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 121 USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) 122 Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Table 6.2-2 Streamflow Data for the Grand Wash Basin Minimum Median Maximum Years of Record Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Grand Wash Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility None Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 123 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Grand Wash Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR (Name of dam, if different) 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 MAXIMUM RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (Name of dam, if different) (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: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 109 124 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 125 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Grand Wash Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.2-5. The locations of major springs and one perennial stream are shown on Figure 6.2-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • There are no intermittent streams and the only perennial stream is the Colorado River, which is impounded at Hoover Dam, and forms Lake Mead in this basin. There are six major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All springs are located in the western portion of the basin. The greatest discharge rate was measured at Tassi Spring, 75 gpm. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.2-5B. There are nine minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 47 to 52, depending on the database reference. 126 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-5 Springs in the Grand Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 1 Tassi 361523 1135728 75 5/9/2000 2 Pakoon 362457 1135726 58 5/11/2000 3 Whiskey 361848 1135851 40 2/6/1980 4 Chill Heal 361301 1135917 25 3/12/1980 5 Unnamed 361817 1135855 20 2/6/1980 6 Unnamed 361314 1135944 13 3/12/1980 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Middle 363205 1140230 9 5/11/2000 Burro 361700 1140013 3 5/9/2000 Unnamed 361752 1135906 4 9/22/1976 Cane -south 363916 1134705 2 5/14/2000 Hidden 362812 1133741 2 5/15/2000 Mud 364145 1134644 2 5/13/2000 Unnamed 361544 1135614 2 3/12/1980 Red Rock 363303 1140124 2 5/12/2000 #106 364100 1134526 2 5/13/2000 Date Discharge Measured C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 47 to 52 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 128 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Grand Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.2-6. Figure 6.2-6 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.2-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.2-6. Figure 6.2-8 shows well yield for one well. A description of aquifer data sources and methods 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 6.2-6 and Figure 6.2-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium and sedimentary rock (Cottonwood Wash and Muddy Creek Formations). • Most of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on groundwater flow direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.2-6 and Figure 6.2-8. • As shown on Figure 6.2-8 well yield data are only available for one well, which yields less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm). Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.2-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures two index wells in this basin. The water level in one well was at a depth of 21 feet and rose by more than 30 feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Water level in the other well is at a depth of 508 feet and was generally stable between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. • Hydrographs corresponding to the two wells found on Figure 6.2-6, but covering a longer time period are shown in Figure 6.2-7. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-6 Groundwater Data for the Grand Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 959 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill with Interbedded Volcanic Rock Sedimentary Rock (Cottonwood Wash Formation) Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Measured by ADWR and/or USGS 10 (1 well reported ) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells 300 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) N/A N/A ADWR (1990 and 1994) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (6 wells measured) N/A = Not Available 130 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 6.2-7 Grand Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 A WELL DEPTH: 153 ft USE: UNUSED sedimentary rocks B-37-15 18DBC 50 100 1975 500 550 B 1985 1995 WELLDEPTH: 548 ft USE: STOCK 1975 2005 basin fill B-36-15 25DCD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 132 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 133 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.7 Water Quality of the Grand Wash Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 6.2-7A. There are no impaired lakes and streams in this basin. Figure 6.2-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.2-7. 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 6.2-7A. • All seven springs have parameter concentrations of total dissolved solids that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. 134 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Grand Wash Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Township Range Section 38 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 33 North 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 14 8 9 9 18 3 4 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard 2 (DWS) TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Reach (in miles) (in acres) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1980 and 2000. TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 2 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 135 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 136 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Grand Wash Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.2-8. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 6.2-8 • Population in this basin is very small, with 15 residents in 2000. Projections suggest a small increase in population through 2050. • There are no recorded surface water uses in this basin. All groundwater use is for municipal demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2003 there were 12 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and no wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.2-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Grand Wash Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 92 <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 02 10 10 10 0 0 11 11 11 11 11 0 0 12 12 12 12 13 2 0 <300 13 13 14 14 14 1 0 <300 14 15 15 15 0 0 <300 16 16 19 23 29 37 46 WELL TOTALS: 12 0 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported ADWR (1994) <500 NR <500 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR USGS (2005) 8/23/2007 138 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Ownership Population Served Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Municipal Reuse Disposal Method No Wastewater Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in the Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Facility Name City/Location Served Wildlife Area Table 6.2-9 Effluent Generation in the Grand Wash Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served 139 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Grand Wash Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of May, 2005 for the Grand Wash Basin. 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, Section 1.3.1. 140 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Subdivision Name County Township Range Location No. of Lots ADWR File No. None identified by ADWR at this time Section Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Map Key ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination Table 6.2-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Grand Wash Basin Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 141 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Grand Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A 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 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. ______, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* ______, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* 142 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ______, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. ______, 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, 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGF), 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.* 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.* G Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Ponds: Inventory, Assessment and Development of Recovery Priorities: AZ Water Protection Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 143 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Fund 99-074.* 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.* _____, 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.* 144 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 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. Bales, J.T., and Laney, R.L., 1992, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation area: Virgin River, Nevada to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4185, 29 p. Billingsley, G.H., Beard, S.B, Priest, S.S., Wellmeyer, J.L, Block, D.L., 2004, Geologic Map of the Lower Grand Wash Cliffs and Vicinity, Mohave County, Northwestern Arizona. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2427 Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 145 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Draft resource management plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Office and NPS joint report, 2005. Dettiger, M., Harrill, J., Schmidt, D., 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 100 p. Enzel, Y., 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. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open – File Report 96-626, 20 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hereford, R., Webb, G., and Graham, S., 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Smith J.D., Wiele, S., 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990-1995: USGS Open–File Report 97-250, 474 p. 146 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Index to Section 6.0 Geography Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology Environmental Conditions Vegetation National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Population Water Supply Groundwater Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT 3 7-8 15 21 26 29 35 147 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 148 Section 6.2 Grand Wash Basin DRAFT Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 149 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.1 Geography of the Kanab Plateau Basin The Kanab Plateau Basin, located in the west central part of the planning area is 4,247 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.3-1. The basin is characterized by plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include Mohave and Great Basin desertscrub, plains grasslands, Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin subalpine conifer forest and Rocky Mountain montane conifer forest. There are small areas of subalpine grassland on the Kaibab Plateau north of the North Rim, generally along Highway 67. (See Figure 6.0-9) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.3-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Colorado City, Fredonia, Kaibab and Moccasin o Other communities and places of Jacob Lake, Lees Ferry, Marble Canyon, North Rim and Toroweap Ranger Station o The Colorado River and Grand Canyon forming the southern basin boundary o A series of plateaus running north-south; the Kaibab, Kanab and Uinkaret Plateaus o Vermillion Cliffs in the northeast portion of the basin o Granite Gorge on the southeastern basin boundary o Antelope Valley between the Uinkaret and Kanab Plateaus o Point Imperial, the highest point in the basin at 8,803 feet, located east of the North Rim Not well shown on Figure 6.3-1 are the Hurricane Cliffs on the northwestern basin boundary and Marble Canyon on the eastern basin boundary. 150 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 151 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.2 Land Ownership in the Kanab Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Kanab Plateau Basin is shown in Figure 6.3-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large parcels of U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forest Service and National Park Service (NPS) lands. Three percent is managed as the Vermillion Cliffs National Monument by the BLM and 2% is managed as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument by the BLM and NPS. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 41.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in the basin includes portions of the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monuments as well as the 7,880 acre Mt. Trumbull Wilderness, 6,860 acre Cottonwood Point Wilderness and a portion of the 79,000 acre Paria Canyon Wilderness. • Land uses include grazing, recreation and resource conservation. National Forest and Wilderness • 24.1% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Forest and Wilderness. • Forest lands are part of the Kaibab National Forest and include the 40,610-acre Saddle Mountain Wilderness and the 68,340 acre Kanab Creek Wilderness. • Land uses include recreation, resource conservation, grazing and timber production. National Park Service (NPS) • 22.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service. • This basin includes portions of Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. Indian Reservation • 4.4% of the land is under tribal ownership of the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Tribe. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, agricultural and ranching. State Trust Land • 4.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout the basin interspersed with BLM and private land. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 3.4% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the northern portion of the basin in the vicinity of Colorado City and Fredonia. