DOCSLIB.ORG

North Central Arizona Water Demand Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Central Arizona Water Demand Study NORTH CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER DEMAND STUDY Phase I Report FINAL, June 2002 NORTH CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER DEMAND STUDY Phase I Report An examination of water use, water conservation and alternative supplies in non-reservation communities on the Coconino Plateau Final Revised Version, June 2002 (incorporates corrections based on stakeholder comments on the March 2002 Draft Report) by Richard Pinkham Rocky Mountain Institute 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass CO 81654 (970) 927-3851 and Bill Davis Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. 6352 South U.S. Highway 51 P.O. Box 1316 Carbondale IL 62903 (618) 549-2832 A report submitted to the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council Cover photos Clockwise from upper left: Constructed wetlands put wastewater from Kachina Village to use providing wildlife habitat and an aesthetic/recreational amenity. An ultraviolet disinfection unit at the South Grand Canyon Sanitary District wastewater treatment plant. Sprinkler irrigation (and overspray) at the Northern Arizona University track and field complex. An ultra-low-flow, electronically activated faucet at the Grand Canyon National Park Canyon View Information Plaza. Storage tanks and a standpipe maintained by the Doney Park Water Company for the use of residents located beyond its water distribution lines. All photos by Richard Pinkham, October 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures................................................................................................................................iii List of Equations............................................................................................................................ iv List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ v I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9 Why a Demand Study?.................................................................................................... 9 Study Objectives, Scope and Methods.......................................................................... 14 III. Study Area........................................................................................................................ 17 Future Growth and Development.................................................................................. 19 IV. Water Resources............................................................................................................... 23 V. Water Efficiency and Conservation ................................................................................. 25 Current Policies and Efforts .......................................................................................... 25 County Water Efficiency and Conservation Policies................................................. 25 Local Water Efficiency and Conservation Policies and Activities ............................ 26 Potential for Increased Efficiency and Conservation.................................................... 32 Water Efficiency and Conservation Measures........................................................... 32 Implementation Programs .......................................................................................... 37 VI. Alternative Supplies ......................................................................................................... 41 Current Use of Alternative Supplies ............................................................................. 41 Potential for Increased Use of Alternative Supplies ..................................................... 42 VII. Current Water Demand..................................................................................................... 49 VIII. Assessment of Existing Water Demand Forecasts........................................................... 57 IX. Data Available for Demand Forecasting.......................................................................... 63 X. Recommended Demand Forecasting Approach............................................................... 67 Forecasting of Potable Water Demand.......................................................................... 67 Estimation of Nonpotable Demand and Alternative Supply Potential.......................... 75 Derivation of Total Water Demand............................................................................... 77 Issues and Concerns ...................................................................................................... 79 Proposed Phase II Workplan ......................................................................................... 80 Table of Contents i Phase II Costs ................................................................................................................ 82 XI. Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................. 83 References..................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix A: Water System Profiles............................................................................................. 93 Bellemont ...................................................................................................................... 94 Doney Park and Vicinity ............................................................................................... 99 Flagstaff....................................................................................................................... 104 Flagstaff Area—Small Systems .................................................................................. 113 Flagstaff Ranch............................................................................................................ 114 Forest Highlands.......................................................................................................... 116 Fort Valley................................................................................................................... 120 Grand Canyon Village................................................................................................. 121 Kachina Village........................................................................................................... 126 Mountainaire ............................................................................................................... 131 Page ............................................................................................................................. 134 Parks ............................................................................................................................ 