Kelly Mott Lacroix Joanna B. Nadeau Brittany Choate Sharon B. Megdal What to Expect…
Kelly Mott Lacroix Joanna B. Nadeau Brittany Choate Sharon B. Megdal What to expect…. Human and environmental demands for water What is environmental demand anyway? What we know (and don’t know) about environmental water demands on the Coconino Plateau And a little bit about how the known, knowns are known What can we do with this information? Or just So What? Where are we going with all of this? What is a roadmap? 2 Water Demand and Use in Northern Arizona
3 Water in the Environment: Streamflow Data, Current Quantified Flow or Environmental Demands? Current Quantified Flow Environmental Demands Flow that currently The amount of water supports the needed in a watercourse to environment sustain a healthy ecosystem Annual baseflow Magnitude (how much) Groundwater underflow Frequency (how often) Riparian extent Duration (how long) Average annual evapo- Timing (how predictable) transpiration (ET) Rate of Change (how variable)
4 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL FLOWS OF MAJOR STREAMS AVERAGE SEASONAL FLOW ANNUAL FLOW/YEAR USGS STATION (% of annual flow) (in acre-feet) STREAM No. Name Winter Spring Summer Fall Min. Median Max.
Colorado at Lees 1,383,521 20,322,048 9380000 16 44 24 16 9,375,509 River Ferry (1963) (1984) Little near 10,215 816,449 Colorado 9402000 34 26 27 14 138,315 Cameron (2000) (1973) River Little at 13,973 197,646 Colorado 9397000 19 10 55 16 82,533 Holbrook (1950) (1968) River
near 3,852 183,890 Clear Creek 9399000 39 49 2 9 46,697 Winslow (1967) (1978)
Little at 5,524 165,791 Colorado 9394500 27 12 46 15 34,398 Woodruff (2000) (1919) River Chevelon near 10,715 99,909 9398000 49 33 6 11 32,651 Creek Winslow (1956) (1952) Sources: USGS 2008a & 2005b 5 Current Quantified Flows Current Flow Annual Average Annual Supporting the Baseflow Evapotranspiration Environment acre-feet per year Agua Fria River 1,811 27,788 - 34,454 299,599 - 36,265 Aravaipa Creek 11,591 7,793 - 16,692 19,384 - 28,283 Arivaca Creek 304 2,136 – 3,188 2,440 – 3,492 Bill Williams River 5,796 79,511 – 126,244 85,307 – 132,040 Cienega Creek 797 8,022 – 8,299 8,819 – 9,096 Gila River 127,503 106,953 - 151,568 234,456 - 279,071 Salt River 236,170 128,986 - 136,970 365,156 - 373,140 Upper San Pedro River 9,417 22,890 - 49,259 32,307 – 58,676 Lower San Pedro River 3,622 59,183 - 62,087 62,805 - 65,709 Santa Cruz River 11,591 12,427 – 27,214 24,018 – 38,805 Tonto Creek 15,213 21,082 – 21,462 36,295 - 36,675
Verde6 River 194,151 115,157 – 146,181 309,308 – 340,332
Flow Components Studied in Northern Arizona
Timing of Rate of Water Magnitude Duration Frequency River Name Flow Change Quality* (% Studied) Colorado River S S NS S S S Chevlon Canyon NS NS NS NS NS NS
Little Colorado S S S S S S River Silver Creek NS NS NS NS NS NS Virgin River NS NS NS NS NS NS
* Does not include studies of water quality alone, these studies were not reviewed for this report. S = Entire stream surveyed, S = Reach (% of stream surveyed), NS = Not surveyed
8 How you can apply this information 1. Determine how environmental flows interact with other demand sectors 2. Identify factors putting environmental flows at risk (vulnerability) 3. Identify studies needed to address key information gaps about environmental flows 4. Determine local priorities for ecosystems 5. Develop scenario analyses for water planning that incorporate the environment
9 Connecting Data to Vulnerability
Use available information resources* to identify vulnerabilities… (& priorities & management options)
Location (map) of rivers and riparian areas… + current status of flow + presence or lack of protections + demands increasing nearby rapidly growing populations expansion of industrial or agricultural demands
*Priority information gaps emerge if no data is available to assess a selected vulnerability criteria 10 Vulnerability Analysis: Flow Alteration Resources Wet-Dry Mapping*
+
Springs
*Not available in this region: priority information gap?
11 Vulnerability Analysis: Protection Resources Designations/Protections
+
12 Vulnerability Analysis: Stressors Resources Increasing Demands
+
Source: TNC (2010)
13 Connecting Data to Vulnerability
Use available information resources* to identify vulnerabilities… (& priorities & management options):
Location of rivers and riparian areas + … Species flow requirements + current flow levels… All species require dynamic flood flows Aquatic species require minimum surface flows Riparian trees require certain groundwater levels
*Priority information gaps emerge if no data is available to assess a selected vulnerability criteria 14 Vulnerability Analysis: Flood Flows Known Flow Requirements Current flows Colorado River, Sycamore Canyon, Oak Creek Spring flooding for Aquatic Species Flood flows + (monitoring data) Colorado River 77,700-88,300 cfs Minimum flows for 1-3 days (monitoring data) for Riparian Vegetation
15 Vulnerability Analysis: Flood Flows
Known Flow Requirements Current flows
Sycamore Canyon Floods >39.3 m3/s Flood flows for Native Fish + (monitoring data)
16 Vulnerability Analysis: Minimum Flows Known Flow Requirements Current flows
Minimum flows + (monitoring data) Monthly minimum flows*
*Not available in this region: priority information gap? 17 Vulnerability Analysis: Groundwater Known Water Needs Current flows
Current groundwater + levels (monitoring data*)
*Available in this region? 18 Ongoing Activities Completing and updating database of environmental water demand data Providing technical support What are the options for incorporating the environment? What are your priorities for water in the environment? What additional information do we need to get from here to there? How do you think we could use this information? Safford Agriculture Photo credit: ADWR 2009 19 Next Steps Creating a “roadmap” for considering environmental water demands: Common water management objectives Strategies to meet those objectives Opportunities (avenues) for considering environment in water decision making Is there room for the environment at the table and if so where and how? Gila River at Kelvin Gauge Photo credit: ADWR 2009 20 21 Thank You!
Kelly Mott Lacroix, Research Analyst [email protected] Dr. Sharon B. Megdal, Director [email protected]
Water Resources Research Center 520-621-9591 22 Animas River, Colorado