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, agriculture and ranching. 152 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 153 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.3 Climate of the Kanab Plateau Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 6.3-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.3-3. Figure 6.3-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Kanab Plateau Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or AZMET stations. 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 6.3-1A • Temperatures at the nine NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations range from an average annual high of 91.4°F at Phantom Ranch to an average annual low of 23.2°F at Colorado City. • Most stations report highest average seasonal rainfall in the summer season (July-September) when about 30% of the annual rainfall occurs. • The highest average annual precipitation is 25.70 inches at Bright Angel Ranger Station and the lowest average annual precipitation is 6.55 inches at Lees Ferry. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 6.3-1D • There is one SNOTEL/Snowcourse station in the basin located at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. • The highest average monthly snowpack is usually in March with an average of 9.9 inches of snowpack. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 30 inches north of the North Rim and as low as four inches along the Colorado River. 154 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-1 Climate Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Bright Angel Ranger Station 8,400 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 61.8/Jul 27.2/Jan 10.79 2.80 5.76 6.35 25.70 23.2/Jan, Dec 4.41 2.70 4.04 3.02 14.17 10.32 Colorado City 5,010 1971-2000 76.8/Jul Fredonia 4,680 1948-2005 1 74.2/Jul 32.4/Jan 2.79 1.40 2.79 3.34 45.8/Jan 2.13 1.23 3.21 1.82 8.38 Inner Canyon USGS 2,570 1948-1966 91.5/Jul Jacob Lake 7,830 1 1950-1987 64.9/Jul 27.9/Jan 5.71 3.64 7.08 6.67 23.10 Lees Ferry 3,210 1971-2000 87.3/Jul 37.8/Jan, Dec 1.64 0.91 2.33 1.67 6.55 1971-2000 91.4/Jul 47.0/Jan 3.12 1.09 3.13 2.43 9.77 34.8/Jan 3.81 1.59 3.30 2.56 11.26 38.5/Jan 3.93 1.46 3.97 2.98 12.34 Phantom Ranch 2,570 Pipe Springs National Monument 4,920 1971-2000 76.7/Jul Tuweep 4,780 1948-1985 1 79.6/Jul Source: WRCC, 2003 Notes: 1 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Bright Angel Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages 8,400 1947 - current Average Snowpack, as Snow Water Content, at the Beginning of the Month, in Inches (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June 3.4(26) 6.9(48) 9.9(47) 9.0(42) 16.2(1) 0(0) Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 155 156 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Kanab Plateau Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 6.3-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 6.3-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.3-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.3-5. 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 6.3-2. • Data from five stations located at three watercourses are shown in the table and their location is shown on Figure 6.3-4. One station has been discontinued and three stations are real-time stations. • The Colorado River near Grand Canyon station receives highest seasonal flow in the spring (April-June) when 43% of the average annual flow occurs. Unlike the other two stations on the Colorado River in this basin, the period of record for this station predates Glen Canyon Dam upstream on the Colorado River, and therefore more closely reflects the river’s unaltered average seasonal flow. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 20.6 million acre feet in 1984 at the Colorado River near Grand Canyon station with a contributing drainage area of 144,660 square miles. • The Colorado River in the basin has a mean and median annual flow of over eight million acre-feet at all three gages. The Paria River is a major tributary to the Colorado River, with a median annual flow of over 18,000 acre-feet. • Figure 6.3-4 shows the annual flow in the Colorado River near Grand Canyon station. Flood events/Glen Canyon Dam releases are shown in 1983-84 and in 1998. Otherwise the data show below average flow, and less variability in year-to-year flow after construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1964. Note the very low flow in 1963-64 as the reservoir was being filled. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 6.3-3. • As of October 2005 there was one weather station in the basin located at Colorado City. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.3-4. • The basin contains three large reservoirs. The largest is Fredonia, an intermittent lake, with a maximum storage capacity of 2,710 acre-feet. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 157 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 • • • • The reservoirs are used as flood control, for irrigation and for fire protection or as a stock or farm pond. Two of the three large reservoirs in this basin are dry or intermittent lakes. Surface water is stored or could be stored in ten small reservoirs. There are 705 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.3-5. • Average annual runoff is highest, two inches per year or 106 acre-feet per square mile, below the Kaibab Plateau in the western portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, east and west of the Kaibab Plateau. Figure 6.3-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) Colorado River near Grand Canyon 19232005 (Station # 9402500) 25,000,000 Annual Flow, in af 20,000,000 Average Annual Flow 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1923 1933 1943 158 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 108,041 114,272 137,641 NA 1,085 Colorado River at Compact Point near Lees Ferry Colorado River above Little Colorado River near Desert View Colorado River near Grand Canyon Colorado River near Grand Canyon (Stonehouse) Kanab Creek near Fredonia 9383100 9402500 9402501 9403780 6,100 NA NA NA NA 6,150 10/1963-9/1980 (discontinued) 11/2001-current 10/1922-current (real time) 9/1989-9/2001 (discontinued) 10/1980-current 10/1923-current (real time) 40 27 17 25 24 29 Winter 27 25 43 25 25 11 Spring 20 28 24 27 28 38 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 14 20 16 23 22 22 Fall 608 (1964) 8,209,905 (2002) 1,629,360 (1963) 8,188,186 (1990) 7,833,437 (1988) 9,052 (1977) Minimum 3,743 8,466,917 9,884,422 9,610,439 8,383,659 18,104 Median Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 1 4,603 8,466,917 11,234,437 10,357,150 9,876,067 20,606 Mean 18699615 (1986) 47,867 (1980) Maximum 11,728 (1979) 8,723,929 (2003) 20,551,661 (1984) 15,420,721 (1997) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Notes: This gage is also included in the Little Colorado River Basin. It is not an actual gage but a compilation of data from the Paria River gage 09392000 and the Lees Ferry gage 09380000 in the Little Colorado River Basin and is used for accounting purposes. NA = Not available Average seasonal flow and annual flow/year data are current as of water year 2003 Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 1 Paria River at Lees Ferry 9382000 9383000 1,410 USGS Station Name Station Number Period of Record Table 6.3-2 Streamflow Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Mean Drainage Area Basin 2 Elevation (in mi ) (in feet) 16 2 79 10 20 79 Years of Record 159 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 160 Colorado City 7580 Weather Station Station Type Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available at this time Station Name Station ID NA Install Date Mohave County FCD Responsibility Table 6.3-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Kanab Plateau Basin Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Kanab Plateau Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Fredonia2 Fredonia 2,710 C State MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 200 I State 83 P Federal Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005 3 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR 2 Lakes of Short Creek Short Creek Southside Irrigation Co. 3 Toroweap 4 National Park Service C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 104 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 9 Total surface area: 112 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 705 1 C=flood control; I=irrigation, P=fire protection, stock or farm pond Intermittent lake 3 Capacity data not available to ADWR 4 Dry lake 2 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 161 162 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.3-5. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 6.3-6. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • • • • The basin contains numerous perennial streams; most are located along and in the vicinity of the southern basin boundary. Significant perennial streams include the Colorado River, the Paria River and Kanab Creek. Intermittent streams are found south of Jacob Lake and in the vicinity of the Colorado River. Most of Kanab Creek is also intermittent in the basin. There are 39 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Many of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1996. Most springs are located in the vicinity of the Colorado River. There is also a cluster of springs in the Moccasin/Kaibab area. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.3-5B. There are 23 minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 181 to 190, depending on the database reference. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 163 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-5 Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Tapeats (above Thunder) 2 Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured 362425 1122546 18,763 11/9/2003 Thunder at Tapeats 362346 1122728 9,741 11/9/2003 3 Angel 361317 1120040 7,810 10/14/92 4 Shinumo 361808 1121808 4,058 4/27/2002 5 Deer Creek 362322 1123027 3,542 5/31/2000 6 Roaring 361143 1120207 1,952 7/13/2003 7 Kanab Creek 362335 1123745 1,619 10/5/1993 8 Clear Creek 360454 1120208 772 4/24/2002 9 Dragon 361043 1121055 627 7/30/1969 10 Haunted 360935 1120636 430 8/15/1969 11 Abyss River 361721 1121528 403 7/13/1969 12 Fence Fault North 363139 1115044 300 3/26/2001 13 Stone Creek (below falls) 362050 1122708 265 3/1/2002 14 At Last 361716 1115745 260 7/29/1969 15 Crystal 361153 1121215 247 3/18/2004 16 Emmett2 361257 1120135 215 7/22/1969 17 Nankoweap Creek 361809 1115205 193 4/22/2002 18 Big 363608 1122054 185 7/2/2000 361012 1120435 184 8/16/1969 2 19 Ribbon 20 Clear Water 364606 1123712 155 1/25/1997 21 Kwagunt Creek near Colorado R. 361542 1114948 137 10/14/1995 22 Vasey's Paradise 362957 1115126 119 3/14/2004 23 North Canyon (multiple) 362354 1120500 108 6/28/2000 24 Chuar Creek 2 361000 1115147 100 10/12/1997 25 Long Res 365438 1124535 90 9/9/1976 26 Sand 365424 1124429 81 6/18/1997 27 Butte Fault-Upper 361658 1115318 76 3/27/2001 28 Phantom 360906 1120749 72 8/15/1969 29 Robber's Roost 361650 1120516 563 7/7/1998 361740 1121755 54 7/13/1969 2 30 Noble 31 Transcept2 361125 1120340 54 8/17/1969 32 Pipe 365149 1124422 353 7/27/1976 33 Cottonwood 365829 1123601 25 11/15/1996 34 Mangum 363720 1122022 25 8/8/1976 164 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-5 Springs in the Kanab Plateau Basin (cont'd) Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key Name 35 Two Mile Seep 36 Mocassin 2 365047 1123942 Date Discharge Measured 21 11/14/1996 365437 1124546 20 During or Prior to 1997 364645 1114613 18 8/4/1976 37 Soap Creek 38 Tunnel 365147 1124420 11 8/8/2000 39 Kanabownits 361714 1121246 10 6/1/1976 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Name Date Discharge Measured South Big 361906 1121537 9 06/1975 Sprayfield 361302 1120405 8 06/1975 Warm 364141 1121842 6 7/3/2000 Unnamed 362044 1124015 5 4/4/2001 Castle 363509 1122027 4 7/2/2000 Sowats 363139 1122718 4 7/1/2000 Cliff Dweller 361221 1120340 3 07/1976 Unnamed 2,4 Riggs 361257 1120403 3 6/1/1976 365655 1123729 2 11/15/1996 Little 362038 1130901 2 8/16/1950 Quaking Aspen 362243 1121654 2 6/29/2000 8/5/2000 Milk Creek 361616 1120835 2 Fern Glen2 361543 1125503 2 5/8/1976 Nixon 362408 1130846 1 6/20/2000 Sowats B 363127 1122718 1 7/1/2000 Timp 362316 1121743 1 8/8/2000 Coyote 365707 1120203 1 8/6/1976 Watts 362247 1121631 1 6/29/2000 Wolf 365853 1123809 1 11/15/1996 Saddle Horse 361345 1130317 1 8/9/1976 Unnamed 362047 1124329 1 5/7/1976 Yellowstone 364352 1125633 1 8/15/1951 Point 365516 1124322 1 11/15/1996 C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 181 to 190 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Spring flow is highly variable. Earlier measurement is shown, most recent measurement < 10gpm 4 Location approximated by ADWR 1 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 165 166 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Kanab Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.3-6. Figure 6.3-7 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.3-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.3-7. Figure 6.3-9 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods 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 6.3-6 and Figure 6.3-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium and sedimentary rock. • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on groundwater flow direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.3-6 and Figure 6.3-9. • As shown on Figure 6.3-9, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 10 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 70 gpm. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.3-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures three index wells in this basin, two are shown on Figure 6.3-7 with hydrographs for these wells shown in Figure 6.3-8. • For the two wells shown on Figure 6.3-7 depth to water was 87 feet at one well and 611 feet at the other. Water level change was minimal between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 167 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-6 Groundwater Data for the Kanab Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 4,247 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Sedimentary Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 236-480 Median 358 (2 wells measured) Range 3-500 Median 70 (10 wells reported) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 30-200 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) N/A N/A ADWR (1990 and 1994) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 3 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (62 wells measured) N/A = Not Available 168 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 169 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 6.3-8 Kanab Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 A WELL DEPTH: 202 ft USE: UNUSED 100 1975 600 650 B Kayenta Formation B-40-04 06AAC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1975 170 2005 sedimentary rocks B-39-02 20CDD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 171 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.7 Water Quality of the Kanab Plateau Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 6.3-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 6.3-7B. Figure 6.3-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.3-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, 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 6.3-7A. • Eight wells or springs have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was total dissolved solids. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded are lead and nitrates. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 6.3-7B. • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 29mile stream reach, the Paria River from the Utah border to the Colorado River. A portion of this impaired reach is located in the Paria Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 6.3-9 • There is one effluent dependent reach in this basin, Transect Canyon. This reach receives effluent from the North Rim Wastewater Treatment Plant. 172 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Kanab Plateau Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 37 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 39 North 5 East 1 West 4 West 7 West 4 West 7 West 8 West 4 West 4 15 31 23 17 4 17 24 TDS TDS Pb NO3 Pb TDS TDS TDS Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated Use 3 Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 NA A&W SSC Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) a Stream Paria River (Utah border to Colorado River) 29 Notes: 4 NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. 2 Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids SSC = Suspended Sediment Concentration 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. A portion of this reach is in the Paria Basin. 1 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 173 174 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Kanab Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.3-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 6.3-9. Figure 6.3-11 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 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 6.3-8 and Figure 6.3-11. • Population in this basin increased from 2,815 in 1980 to 5,930 in 2000 and is projected to reach 12,329 by 2050. • Groundwater demand has been approximately 2,000 acre-feet per year on average from 1976-2003. • Groundwater is used for both municipal and agricultural demand. Municipal and agricultural demand centers are located in the vicinity of Fredonia, Colorado City, Moccasin and Kaibab. • All surface water use is for municipal demand. Data on surface water use prior to 1991 is not available. The table includes approximately 500 acre-feet of surface water that is diverted from Roaring Spring in this basin for use at the Grand Canyon South Rim in the Coconino Plateau Basin. • As of 2007 there were no active mines in the basin. It is likely, however, that three uranium mines, Arizona One, Canyon and Pinenut will be operated in the future. • As of 2003 there were 247 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 65 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 6.3-9. • There are five wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for two facilities and information on effluent generation was available for four facilities. These facilities serve over 2,900 people and generate over 400 acre-feet of effluent per year. In the past Colorado City operated a wastewater treatment facility that served over 5,000 people and generated 403 acre-feet per year. The plant closed in 2002 and Colorado City now sends sewage to Hildale, Utah for treatment. • Of the five facilities with information on the effluent disposal method: one discharges to evaporation ponds; two discharge for irrigation; and one discharges to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 175 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.3-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Kanab Plateau Basin 1 Year Recent Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Projected Drilled (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 503 1713 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 2,815 1981 2,985 1982 3,155 6 5 1983 3,324 1984 3,494 1985 3,664 1986 3,834 1987 4,004 18 6 1988 4,174 1989 4,343 1990 4,513 1991 4,655 1992 4,797 800 10 1 1993 4,938 1994 5,080 1995 5,222 1996 5,364 1997 5,505 1 1,000 23 1998 5,647 1999 5,789 2000 5,930 2001 6,156 1,000 5 2 2002 6,382 2003 6,608 2010 8,190 2020 9,476 2030 10,570 2040 11,463 2050 12,329 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 5 14 WELL TOTALS: 247 65 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Surface-Water Diversions Irrigation Municipal2 Industrial <500 NR4 2,000 NR Irrigation Data Source ADWR (1994) 2,000 NR 2,000 NR NR 1,500 900 NR <1,000 NR 1,500 900 NR <1,000 NR <1,000 900 NR <1,000 USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) 2 Surface water diverted in the Kanab Plateau Basin is delivered to the Coconino Plateau Basin for use at the Grand Canyon South Rim. Includes all wells through 1980. 4 Surface water diversions for irrigation occurred in the Fredonia area prior to 1990 however data on the volume of surface water diversions is not available. 5 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. NR - Not reported 3 9/26/2007 176 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Park Private NA National Park Service National Park Service Jacob Lake Kaibab Lagoons North Rim-Grand Cayon WWTP Phantom Ranch NA Jacob Lake 2,895 NA NA 1,500 1,395 447 10 112 168 157 Volume Treated /Generated (acre-feet) Trancept Canyon Watercourse Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Total Park Fredonia Fredonia WWTF Fredonia Ownership Facility Name City/Location Population Served Served X X X Evaporation Irrigation Pond NA Wildlife Golf Municipal Area Course Reuse Disposal Method Table 6.3-9 Effluent Generation in the Kanab Plateau Basin Discharged to Another Facility X Infiltration Basins NA NA NA 1,025 Secondary w/ Nutrient Removal Secondary Population Not Served Current Treatment Level 2002 2002 2000 1998 Year of Record 177 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 178 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 6.3-10. Figure 6.3-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 6.3-10 • Six of the nine water adequacy determinations made in this basin through May, 2005 were determinations of inadequacy. • Most of the inadequacy determinations were because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information, and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. • The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: County Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate Coconino County 229 70 31% Mohave County 131 131 100% Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 179 Centennial Park Unit 1 Cliff Dweller's Homelands Cowboy Butte Estates Gateway Mobile Home Park Gateway Mobile Park Heaton Subdivision Lewis Estates Subdivision Roadrunner Estates Shiprock Estates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Mohave Coconino Coconino Mohave County 41 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 39 North 41 North Township 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 2 West 6 East 6 West Range Location 17, 21 20 16, 21 16 17 17, 21 5, 8 28, 33 18 Section 70 26 16 28 70 65 13 6 66 No. of Lots 22-400613 22-300320 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1 C A1 A1, B A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 03/17/78 03/26/84 10/29/01 03/18/85 4/24/1986 03/17/78 06/23/88 07/11/88 08/16/99 Date of Determination Town of Fredonia Town of Fredonia Town of Fredonia Town of Fredonia Town of Fredonia Town of Fredonia Town of Fredonia Dry Lot Subdivision Centennial Park Utilities Water Provider at Time of Application 180 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin 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 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 6.3-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Kanab Plateau Basin1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 181 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Kanab Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A 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. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 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. ______, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. 182 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ______, 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. 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.* 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.* G Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 183 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Ponds: Inventory, Assessment and Development of Recovery Priorities: AZ Water Protection Fund 99-074.* 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 National Park Service, 2004, Grand Canyon springs: Electronic data file, sent November 2004* 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.* Price, D., and Arnow, T., 1974, Summary appraisals of the nation’s groundwater resources, upper Colorado region: USGS Professional Paper 813-C.* R Reber, S. J., 1997, Hydrogeological Report, Centennial Park, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* 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.,1999, Geohydrology of Pipe Spring National Monument Arizona: USGS Open File Report 98-4263.* 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/ 184 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Wenrich, K.J., Boundt, S.Q., and others, 1994, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes- data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Northwestern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 93-619.* 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. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Bennett, J.B., 1997, A Biogeochemical characterization of reattachment bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 148 pp. Bennett, J. B. and Parnell, R. A., Jr., 1995, Nutrient cycling in the Colorado, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, USA: 3rd Biennial Conference on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ. Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. _____, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report. Carpenter, M., Carruth, R., Fink, J, Boling, J., and Cluer, B., 1995, Hydrogeology and deformation of sandbars in response to fluctuations in flow of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4010. 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. Flynn, M., Hornewer, N., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999:USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Garrett, W.B., Van De Vanter, E.K., and Graf, J.B., 1993, Stream flow and sedimenttransport data, Colorado River and three tributaries in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1983 and 1985-1986: USGS Open–File Report 93-174, 624 pp. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 pp. Gilbert, B.A., 1997, Hydrogeologic parameters necessary to conserve backwater habitats of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 29, p. 177. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 th annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hazel, J. Jr., Kaplinski, M.A., Parnell, R.A. Jr., Manone, M., and A. Dale., 1999. Effects 186 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 of the 1996 beach/habitat-building flow on Colorado River sand bars and sediment storage along the Colorado River Corridor: in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J. S., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (eds): AGU Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Hereford, R., Webb, G., and Graham, S., 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Inglis, R., 1997, Monitoring and analysis of spring flows at Pipe Springs NM, Arizona: NPS Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97125, 35 pp. Inglis, R., 1997, Water resource data of the Pipe Springs National Monument area, Arizona: US Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-90/02. Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J. Jr., Parnell, R.A. Jr., Manone, M., Dale, A. and Topping, D., 1998, Sediment storage changes following short-duration high magnitude flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Grand Canyon National Park: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 30, p 12. Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon Springs and the Redwall - Muav Aquifer: Comparison of geologic framework and groundwater flow models: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 122 p. Kobor, J.S., Springer, A.E., 2003, Predicting riparian vegetation response to groundwater withdrawals; an interdisciplinary modeling approach to a regional spring system, Grand Canyon, AZ: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35, 6, p. 374. Levings, G.W., Farrar, C.D., 1979, Map showing ground-water conditions in the Kanab area, Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 79-1070. Levings, G.W., Farrar, C.D., 1978, Map showing ground-water conditions in the House Rock area, Coconino County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 78-15 Miller, J.L., 2004, The relationship of seasonal rainfall and recharge with in Grand Canyon’s north rim Redwall-Muav aquifer using d18O and H: in The Value of Water; Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. National Park Service, 1998, Hydrologic investigation and conservation planning, Pipe Springs, Arizona: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 96-0004. National Park Service, 1999, Baseline water quality data, inventory, and analysis, Pipe Springs National Monument: US Park Service Report NPS/NRWD/NRTR-99/220. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Parnell, R.A. Jr., Springer, A., Stevens, L., Bennett, J., Hoffnagle, T., Melis, T., and Staniski-Martin, D., 1997, Flood-induced backwater rejuvenation along the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon, AZ.; in Patten, D. and Garrett, L. (eds.), Symposium on the Glen Canyon Dam Beach/Habitat-Building Flow: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/ GCMRC, Flagstaff, AZ., p. 41-51. Parnell, R.A. Jr., Springer, A., Bennett, J., Stevens, L., 1997, Effects of the 1996 Glen Canyon Dam controlled flood on nutrient spiraling along the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon, AZ., in Patten, D. and Garrett, L. (eds.), Symposium on the Glen Canyon Dam Beach/Habitat-Building Flow. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/GCMRC, Flagstaff, AZ., p. 52-56. Parnell, R.A., Jr., Stevens, L.W., Bennett, J.B., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Manone, M.F., and Dale, A.R., 1997, Impacts of controlled flooding on physical and chemical characteristics of riparian ecosystems along the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, p. 177. Petroutson, W.D., 1997, Interpretive simulations of advective flowpaths across a reattachment bar during different Colorado River flow alternatives: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 159 pp. Petroutson, W. D., Springer, A.E., 1995, Characterizing stage-dependent measurements of hydraulic conductivity of reattachment bars in the Colorado River: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 27, p. 34. Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002, North central Arizona water demand study: Phase 1, draft report. Ross, L.E., Springer, A.E., 2003, Three-dimensional groundwater modeling of the Redwall - Muav Aquifer on the Kaibab Plateau, north rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, based on newly collected data sets: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35; 6, p. 373. Ross, L.E. and A.E. Springer, 2003, Roaring Springs, Grand Canyon, Arizona: New data sets provide tools for improved recharge area delineation: 16th Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 18-19, 2003, Mesa, AZ. Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990-1995: USGS Open–File Report 97-250, 474 p. Rust Engineering Co., 1970, Preliminary study development of water resources, Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation, Arizona: US Dept. of Commerce, Economic Development Administration Report, 23 pp. 188 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Sabol, T.A., Springer, A.E., Umhoefer, P.J., 2002, Affect of the Sevier-Toroweap fault on ground-water modeling of the Kaibab Paiute Reservation, northern Arizona: Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section: Abstracts with Programs, vol. 34, 4, p. 15. Sabol, T. A., and Springer, A. E., 2003, Delineation of source water protection areas for tribal water supplies, Kaibab Paiute reservation, Arizona: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35. Semmens, B.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic characterization and numerical transport simulations of a reattachment-bar aquifer in the Colorado River: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 188 pp. Springer, A.E., Petroutson, W.D., and Blakely, J.C., 1996, Hydraulic conductivity variability of a Colorado River reattachment bar induced by a controlled flood: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 77, 46, p. 272-273. Springer, A.E., Bills, D., 1998, Exploration for and ecological importance of shallow and deep ground-water around San Francisco Mountain: in Geologic Excursions in Northern and Central Arizona, Duebendorfer, E.M., (ed.), p. 27-33. Springer, A.E., Petroutsen, W.D., Semmens, B.A., 1999, Spatial and temporal variability of hydraulic conductivity in active reattachment bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Ground Water, vol. 37, p. 338-344. Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, geomorphology and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Ecological Applications 5:1025-1039. Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1997, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon Arizona, USA: dam, tributary and geomorphological influences: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13:129-149. Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677. Truini, M., 2004, Preliminary Investigation of Structural Controls of Ground-Water in Pipe Spring National Monument, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5082. Truini, M., 2002, Movement and age of groundwater in the Navajo Sandstone and Kayenta Formation in the area of Pipe Spring National Monument, northern Arizona: in Abstracts with Programs: Geological Society of America 54th Annual Meeting, May 2002, Cedar City, Utah, vol. 34, no. 4, p. A17. Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 189 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Ward, J., 2002, Groundwater on the Plateau: Southwest Hydrology, Vol.1, No. 4. Webb, R.H., Smith, S.S. and McCord, A.S., 1991, Historic channel change of Kanab Creek, southern Utah and northern Arizona: Grand Canyon Natural History Association, Monograph no. 9, 91 pp. Wilson, E., 2000, Geologic framework and numerical groundwater models of the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 72 pp. Wilson, E.S., Springer, A.E., Winter, C.L., 1999, Delineating spring capture zones for the south rim of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, using framework and numerical models: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 31, 7, pp. 190 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Index to Section 6.0 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand Water Resource Issues Issue Surveys Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT 8 12,13,15 21 22 26,27 33 34 36 37 41,43,44 45 46 50,51 191 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 192 Section 6.3 Kanab Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.4 Paria Basin 193 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.1 Geography of the Paria Basin The Paria Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area is 408 square miles in area, the smallest basin in the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.4-1. The basin is characterized by a plateau and canyons. Vegetation types include Great Basin desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland. (See Figure 6.0-9) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.4-1 are: o Principal basin community of Wahweap o The Paria Plateau o Paria River in the north central portion of the basin o Lake Powell on the eastern basin boundary Not well shown on Figure 6.4-1 are the Vermilion Cliffs, which form the southern basin boundary and the highest point in the basin at 7,326 feet. 194 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 195 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.2 Land Ownership in the Paria Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Paria Basin is shown in Figure 6.4-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large portion of land, 86% of the total basin area, in the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 83.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • Most of the BLM land in the basin is within the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument and includes a portion of the 79,000 acre Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 10.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. • Primary land use is recreation. State Trust Land • 5.2% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout the basin interspersed with BLM land. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.2% of the land is private, consisting of two small parcels. • Private land is located in the vicinity of Wahweap and surrounded by state trust land in the central portion of the basin. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. 196 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 197 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.3 Climate of the Paria Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and Evaporation Pan stations are complied in Table 6.4-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.4-3. Figure 6.4-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Paria Basin does not contain AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. 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 6.4-1A • Temperatures at the one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station range from an average annual high of 84.5°F to an average annual low of 37.5°F. • The highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer season (July-September) when 30% of the annual rainfall occurs. Average annual rainfall is 6.78 inches. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 6.4-1B • There is one evaporation pan station in the basin. This pan is at 3,720 feet and has an average annual evaporation rate of 100.18 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.4-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 16 inches in the southern portion of the basin and as low as four inches along the Colorado River. 198 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-1 Climate Data for the Paria Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Wahweap 3,730 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 84.5/Jul 37.5/Jan 1.70 1.09 2.02 1.97 6.78 Source: WRCC, 2003 Notes: 1 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) Wahweap 3,720 1961 - 2000 100.18 Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Source: WRCC, 2003 C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) 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 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 199 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 200 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Paria Basin There are no streamflow data or flood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.4-4. The USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.4-4. 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. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.4-4. • The only large reservoir in the basin is Lake Powell with a maximum storage capacity of 20.3 million acre-feet. Most of the storage is in Utah. • Lake Powell is used for hydroelectric, irrigation, recreation and other uses. • There are 57 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.4-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwestern portion and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the eastern portion of the basin. Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 201 USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) 202 Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Winter None Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Table 6.4-2 Streamflow Data for the Paria Basin Minimum Median Mean Years of Record Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Paria Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility None Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 203 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Paria Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) Bureau of Reclamation 20,325,000 H,I,O,R Federal USE JURISDICTION Source: US Army Corps of Engineers, 2005 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: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 57 1 H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; O=other; R=recreation 204 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 205 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Paria Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.4-5. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 6.4-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • There are no intermittent streams and the only perennial streams are the Colorado River and the Paria River. There are no major or minor springs. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 2 to 3, depending on the database reference. 206 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-5 Springs in the Paria 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): 2 to 3 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 207 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 208 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Paria Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.4-6. Figure 6.4-6 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.4-6. Figure 6.4-8 shows well yields in two yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods 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 6.4-6 and Figure 6.4-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is sedimentary rock (N Aquifer). • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on groundwater flow direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.4-6 and Figure 6.4-8. • As shown on Figure 6.4-8, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. All well yield data is from the northeastern portion of the basin near Wahweap. • One source of well yield information, based on three reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 520 gpm in the vicinity of Wahweap. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 6.4-6. • There is one estimate of water in storage for this basin. This estimate, from a 1994 ADWR study, indicates there is 1,500,000 acre-feet of water in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.4-6. Water levels are shown for a well measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin; this well has a depth to water of 483 feet. • A hydrograph corresponding to the well found on Figure 6.3-6 is shown in Figure 6.3-7. Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 209 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-6 Groundwater Data for the Paria Basin Basin Area (in square miles): 408 Major Aquifer(s): Name and/or Geologic Units Sedimentary Rock (N Aquifer) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 30-600 Median 520 (3 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 30-1,400 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) N/A 1,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (34 wells measured) N/A = Not Available 210 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 211 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 6.4-7 Paria Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 450 A WELL DEPTH: 1200 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY N-aquifer A-41-08 14BCA 500 550 1975 1985 212 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.7 Water Quality of the Paria Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 6.4-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 6.4-7B. Figure 6.4-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.4-7. 