138 Red Lake...................................................................................................................... 140 Tusayan ....................................................................................................................... 141 Valle ............................................................................................................................ 149 Williams ...................................................................................................................... 153 Appendix B: Interviews .............................................................................................................. 163 Appendix C: Project Team.......................................................................................................... 167 ii Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table I-1 Total Demand in the Study Area in 2000 ...............................................................2 Table I-2 Communities Using Reclaimed Wastewater as a Significant Supply.....................3 Table III-1 Study Area Communities and Water Services......................................................18 Table III-2 Historical Population of Study Area .....................................................................19 Table III-3 Selected Coconino County Subcounty Population Projections ............................21 Table IV-1 Summary of Well Depths in Study Area ..............................................................23 Table V-1 Current Water Efficiency and Conservation Activities, by Community ..............27 Table V-2 Summary of Water and Sewer Rates ....................................................................31 Table VI-1 Type, Application and Significance of Wastewater Reclamation Systems by Community............................................................................................................43 Table VI-2 Opportunities for Increased Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, by Community............................................................................................................47 Table VII-1 Summary of 2000 Total Annual Water Use in Millions of Gallons .....................50 Table VII-2 Summary of 2000 Total Annual Water Use in Acre-Feet ....................................51 Table VII-3 Water Demand Over Recent Years in Selected Communities, in Millions of Gallons ..................................................................................................................52
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2008
    United States Department of Forest Insect and Agriculture Forest Disease Conditions in Service Southwestern the Southwestern Region Forestry and Forest Health Region, 2008 July 2009 PR-R3-16-5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Pandora moth caterpillar collected on the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2008 Southwestern Region Forestry and Forest Health Regional Office Salomon Ramirez, Director Allen White, Pesticide Specialist Forest Health Zones Offices Arizona Zone John Anhold, Zone Leader Mary Lou Fairweather, Pathologist Roberta Fitzgibbon, Entomologist Joel McMillin, Entomologist
    [Show full text]
  • Songbird Ecology in Southwestern Ponderosa
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Chapter 1 Ecology of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests William H. Moir, Brian Geils, Mary Ann Benoit, and Dan Scurlock describes natural and human induced changes in the com- What Is Ponderosa Pine Forest position and structure of these forests. and Why Is It Important? Forests dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Paleoecology var. scopulorurn) are a major forest type of western North America (figure 1; Steele 1988; Daubenmire 1978; Oliver and Ryker 1990). In this publication, a ponderosa pine The oldest remains of ponderosa pine in the Western forest has an overstory, regardless of successional stage, United States are 600,000 year old fossils found in west dominated by ponderosa pine. This definition corresponds central Nevada. Examination of pack rat middens in New to the interior ponderosa pine cover type of the Society of Mexico and Texas, shows that ponderosa pine was absent American Foresters (Eyre1980). At lower elevations in the during the Wisconsin period (about 10,400 to 43,000 years mountainous West, ponderosa pine forests are generally ago), although pinyon-juniper woodlands and mixed co- bordered by grasslands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, or nifer forests were extensive (Betancourt 1990). From the chaparral (shrublands). The ecotone may be wide or nar- late Pleistocene epoch (24,000 years ago) to the end of the row, and a ponderosa pine forest is recognized when the last ice age (about 10,400 years ago), the vegetation of the overstory contains at least 5 percent ponderosa pine (USFS Colorado Plateau moved southward or northward with 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model for Fossil Springs, Western
    A CONCEPTUAL HYDROGEOLOGIC MODEL FOR FOSSIL SPRINGS, WESTERN MOGOLLON RIM, ARIZONA: IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SPRINGS PROCESSES By L. Megan Green A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geology Northern Arizona University May 2008 Approved: _________________________________ Abraham E. Springer, Ph.D., Chair _________________________________ Roderic A. Parnell, Jr., Ph.D. _________________________________ Paul J. Umhoefer, Ph.D. ABSTRACT A CONCEPTUAL HYDROGEOLOGIC MODEL FOR FOSSIL SPRINGS, WEST MOGOLLON MESA, ARIZONA: IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SPRINGS PROCESSES L. Megan Green Fossil Springs is the largest spring system discharging along the western Mogollon Rim in central Arizona and is a rare and important resource to the region. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the source of groundwater discharging at Fossil Springs. This was accomplished by (1) constructing a 3-D digital hydrogeologic framework model from available data to depict the subsurface geology of the western Mogollon Rim region and (2) by compiling and interpreting regional structural and geophysical data for Arizona’s central Transition Zone. EarthVision, a 3-D GIS modeling software, was used to construct the framework model. Two end-member models were created; the first was a simple interpolation of the data and the second was a result of geologic interpretations. The second model shows a monocline trending along the Diamond Rim fault. Both models show Fossil Springs discharging at the intersection of the Diamond Rim fault and Fossil Springs fault, at the contact between the Redwall Limestone and Naco Formation. The second objective of this study was a compilation of regional data for Arizona’s central Transition Zone.
    [Show full text]
  • Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts
    water Article Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts Lawrence E. Stevens * , Jeffrey Jenness and Jeri D. Ledbetter Springs Stewardship Institute, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA; Jeff@SpringStewardship.org (J.J.); [email protected] (J.D.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 April 2020; Accepted: 12 May 2020; Published: 24 May 2020 Abstract: The Colorado River basin (CRB), the primary water source for southwestern North America, is divided into the 283,384 km2, water-exporting Upper CRB (UCRB) in the Colorado Plateau geologic province, and the 344,440 km2, water-receiving Lower CRB (LCRB) in the Basin and Range geologic province. Long-regarded as a snowmelt-fed river system, approximately half of the river’s baseflow is derived from groundwater, much of it through springs. CRB springs are important for biota, culture, and the economy, but are highly threatened by a wide array of anthropogenic factors. We used existing literature, available databases, and field data to synthesize information on the distribution, ecohydrology, biodiversity, status, and potential socio-economic impacts of 20,872 reported CRB springs in relation to permanent stream distribution, human population growth, and climate change. CRB springs are patchily distributed, with highest density in montane and cliff-dominated landscapes. Mapping data quality is highly variable and many springs remain undocumented. Most CRB springs-influenced habitats are small, with a highly variable mean area of 2200 m2, generating an estimated total springs habitat area of 45.4 km2 (0.007% of the total CRB land area).
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy Image
    GEOMETRIC AND CHRONOLOGIC EVOLUTION OF THE VERDE AND PAYSON BASINS OF CENTRAL ARIZONA AND POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS TO DETACHMENT FAULTING; D. S. Brumbaugh, Dept. of Geology, Box 6030, NAU, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 The Transition Zone of Arizona and the structural basins therein have been poorly understood features from a structural standpoint. This is true both of their overall geometry as well as their formation. Yet these basins have developed within the last 13 million years and thus represent perhaps the most recent phase of development related to the extensional tectonics of the Basin and Range province. Recent work (Smith, 1984; Vance, 1983) as well as some older studies (Anderson and Creasy, 1958; Pedersen and Royce, 1970) provide data on the geometry of the Verde and Payson basins which can be used to constrain some hypotheses related to the development of these basins. The work of Cloos (1968), Anderson et. al. (1983), Wernicke and Burchfiel (1982) and Davis et. al. (1980) suggest a spatial and chronologic relation exists between planar high angle normal faults and low angle detachmeht faults. Perhaps one of the clearest examples from the Basin and Range area appears to be from seismic reflection prof i 1es of the Sevier Desert, Basin area of Utah (Fig. 1). These profiles suggest the existence of a detachment surface which acts as a zone of structural accommodation for fault-controlled extensional basin development above it. Faults that appear either listric or planar intersect it from above. Note that the basins are asymmetric with the basin deepening in the direction of dip of the detach- ment surface.
    [Show full text]
  • (Central Arizona) GEOSPHERE
    Research Paper GEOSPHERE Incision history of the Verde Valley region and implications for uplift of the Colorado Plateau (central Arizona) 1 2 2 GEOSPHERE; v. 14, no. 4 Richard F. Ott , Kelin X. Whipple , and Matthijs van Soest 1Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland 2School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, 781 S. Terrace Road, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01640.1 12 figures; 3 tables; 1 supplemental file ABSTRACT et al., 2008; Moucha et al., 2009; Huntington et al., 2010; Liu and Gurnis, 2010; Flowers and Farley, 2012; Crow et al., 2014; Darling and Whipple, 2015; Karl- CORRESPONDENCE: richard .ott1900@ gmail .com The record of Tertiary landscape evolution preserved in Arizona’s transition strom et al., 2017). As part of this debate, the incision of the Mogollon Rim, zone presents an independent opportunity to constrain the timing of Colo­ the southwestern edge of the Colorado Plateau (Fig. 1), is not well constrained CITATION: Ott, R.F., Whipple, K.X., and van Soest, rado Plateau uplift and incision. We study this record of landscape evolution in the literature, and disparate ideas about its formation and incision history M., Incision history of the Verde Valley region and implications for uplift of the Colorado Plateau by mapping Tertiary sediments, volcanic deposits, and the erosional uncon­ have been proposed (Peirce et al., 1979; Lindberg, 1986; Elston and Young, ( central Ari zona): Geosphere, v. 14, no. 4, p. 1690– formity at their base, 40Ar/39Ar dating of basaltic lava flows in key locations, and 1991; Holm, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • March 12, 2020 Heather Provencio Forest