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 6.4-7A. • Seven wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded the drinking water standard for arsenic. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 6.4-7B. • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 29mile stream reach, the Paria River from the Utah border to the Colorado River. A portion of this impaired reach is located in the Kanab Plateau Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. 214 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Paria Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 42 North 42 North 42 North 42 North 41 North 41 North 41 North 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 32 35 35 36 4 14 14 As As As As As As As Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Paria River (Utah border to Colorado River) Notes: Parameter(s) Area of Length of Impaired Designated Use Exceeding Use Stream Reach (in Impaired Lake Standard3 (in acres) miles) Standard2 4 29 NA A&W SSC NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1977 and 2001. 2 As = Arsenic SSC = Suspended Sediment Concentration 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. A portion of this reach is in the Kanab Plateau Basin. 1 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 215 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 216 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Paria Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.4-8. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. Figure 6.4-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 6.4-8 and Figure 6.4-10. • Population in this basin increased from 237 in 1980 to 555 in 2000 and is projected to increase to 703 in 2050. • All water use is for municipal demand in the vicinity of Wahweap. • Groundwater demand was reported as 1,000 acre-feet per year on average from 1971-1990 and less than 300 acre-feet per year on average from 1991-2003. • There is no reported surface water use in this basin. • As of 2003 there were 12 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 3 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 217 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.4-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Paria Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 122 1,000 NR 1,000 NR Data Source 32 237 262 287 0 0 312 337 362 387 412 0 0 437 462 487 494 500 0 0 <300 507 514 521 528 535 0 0 <300 541 548 555 562 0 0 <300 570 577 623 638 647 656 703 WELLS TOTALS: 12 3 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported ADWR (1994) 1,000 NR 1,000 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR USGS (2005) 9/4/2007 218 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Municipal Reuse Disposal Method No Wastewater Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Facility Name Wildlife Area Table 6.4-9 Effluent Generation in the Paria Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served 219 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 220 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 6.4-10. Figure 6.4-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 6.4-10 • All subdivisions reviewed for an adequacy determination are in Coconino County in the vicinity of Wahweap. Six water adequacy determinations for 991 lots total have been made in this basin through May, 2005, and all were determined to be adequate. Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 221 Greenehaven # 5 Greenehaven # 6 4 3 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino 42 North 42 North 42 North 42 North 42 North 42 North Township 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East 8 East Range Location 32 32 32 32 32 32 Section 40 NA 83 86 12 770 No. of Lots 22-400698 22-400505 22-400507 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 04/02/02 07/08/81 07/03/01 07/03/01 06/03/88 12/28/77 Date of Determination Greenehaven Water Company Greenehaven Water Company Greenehaven Water Company Greenehaven Water Company Greenehaven Water Company Greenehaven Development Corporation Water Provider at the Time of Application 222 Section 6.4 Paria Basin 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 unavailable;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not available to ADWR at this time 6 5 Greenehaven # 4 2 Greenehaven Mobile Home Estates Patio Homes at Lake Powell Greenehaven Subdivision Name County 1 Map Key Table 6.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Paria Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 223 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Paria Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A 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 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. ______, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* 224 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 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. 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. 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.* 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.* Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 225 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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.* Price, D., and Arnow, T., 1974, Summary appraisals of the nation’s groundwater resources, upper Colorado region: USGS Professional Paper 813-C.* 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.* _____, 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.* 226 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Berghoff, K., Boobar, L., and Ritenour, J., 1998, The effects of land use on water quality at the beaches of Lake Powell: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p.11. Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Draft resource management plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Office and NPS joint report, 2005. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study: Report. 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. Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 227 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Flynn, M., Hornewer, N., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-1999:USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Hart, H.E., and others, 2004, Physical and chemical characteristics of Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui canyons and the effects of recreational use on water quality, Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5120, 40 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12th annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hart, R.J. and Sherman, K.M., 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the forebay and outflows of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p. Hereford, R., Webb, G., and Graham, S., 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. 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. Mullen, G., Springer, A., Kolb, T., and Ament, A., 2002, Restoration of wet meadows: Influence of burning herbaceous communities on groundwater recharge: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings of the 15th annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002, North central Arizona water demand study: Phase 1, draft report. Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990 -1995: USGS Open–File Report 97-250, 474 p. Smith J.D., and Wiele, S., 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Vierra, L.E., Computation and analysis of the instantaneousdischarge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, through 228 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 September 30, 2000: USGS Professional Paper 1677. Ward, J., 2002, Groundwater on the Plateau: Southwest Hydrology, Vol.1, No. 4. Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT 229 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Index to Section 6.0 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 8 12,13 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Endangered Species National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Unique and Other Managed Waters 21 22 25 25,26,27 28, 30 Population 32 Water Supply Groundwater 35 230 Section 6.4 Paria Basin DRAFT Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin 231 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.1 Geography of the Shivwits Plateau Basin The Shivwits Plateau Basin, located in the central part of the planning area is 1,821 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.5-1. The basin is characterized by plateaus, canyons and cliffs. Vegetation is primarily Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin and Mohave desertscrub and plains grassland with small areas of Rocky Mountain montane forest and interior chaparral. (See Figure 6.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.5-1 are: o Basin places of Wolf Hole, Mount Trumbull and Oak Grove o The Colorado River and the Lower Granite Gorge of the Grand Canyon forming the southern basin boundary o Shivwits Plateau running north south throughout most of the basin and the Sanup Plateau in the southwest o Hurricane Cliffs on the eastern basin boundary o Mt. Dellenbaugh, located south of Oak Grove, the highest point in the basin at 7,072 feet 232 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 233 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.2 Land Ownership in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Shivwits Plateau Basin is shown in Figure 6.5-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large parcels of land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (NPS). Thirty-four percent of the basin is managed jointly by the BLM and NPS as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 53.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in the basin includes a portion of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and the 14,650 acre Mt. Logan Wilderness, located south of Mount Trumbull. • Land use includes grazing, recreation and resource conservation. National Park Service (NPS) • 38.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Grand Canyon National Park and the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. • Land use includes resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 4.9% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout most of the basin and is interspersed with BLM and private lands. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 3.3% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the vicinity of Mt. Trumbull and north of Oak Grove. • Land uses include domestic and ranching. 234 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 235 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.3 Climate of the Shivwits Plateau Basin The Shivwits Plateau Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 6.5-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.5-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 20 inches along the central eastern basin boundary and as low as four inches at the Colorado River on the basin’s western boundary. 236 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-1 Climate Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual None Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages) (in feet) for Averages None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) 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 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 237 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 238 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Shivwits Plateau Basin There are no streamflow data or flood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.5-4. The USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.5-4. 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. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.5-4. • The only large reservoir in the basin is Wolf Hole with a maximum surface area of 58 acres. This reservoir is used for fire protection or as a stock or farm pond. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs. • There are 369 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.5-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26 acre-feet per square mile, in the northwestern portion of the basin near Mud Mountain Road and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the southernmost and central portions of the basin. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 239 USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 240 Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Period of Record Spring None Winter Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Median Maximum Years of Record Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Minimum Table 6.5-2 Streamflow Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility None Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 241 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Shivwits Plateau Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION None Identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)1 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE2 JURISDICTION 1 Wolf Hole Private 58 P NA C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 20 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 10 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 369 1 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR P=fire protection, stock or farm pond 242 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 243 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Major springs with discharge rates and date of measurement and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.5-5. The locations a major spring and perennial stream are shown on Figure 6.5-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • There are no intermittent streams and the only perennial stream is the Colorado River. There is one major spring in the basin, Spring Canyon located at the Colorado River, with a discharge rate of 331 gallons per minute (gpm). Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 6.5-5B. There are five minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 51 to 56, depending on the database reference. 