    March 12, 2020 Heather Provencio Forest Supervisor Kaibab National Forest 800 South 6th Street Williams, AZ 86046 [email protected] Re: Forest Service Should Reject Stilo and Tusayan’s Special Use Proposal Dear Supervisor Provencio: We understand that you are currently evaluating Stilo Development Group and the Town of Tusayan’s January 23, 2020 revised joint proposal for special use authorization for easements to enable a massive commercial, retail, and residential development on inholdings at the doorstep of Grand Canyon National Park. Stilo’s proposed development will have significant adverse impacts on the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab National Forest, and tribal nations. As noted in our previous letter, the National Park Service previously has cautioned that Stilo’s proposed development will have “tremendous negative (and possibly irretrievable) impacts on the park infrastructure and resources for which the park was established,”1 and constitutes one of the gravest threats to the Park in its now 100-year history.2 The proposed development is largely, perhaps entirely, unchanged since the Forest Service rejected Stilo and Tusayan’s similar 2014 special use proposal for failing to satisfy the agency’s mandatory initial- and secondary-screening criteria under 36 C.F.R. § 251.54(e). Stilo and Tusayan’s January 23, 2020 special use proposal likewise fails to satisfy the mandatory screening criteria, and thus it would be arbitrary and capricious for the Forest Service to now accept the proposal. In fact, regarding the critical issue of groundwater consumption, their revised special use proposal seemingly is less protective of groundwater resources—and thus less protective of the Grand Canyon’s fragile seeps and springs—than their 2019 draft proposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Appraisal of the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona MLA 6-92
    ! a [MLA[6"g2 I Mineral Land Assessment Open File Report/1992 I I Mineral Appraisal of the Kaibab National Forest, I Arizona I I I I tional I I I i L I BUREAU OF MINES I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I I I I I MINERAL APPRAISAL OF THE KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA ! I by I David C. Scott I I MLA 6-92 I 1992 I I -.4 Intermountain Field Operations Center ! Denver, Colorado ! UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I Manuel Lujan Jr., Secretary BUREAU OF MINES I T S ARY, Director I I l I I PREFACE A January, 1987 Interagency Agreement between the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Forest Service describes I the purpose, authority, and program operation for the forest-wide studies. The program is intended to assist the Forest Service in incorporating mineral resource data in forest plans as specified by I the National Forest Management Act (1976) and Title 36, Chapter 2, Part 219, Code of Federal Regulations, and to augment the Bureau's mineral resource data base so that it can analyze and make I available minerals information as required by the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act (1980). This report is based on available data from literature and field investigations. I l I I I I I I I I This open-file report summarizes the results of a Bureau of Mines forest-wide study. The report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with ! the Bureau of Mines editorial standards.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BRECCIA-PIPE AND GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE HUALAPAI INDIAN RESERVATION AND VICINITY, ARIZONA By George H. Billingsley, Karen J. Wenrich, and Peter W. Huntoon 2000 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE HUALAPAI TRIBE Pamphlet to accompany GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS SERIES I-2643 (I Printed on recycled paper CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................. , . 1 Geologic setting ........................................................................................ ;. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 Structural geology ................................................................................... , . 3 Tectonic overview .............................................................................. , . 3 Cenozoic uplift and erosion .................................................................. ·..................................... 4 Deformation of the Paleozoic section .......................................· ............ ~.................................... 4 Laramide monoclines .......................................................................... , ................ ;. 5 Late Cenozoic faulting and extension . .. 5 Paleogeographic reconstructions ........................................................ , . 7 Breccia pipes . •. 8 Introduction ....................................................................................... , . 8 Structural control
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wind Development Status Report
    Arizona Wind Development Status Report Date: September 2009 Submitted to: Arizona Corporation Commission By: Karin Wadsack (for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Arizona Wind Working Group) Introduction Wind power development in Arizona has been slow and faltering. Reasons for this include: the perception that Arizona has relatively poor wind resources compared to its neighbors; the fact that inexpensive coal power makes Arizona wind energy less competitive; the reticence of electric utilities to purchase naturally intermittent and variable resources; the burden placed on developers by the differences in local, state, and national guidelines regarding permitting, zoning, and pre-construction environmental monitoring; the checkerboard nature of Arizona land and the fact that much of the wind resource falls on tribal lands, which are governed by entirely different authorities; and lack of access to large available quantities of transmission.1 Nevertheless, wind power is emerging in Arizona as a viable, stably-priced and local renewable electricity source. The Dry Lake wind plant, located near Snowflake, Arizona is the first utility-scale project to be built in the state of Arizona. The 63 megawatt (MW) project is completely constructed and unofficially went on-line in August, sending power to the electric grid. Several other projects are under way, in various stages of the development process, from wind resource monitoring, to capital investment exploration, to permitting and environmental monitoring.2 Interest in Arizona’s wind development potential is growing, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in inquiries to the Arizona Wind Working Group, increased attendance at AWWG events (from 16 in July 2002 to 62 in March 2009), and increased use of the Arizona Wind Resource Map and other web resources that the AWWG maintains.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of the Geology and Hydrology of the Coconino Plateau of Northern Arizona: a Project of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative
    Prepared in cooperation with the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Investigation of the Geology and Hydrology of the Coconino Plateau of Northern Arizona: A Project of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative ����� ���� The water resources of the Coconino Each study has as its objectives: (1) the Plateau in northern Arizona are under collection, compilation, and evaluation increasing demand as a result of develop- of all existing geologic, hydrologic, and ment. The population of this arid region �������� ��������� related data pertaining to the study area continues to grow, and the number of ������� and the creation of a database that is �� visitors to the many national and state ����� ���� �� readily accessible to the public and (2) the �� �� �� � parks and monuments in the region has �� � development of an understanding of the increased annually. The sustainability, � hydrogeologic framework, which is the protection, and maintenance of springs relation between hydrologic and geologic and seeps and associated riparian ������� properties, that can be used for water- habitat on the Coconino Plateau are r e s o u r c e s management purposes major issues that have broad public and ������� and that will support governmental support. the development of Regional stakeholders agree that an conceptual and inter- improved understanding of the regional � pretive models that � � hydrogeologic system is needed to � can be used to ������ � address the concerns of water supply � e v a l u a t e t h e � � � and ground-water sustainability. The ��� � ��� effects of climate � � base of information required to ade- � � and water use on � � � � quately describe the hydrogeology of � ����� ������ � regional water � � �������� ���� � ��� ����� � the Coconino Plateau currently does � � resources.
    [Show full text]
  • 11320 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
    11320 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations #Depth in #Depth in Report and Order, MM Docket 88±195, feet above feet above 54 FR 3781, January 26, 1989. Source of flooding and location ground. Source of flooding and location ground. *Elevation *Elevation EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996. in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, ± ± ± PENNSYLVANIA (202) 418±2180. Portsmouth (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097) Smithfield (Township), Huntingdon SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Saginaw River: County (FEMA Docket No. 7149) Approximately 1.7 miles downstream Background of the downstream corporate limits Juniata River: Channel 272C1 was substituted for (near McGraw Avenue) .................. *586 Approximately 2,650 feet above con- At the upstream corporate limits ........ *587 fluence of Raystown Branch Juni- Channel 272A at Onawa, IA, and Maps available for inspection at the ata River ......................................... *608 Channel 272A was substituted for Portsmouth Township Hall, 1711 Upstream corporate limits .................. *639 Channel 272A at Vermillion, SD, so that West Cass Avenue, Bay City, Michi- Crooked Creek: Station KOOO's construction permit gan. At confluence with Juniata River ........ *619 Approximately 0.71 mile upstream of could be modified to specify the higher ± ± ± confluence with Juniata River ......... *619 powered channel. MINNESTOA Maps available for inspection at the Need for Correction Smithfield Township Building, 13th International Falls (City), Koochiching and Mt. Vernon Avenue, Huntingdon, As published, the final regulation County (FEMA Docket No. 7138) Pennsylvania. Rainy River: contains a wrong channel allotment at Onawa, IA, which is misleading and Approximately 3.7 miles downstream VIRGINIA of Toll Bridge .................................
    [Show full text]