244 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-5 Springs in the Shivwits Plateau Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Spring Canyon2 Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 360107 1132106 331 Date Discharge Measured 3/20/2004 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Ivanpatch 362340 1132823 3 7/20/1951 Big 362014 1131125 2 8/10/1976 Green 360538 1132825 1 6/18/2000 Poverty 362355 1133251 1 9/8/1976 Russell 363120 1131930 1 7/21/1951 C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 51 to 56 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 245 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 246 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Shivwits Plateau Basin Major aquifers, well yields, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.5-6. Figure 6.5-6 shows water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.5-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.5-6. 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 6.5-6 and Figure 6.5-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is the recent stream alluvium. • Almost all of the basin geology consists of consolidated crystalline and sedimentary rock. • Data on groundwater flow direction is not available for this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.5-6 • One source of well yield information, based on 17 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is five gallons per minute. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.5-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • There are no index wells in this basin. • Water level information is available for one well in this basin, with a depth to water of 960 feet. • A hydrograph corresponding to the well shown on Figure 6.5-6 is shown in Figure 6.5-7. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 247 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-6 Groundwater Data for the Shivwits Plateau Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,821 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Well Yields, in gpm: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 2-35 Median 5 (17 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for all wells Range 0-45 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-10 USGS (1994) N/A N/A ADWR (1990 and/or 1994) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 0 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1976 (9 wells measured) N/A=Not Available 248 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 249 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.5-7 Shivwits Plateau Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 950 1000 A WELL DEPTH: 2120 USE: UNUSED 1975 250 sedimentary rocks (?) B-34-12 24DDA 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.7 Water Quality of the Shivwits Plateau Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 6.5-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 6.5-7B. Figure 6.5-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.5-7. 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 6.5-7A. • One spring has a parameter concentration that has equaled or exceeded the drinking water standard for arsenic. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 6.5-7B. • The water quality standard for suspended sediment concentration was exceeded in one 28-mile stream reach, the Colorado River from Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek. This impaired reach also forms part of the border with the Coconino Plateau Basin. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 251 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Shivwits Plateau Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 Spring Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 30 North 13 West 24 As Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Colorado River (Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) Notes: Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) 284 NA Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 A&W SSC NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. 2 As = Arsenic SSC = Suspended sediment concentration 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 4 Total length of the impaired reach. This reach forms a portion of the border with the Coconino Plateau Basin. 1 252 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 253 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.5-8. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 6.5-8 • Population in this basin is very small, with 12 residents in 2000. Projections suggest a small increase in population through 2050. • There are no recorded surface water uses in this basin. All groundwater use is for municipal demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2003 there were 18 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and no wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. 254 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.5-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Shivwits Plateau Basin1 Year Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Data Source 1971 1972 <500 NR 1973 1974 1975 162 02 1976 1977 <500 NR 1978 1979 ADWR 4 1980 (1994) 4 1981 5 1982 0 0 <500 NR 5 1983 6 1984 6 1985 6 1986 7 1987 0 0 <500 NR 7 1988 8 1989 1990 8 8 1991 9 1992 <300 NR NR 1 0 NR 9 1993 10 1994 10 1995 10 1996 USGS 11 1997 (2005) <300 NR NR 0 0 NR 11 1998 12 1999 12 2000 13 2001 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 13 2002 14 2003 18 2010 27 2020 40 2030 61 2040 91 2050 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 1 TOTALS: 18 0 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. NR - Not reported 8/28/2007 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 255 Ownership 256 Facility Name City/Location Population Served Served Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Municipal Reuse Disposal Method No Wastewater Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Wildlife Area Table 6.5-9 Effluent Generation in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Discharged to Another Facility Population Not Served Year of Record Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Shivwits Plateau Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of May, 2005 for the Shivwits Plateau Basin. 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, Section 1.3.1. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 257 Subdivision Name 258 Map Key County Township Location Range No. of ADWR Lots File No. ADWR Adequacy None identified by ADWR at this time Section Reason(s) for Inadequacy Table 6.5-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Shivwits Plateau Basin Water Provider at the Time of Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Date of Determination Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Shivwits Plateau Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A 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 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. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 259 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 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/i ndex. 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. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. _____, 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.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in 260 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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.* _____, 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.* Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 261 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Wenrich, K.J., Boundt, S.Q., and others, 1994, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes - data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Northwestern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 93-619.* 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. Blanchard, P.J., 1986, Groundwater conditions in the Kaiparowits Plateau area, Utah and Arizona, with emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone: Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication No. 81, 87 p. Bureau of Land Management, 2007, Final resource management plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Office and NPS joint report, 2007. Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. Enzel, Y., 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. 262 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip springs, seeps and natural ponds: Inventory, assessment and development of recovery priorities: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-074. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Hereford, R., Webb, G., and Graham, S., 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Inglis, R., 1997, Monitoring and analysis of spring flows at Pipe Springs NM, Arizona: NPS Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97125, 35 p. Moore, K., Davis, B., Duck, T., 2003, Mt. Trumbull Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29 2003. Rust Engineering Co., 1970, Preliminary study development of water resources, KaibabPaiute Indian Reservation, Arizona: US Dept. of Commerce, Economic Development Administration Report, 23 p. Smith J.D., and Wiele, S., 1991, Flow and sediment transport in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead: USGS report 38 p. Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990-1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT 263 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Index to Section 6.0 Overview of the Western Plateau Planning Area 1 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 10 15 Environmental Conditions Vegetation National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 21 26 Population 29 Cultural Water Use 40 264 Section 6.5 Shivwits Plateau Basin DRAFT Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin 265 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.1 Geography of the Virgin River Basin The Virgin River Basin, located in the northwestern-most part of the planning area is 434 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 6.6-1. The basin is characterized by mountains and a broad valley west of the mountains. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub with smaller areas of Great Basin desertscrub, Great Basin conifer woodland, interior chaparral and a small area of Rocky Mountain montane conifer forest. (See Figure 6.0-9) Riparian vegetation along the Virgin River is predominantly tamarisk. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 6.6-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Beaver Dam and Littlefield o The Virgin River running from the northeast to southwest of the basin o Virgin and Beaver Dam Mountains in the center of the basin o Mt. Bangs on the southern basin boundary, the highest point in the basin at 8,012 feet 266 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 267 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.2 Land Ownership in the Virgin River Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Virgin River Basin is shown in Figure 6.6-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large portion of land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of percentage from largest to smallest in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 91.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Arizona Strip Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • A small portion of BLM land is managed as the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. The basin includes the 19,600 acre Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness and a portion of the 87,900 acre Paiute Wilderness, located in the eastern portion of the basin. • Primary land use is recreation, resource conservation and grazing. Private • 5.0% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the vicinity of Beaver Dam/Littlefield and west of Elbow Canyon Road in an area known as “Scenic.” • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. State Trust Land • 3.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State land is located throughout most of the basin and is interspersed with BLM and private lands. • Primary land use is grazing. 268 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 269 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.3 Climate of the Virgin River Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 6.6-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 6.6-3. Figure 6.6-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Virgin River Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. 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 6.6-1A • Temperatures at the one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station range from an average annual high of 89.5°F to an average annual low of 45.5°F. • The highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter season (January-March) when 40% of the annual rainfall occurs. Average annual rainfall is 7.59 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 6.6-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 16 inches in the eastern portion of the basin and as low as four inches in the western portion of the basin. 270 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-1 Climate Data for the Virgin River Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Beaver Dam 1,880 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 89.5/Jul 45.5/Jan 3.05 0.89 1.68 1.97 7.59 Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) 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 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 271 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 272 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Virgin River Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 6.6-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 6.6-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 6.6-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 6.6-5. 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 6.6-2. • Data from three stations located at two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 6.6-5. Two stations are real-time stations and all are currently operating. • In general, average seasonal flow is highest in the winter (January-March) when between 31% and 42% of the average annual flow occurs. • The maximum annual flow was 506,912 acre-feet in 1983 at the Virgin River at Littlefield station with a contributing drainage area of 5,090 square miles. Data shown on the table is through the 2002-2003 water year. In 2005, the annual flow at this station was 566,225 acre-feet or approximately four times greater than the median annual flow. • Figure 6.6-4 shows the periodic flood events in the Virgin River recorded at the Littlefield gage from 1930-2006. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 6.6-3. • As of October 2005 there was one weather station in the basin located at Beaver Dam. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 6.6-4. • There are no large reservoirs and one small reservoir with a total surface area of six acres. • There are 45 registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 6.6-5. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 27 acre-feet per square mile, at the southeastern tip of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, to the north and west. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 273 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.6-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona, water years 1930-2006 (Station # 9415000) 700,000 Annual Flow, AF 600,000 500,000 Average Annual Flow 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1930 1940 1950 274 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 4,415 575 5,090 USGS Station Name Virgin River above the Narrows near Littlefield Beaver Dam Wash at Beaver Dam Virgin River at Littlefield 9413700 9414900 9415000 5,500 NA NA 10/1929-current 2/1993-current (real time) 6/1998-current (real time) Period of Record 32 42 31 Winter 33 21 21 Spring 15 17 19 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 20 20 29 Fall Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin PRELIMINARY 73,140 (1977) 1,151 (2002) 68,506 (2000) 141,935 1,709 71,764 Median 174,502 1,572 92,644 Mean 506,912 (1983) 1,947 (1996) 137,663 (2001) Maximum Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Minimum Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number Table 6.6-2 Streamflow Data for the Virgin River Basin Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 72 5 3 Years of Record 275 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Beaver Dam 7570 276 Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available at this time Station Name Station ID Weather Station Station Type NA Install Date Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Mohave County FCD Responsibility Table 6.6-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Virgin River Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Virgin River Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR 1 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: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) 1 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 6 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 45 1 Capacity data not available to ADWR Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 277 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 278 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Virgin River Basin Major springs with discharge rates and date of measurement and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 6.6-5. The locations of major springs and perennial streams are shown on Figure 6.6-6. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • • There are no intermittent streams and the only perennial stream is the Virgin River. There are a series of major springs in the basin with a combined discharge rate of 50 gallons per minute (gpm). The largest discharge is in the vicinity of Littlefield, where the total discharge for eight springs is between 8,980 gpm and 22,400 gpm. There are no minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 23 to 25, depending on the database reference. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 279 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-5 Springs in the Virgin River Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Littlefield (multiple) 2 Beaver Dam Wash (multiple) Discharge Date Discharge Location 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 8,980 - During or before 365539 1134950 2000 22,4002 During or before 365411 1135615 1,1203 1997 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Discharge Date Discharge Location 2 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Name None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 23 to 25 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge of 8 springs in a 7 mile reach from the Narrows to the Littlefield gage 3 Estimation of discharge along Beaver Dam Wash above Littlefield gage 1 280 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 281 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Virgin River Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 6.6-6. Figure 6.6-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 6.6-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 6.6-7. Figure 6.6-9 shows well yields in 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 6.6-6 and Figure 6.6-7. • Major aquifers in the basin include basin fill and sedimentary rock (Muddy Creek Formation). • Basin geology in the western portion of the basin consists of unconsolidated sediments. • Flow direction is generally toward the west following Beaver Dam Wash and the Virgin River. Well Yields • Refer to Table 6.6-6 and Figure 6.6-9. • As shown on Figure 6.6-9, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 53 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 650 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 6.6-6. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is greater than 30,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 6.6-6. • According to the one estimate of water in storage for this basin, from a 1994 ADWR study, there is 1.7 million acre-feet of water in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 6.6-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures six index wells in this basin. Depth to water and hydrographs for five of the six index wells are shown in Figure 6.6-7 and Figure 6.6-8. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 380 feet in the northern portion of the basin and the shallowest is 57 feet north of Beaver Dam. • There is one ADWR automated groundwater level monitoring device located near Littlefield, not shown on the map. 282 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-6 Groundwater Data for the Virgin River Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 434 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 3-5,500 Median 650 (53 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 0-2,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) >30,000 Virgin Valley Water District (2005) 1,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 6 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1991 (65 wells measured) N/A = Not Available Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 283 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 284 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Figure 6.6-8 Virgin River Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 350 400 1975 B Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 25 75 C WELL DEPTH: 599 ft USE: MONITORING D 125 1975 300 350 E 1975 1995 WELL DEPTH: 98 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 275 1975 Muddy Creek Formation B-41-15 08ADA 1985 1975 225 175 WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: MONITORING recent stream alluvium B-41-15 33CAB 1995 2005 Muddy Creek Formation B-40-15 06CDD 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 274 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 Muddy Creek Formation B-40-16 34CBC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 410 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 2005 2005 basin fill B-39-16 15DDD YEAR 1995 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 2005 285 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 286 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.7 Water Quality of the Virgin River Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 6.6-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 6.6-7B. Figure 6.6-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 6.6-7. 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 6.6-7A. • Thirteen wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The most common standard equaled or exceeded was arsenic. • Other standards equaled or exceeded were radionuclides, nitrates and lead. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 6.6-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in one 10-mile stream reach, the Virgin River from Beaver Dam Wash to Big Bend Wash. • The parameters exceeded were suspended sediment concentration and selenium. • This reach is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program at this time. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 287 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Virgin River Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 40 North 39 North 39 North 39 North 39 North 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 32 32 3 3 3 4 5 5 33 3 11 11 15 As As As, Rad As As As As As NO3 Pb As As As Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Virgin River (Beaver Dam Wash to Big Bend Wash) Notes: Length of Area of Impaired Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Reach (in miles) 10 NA Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 A&W Se, SSC NA = Not Applicable Water quality samples collected between 1997 and 2002. 2 As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Se = Selenium SSC = Suspended Sediment Concentration 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 1 288 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Virgin River Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 6.6-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 6.6-9. Figure 6.6-11 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 6.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 6.6-8 and Figure 6.6-11. • Population in this basin increased from 99 in 1980 to 1,532 in 2000 and is projected to reach 5,508 by 2050. • Groundwater demand increased from 5,000 acre-feet per year on average in 1971-1975 to approximately 9,150 acre-feet per year on average from 1996-2000. In 2001-2003 groundwater demand was 2,950 acre-feet per year on average. • Surface water demand was 3,000 acre-feet on average from 1971-1990 and increased to approximately 6,350 acre-feet in 1996-2000. In 2001-2003 surface water use was approximately 1,650 acre-feet per year on average due to declining agricultural demand. • Most basin demand for both surface water and groundwater is for irrigation. Agricultural demand centers are found in the vicinity of Beaver Dam/Littlefield and Elbow Canyon Road. Flooding in January 2005 destroyed some of the agricultural fields in this basin. • All recorded industrial demand in the basin is for two golf courses. • There are two sand and gravel operations in the basin in the vicinity of Scenic and Beaver Dam, their water use was not available. • As of 2003 there were 258 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 82 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 6.6-9. • There are four wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served, effluent generation and disposal method is available only for the Beaver Dam Sewer Company Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant serves 119 people, generates 6.2 acre-feet of effluent and discharges to a watercourse. 290 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Table 6.6-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Virgin River Basin 1 Year Recent Number of Registered (Census) Water Supply Wells and Drilled Projected (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Population Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Data Source 1971 1972 1973 5,000 3,000 1974 1975 372 512 1976 1977 6,000 3,000 1978 1979 1980 99 ADWR 1981 109 (1994) 1982 119 11 9 6,000 3,000 1983 129 1984 139 1985 150 1986 160 1987 170 48 10 7,000 3,000 1988 180 1989 190 1990 200 1991 333 1992 466 <300 700 NR 72 6 7,800 <300 5,800 1993 600 1994 733 1995 866 1996 999 USGS 1997 1,133 (2005) <300 700 NR <300 6,200 43 3 8,300 1998 1,266 1999 1,399 2000 1,532 2001 1,580 <300 700 2,000 NR <300 1,500 14 1 2002 1,628 2003 1,676 2010 1,855 2020 2,435 2030 3,196 2040 4,196 2050 5,508 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 35 WELL TOTALS: 258 82 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. NR - Not reported Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 291 Virgin River ID Private NA NA Beaver Dam Sewer Co. WWTP Biasi WWTP Shadow Ridge WWTP Virgin Acres WWTP 292 Ownership Facility Name Beaver Dam Littlefield Beaver Dam Beaver Dam City/Location Served 119 Population Served 6.2 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) X Watercourse NA NA NA Evaporation Golf Municipal Irrigation Pond Course Reuse Disposal Method Table 6.6-9 Effluent Generation in the Virgin River Basin Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Secondary Current Treatment Level NA Population Not Served 2002 Year of Record Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Infiltration Basins Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 293 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 6.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 6.6-10. Figure 6.6-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 6.6-10 • Nine of the ten water adequacy determinations made for 627 lots total in this basin through May, 2005 were determined to be adequate. • The one determination of inadequacy was for 26 lots in Mohave County near the boundary with Nevada. The determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information, and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. 294 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Mohave Mohave Beaver Dam Oasis Beaver Dam Resort, Inc. Beaver Dam Virgin Acres # 1 Biasi Ranch Estates Desert Springs Ranchos Fairview Mobile Home Estates Virgin Acres Virgin Acres - B Virgin Village I & II 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 41 North 41 North 41 North 40 North 40 North 41 North 41 North 40 North 41 North 41 North Township 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West Range Location 32 32 29 32 3 29 32 4, 5 33 32 Section 93 40 320 26 21 19 51 NA 9 48 No. of Lots 22-300507 22-300568 22-401814 22-300115 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1 10/07/98 12/04/98 9/25/1995 11/30/87 01/13/94 09/08/05 07/10/96 10/01/87 01/23/92 05/06/92 Biasi Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Biasi Water Company Mesquite Farmstead Water Association Dry Lot Subdivision Biasi Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Beaver Dam Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Beaver Dam East Domestic W.I.D. Reason(s) for Water Provider at Date of Inadequacy the Time of Determination Application Determination3 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin PRELIMINARY 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 Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Beaver Dam Estates 1 County Subdivision Name Map Key Table 6.6-10. Adequacy Determinations in the Virgin River Basin1 295 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 296 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Virgin River Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A 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, Personal communication with D. Town, ADEQ hydrologist, Aug.13, 2004.* _____, 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. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 _____, 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 Bales, J.T., and Laney, R.L., 1992: Geohydrological reconnaissance of the Lake Mead NRA-Virgin River, Nevada to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4158, 29 p.* Beaver Dam Water Company, 2005, Hydrologic Report for Beaver Dam Water Company, Palms Well No. 2 Registration Number 55-551856 on Assured and Adequate Water Supply. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* 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. 298 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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.* G GEO Consultants, 2001, Hydrologic Study, Assured and Adequate Water Supply, Virgin Mountain Utilities Company, T39N R 16W Portions of Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15, Mohave County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* J Johnson, L., 1996: Beaver Dam Wash surface water quality intensive survey, Nov. 1993- Sept. 1994: ADEQ report, 22 p.* 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 Leslie & Associates, 1991, Water Adequacy Report for Beaver Dam Estates. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* 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.* R Rowley – Leslie Associates, 1987, Water Adequacy Report for Beaver Dam Resort. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* 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. 300 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 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. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1993, Water resource study Virgin River Basin: Arizona Department of Water Resources Unpublished Report. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1995, Beaver Dam Wash surface water quality intensive survey, November 1993- September 1994: ADEQ Open File Report 95-4. Bales, J.T., and Laney, R.L., 1992, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation area: Virgin River, Nevada to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4185, 29 p. Bio/West Inc, 1995, Virgin River geomorphic and hydrological studies related to channel forming flows: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Report. Black, K.R. and Rascona, 1991, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Virgin River basin, Mohave County, Arizona, Lincoln and Clark Counties, Nevada –1991: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series #22. Burbey, T.J., and others, 2006. Three-dimensional deformation and strain induced by municipal pumping, part 1: Analysis of field data. Journal of Hydrology 319 (2006) Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Draft resource management plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement for Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument: BLM Arizona Field Office and NPS joint report, 2005. Carlson, D.D., and Meyer, D.F., 1995, Flood on the Virgin River, January 1989, in Utah, Arizona and Nevada, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4159. Dettiger, M., Harrill, J., Schmidt, D., 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 100 p. Dixon, G.L., Katzer, T.C., 2005, Geology and hydrology of the Lower Virgin River Valley in Nevada, Arizona and Utah: Virgin Valley Water District report. Enright, M. 1996. Selected hydrologic data for the Beaver Dam Wash area, Washington County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona, 1991-1995: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-493 Fogg, J.L., 1998, Beaver Dam Wash instream flow assessment: Bureau of Land Management, March 1998. Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County General Plan: Water Resources Element. Glancy, P.A. and Van Denburgh, A.S., 1969, Water Resources - Reconnaissance Series Report 51, Water-Resources Appraisal of the Lower Virgin River Valley Area, Nevada, Arizona and Utah, USGS Cooperative Report. Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2002, Arizona Strip springs, seeps and natural ponds: Inventory, assessment and development of recovery priorities: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 99-074. Hereford, R., Webb, G., and Graham, S., 2002, Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau region, 1990 – 2000: USGS Fact sheet 119-02. Holmes, W.F. and others, 1997, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Beaver Dam Wash Area, Washington County, Utah, Lincoln County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 97-4193. JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., SWCA Consultants, and Water Research Center University of Arizona 1998, Preliminary report on the Arizona Stream Navigability Study for the Virgin River in Arizona: Arizona State Land Department Report. Johnson, M., 2002, Hydrology and groundwater conditions of the tertiary muddy creek formation in the Lower Virgin River basin of southeastern Nevada, northwestern Arizona: Proceedings from Geological Society of America- Rocky Mountain Section annual meeting May 2002. Katzer, T., Brothers, K., 1995, To capture a river-water supply development of the Virgin River, Clark County, Nevada, in Water in the 21st century; conservation demand and supply: Proceedings from American Water Resources Association, April 1995. Laney, R.L., and Bales, J.T., 1996, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation Area – Las Vegas Wash to Virgin River, Nevada: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4033, 44 p. Langenheim, V.E., Glen, J..M., Jachens, R.C., Dixon, G.L., Katzer, T.C., Morin, R.L., 2000, Geophysical constraints on the Virgin River depression, Nevada, Utah amd Arizona: USGS Open File Report 00-407. Las Vegas Water District, 1991, Distribution of carbonate rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California, Arizona, and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146. Metcalf, L., 1995. Ground water – Surface Water Interactions in the Lower Virgin River Area Arizona and Nevada. M.S. Thesis Department of Geoscience – University of Nevada – Las Vegas 302 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 National Park Service, 1990, Simulation of groundwater flow and water level declines that could be caused by proposed withdrawal, Navajo Sandstone, southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 90-4105. Prudic, D.E., and others, 1995, Conceptual Evaluation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Carbonate-Rock Province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-D Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins in Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 p. Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2000, Analysis of Gains and Losses in Virgin River Flow Between Bloomington, Utah and Littlefield, Arizona. Towne, D., 1997, Ambient groundwater quality of the Virgin River basin: a 1997 baseline study: ADEQ Open - File Report 99-4. Trudeau, D., Hess, J., and Jacobson, R.., 1983, Hydrogeology of the Littlefield Springs, Arizona: Ground Water, Vol. 21, No. 3, May-June 1983 United States Geological Survey, 1997, Hydrology and water quality of the Beaver Dam Wash area, Washington County, Utah, Lincoln County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 97-4193. Virgin Valley Water District, 2005, Geology and hydrology of the Virgin River Valley in Nevada, Arizona and Utah. Warner, S., 2003, Using GPS to Quantify Three Dimensional Storage and Aquifer Deformation in the Virgin Valley River, NV, M.S. Thesis in Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Washington County Water Conservation District, 1993, The Virgin River: the Lifeblood of Progress-Past, Present and Future. Zohdy, A.A.R., and others, 1994, A Direct-Current Resistivity Survey of the Beaver Dam Wash Drainage in Southwest Utah, Southeast Nevada, and Northwest Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 94-676 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT 303 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Index to Section 6.0 Geography 3,5 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 10 13,14 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Instream Flow National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves Managed Waters 21 22 25 29 Population 32 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater 33 34,35 35,36 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 37 39,44 45-46 46-47 Water Resource Issues Watershed Groups Issue Surveys 49 50-51 304 Section 6.6 Virgin River Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACC ADMMR ADWR ADEQ AGFD ALERT ALRIS AMA AMP AMWG AWPF AZMET BIA BLM C-Aquifer CAP CERCLA CLIMAS DES DOD EIS EPA ESA GIS gpcd gpm GWSI HIA HSR HUC ITCA LDIG LUST maf M&I NHD NOAA NPS NRCD NRCS NWIS NWS Pan ET 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 Adaptive Management Program Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Bureau of Land Management Coconino Aquifer Central Arizona Project Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Climate Assessment for the Southwest Arizona Department of Economic Security United States Department of Defense Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act 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 Local Drought Impact Group Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Municipal and Industrial 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 DRAFT 305 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 PDO R-Aquifer SNOTEL TDS USBOR USDA USDOI USFS USFWS USGS VRP WIFA WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP Pacific Decadal Oscillation Redwall-Muav Aquifer SNOpack TELemetry Total Dissolved Solids United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Interior United States Forest Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Voluntary Remediation Program Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant 306 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix A DRAFT 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Western Plateau Planning Area through 20051 WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Groundwater Map Basin Number Coconino Plateau 94 AWPF Grant # Project Title Project Category 96-0019 Response of Bebb Willow to Riparian Restoration Stream Restoration Coconino Plateau 230 99-071 Coconino Plateau 233 99-074 Coconino Plateau 252 99-093 Protection of Spring and Seep Resources of the South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park by Measuring Water Quality, Flow, and Associated Biota Proposal to Inventory, Assess, and Recommend Recovery Priorities for Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps, and Natural Ponds Coconino Plateau Regional Water Study Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs, and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park Hydrologic Investigation & Conservation Planning: Pipe Springs Research Research Research Exotic Species Control Coconino Plateau 313 05-131 Kanab Plateau 83 96-0004 Kanab Plateau 214 98-061 Watershed Enhancement on the Upland Water Antelope Allotment Developments 99-075 Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Kanab Plateau 234 Glen and Grand Canyon Riparian Restoration Project Research Source: ADWR 2005f 1 A map with all Arizona Water Protection Fund grant locations can be found in Volume 1, Appendix C 308 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Appendix B DRAFT 309 310 Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council Watershed Partnership USBoR USGS USFS BLM Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon NRA NRCS ADWR ADEQ State Land NRCD NAU Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe TNC Grand Canyon Trust Doney Park Water Co. Flagstaff Coconino County Williams Sedona Page Tusayan 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. Completed 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 Issues Excessive growth throughout entire plateau region 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 MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands APPENDIX B Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Western Plateau Planning Area (2005) DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 Prescott Prescott Valley Flagstaff Williams Cottonwood Clarkdale Sedona Payson Chino Valley Primary Participants DRAFT Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) Watershed Partnership 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 Issues Limited supplies to meet projected demands ESA issues impacting potential ground and surface water supplies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water Funding for Colorado River infrastructure Water quality issues in Verde Valley and Flagstaff Upper Basin/Lower Basin issues with Colorado River affect potential for use MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6 312 Arizona Strip Partnership (Currently not active) Watershed Partnership BLM National Park Service USBoR USFS USGS ADWR Local citizens Fredonia Kanab, Utah Colorado City Primary Participants x x x Kanab Creek seeps and springs study Watershed reconnaissance study Database development Projects & Accomplishments WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA x x x x x x x Brackish groundwater Inadequate surface water supplies for agriculture Drought impacts on surface and groundwater supplies Interstate stream issues Flooding due to operation of Kanab Creek by Kanab, Utah Little or no groundwater data available Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Issues DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 6