Prescott Active Management Area ... hydrologic monitoring report

              Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division



Prescott Active Management Area 2000-2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Report



May 21, 2001



by



Frank Corkhill, Bill Remick, Carol Norton and Keith Nelson



Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................ 2 List of Figures................................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Data and Conditions 2000-2001 ............................................................................................... 5 Surface Water Data 2000-2001..................................................................................................................... 11 Precipitation Data 2000 ................................................................................................................................ 13 New and Proposed Additions to the Hydrologic Monitoring Network......................................................... 15 Pressure Transducer Data and Installations .............................................................................................. 15 Monitor Well Selection Process............................................................................................................ 17 Method of Installation and Work Completed........................................................................................ 17 Monitor Well Drilling ............................................................................................................................... 23 Gravimetric Aquifer Storage Monitoring and Land Subsidence Monitoring............................................ 23 References..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A - Daily discharge hydrographs for selected USGS streamgages .............................................. 25



List of Figures

Figure 1. Water level changes in the Prescott AMA 2000 to 2001................................................................ 6 Figure 2. Comparison of depth to water in B(17-2) 27dcc and Del Rio Springs mean daily discharge (Oct. 29, 1999 - Nov. 21, 2000) .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3. Wells in monitor network with pressure transducers.................................................................... 16 Figure 4. ADWR field crew installs pressure transducer in Chino Valley well........................................... 18 Figure 5. Surface hanger supports data logger............................................................................................. 19 Figure 6. Typical shelter design................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7. New USGS stream gage (095033000) located on Granite Creek below Watson Lake ................ 22



List of Tables

Table 1. Prescott water level data .................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2. Statistical summary of water level change data in the Prescott AMA (1995 to 2001)................... 10 Table 3. Summary of provisional USGS stream gage data for selected gages in and near the Prescott AMA (01/01/2000 - 04/14/2001) ............................................................................................................. 12 Table 4. Monthly total precipitation in calendar year 2000 Prescott, Arizona............................................. 13 Table 5. Monthly total precipitation in calendar year 2000 Chino Valley, Arizona .................................... 13 Table 6. Reported non-exempt well pumpage in the Prescott AMA (1990 - 2000)..................................... 14 Table 7. Summary of well construction and hydrogeologic data for wells in Prescott AMA monitoring network installed with pressure transducers................................................................................... 20 Table 8. Summary of (as-built) information for wells installed with pressure transducers ......................... 21



2



Introduction

On January 12, 1999 the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) issued a final determination that the Prescott Active Management Area (AMA) was no longer at "safe-yield" (ADWR, 1999). Safe-yield is the water management goal for the Prescott AMA which attempts to maintain a long-term balance between the amount of water withdrawn and the amount water recharged to the aquifer system. The determination that the Prescott AMA was no-longer in a state of safe-yield was based on the careful evaluation of a large body of hydrogeologic data that had been collected since the 1940's, and particularly based on the evaluation of data collected during the previous 3 to 4 year period (since 1995). Several types of data were collected and evaluated by the ADWR during the safe-yield determination process. The data included water level data measured in index wells located throughout the AMA and stream discharge data obtained from permanent USGS stream gage locations, and from periodic stream discharge measurements made by ADWR personnel. The observation of generally declining water levels in the majority of wells measured, and decreased groundwater discharge from springs and streams was a clear indication to the ADWR that safe-yield conditions did not exist in the AMA. Additionally, groundwater recharge data and groundwater pumpage data were collected and assembled into water budgets that indicated declining groundwater storage conditions in the AMA. These indications were corroborated by reasonably simulating historical groundwater conditions and trends using ADWR's Prescott AMA regional groundwater flow model which utilized the assembled historic water budget information as model inputs (Corkhill and Mason, 1995). Although the ADWR was confident in its decision that the Prescott AMA was no longer in a safe-yield condition, it hired Dr. William Woessner, a professor of hydrogeology at the University of Montana and co-author of an authoritative college textbook on groundwater modeling, to examine and comment on the ADWR model and an alternative model that was also being reviewed at that time. Dr. Woessner provided conclusions and recommendations concerning the models and hydrologic monitoring activities in the AMA (Woessner, 1998). The major conclusion Dr.Woessner reached concerning the ADWR model was that it provided an overall more reasonable representation of the hydrogeology and associated water balance in the AMA than the alternative model. Dr. Woessner recommended that the ADWR model should be used as an active management tool that should be updated with new drilling, pumping and well log data, and re-calibrated annually. This recommendation was consistent with ADWR's plans, and the model update, including the addition of new geologic data and water use data (through the year 1998) has recently been completed. The update activities have been documented and will be released in a new update report in the near future. The ADWR plans to use the updated model to simulate future groundwater conditions in the AMA which are based on future water use



3



assumptions that will be developed in cooperation with the major water providers in the AMA. Other recommendations made by Dr Woessner include:   Six to eight wells in each sub-basin (12 to 16 total) should be instrumented with pressure transducer systems to record daily water levels over the long term. Daily discharge measurements should be established at Del Rio Springs [the Del Rio gage had actually been reestablished only a short time before Dr. Woessner's report], and at the Agua Fria River near Humboldt. Measurements of discharge of major stream basins draining the mountain areas should be conducted.







This report provides an update on the progress that has been made to implement Dr. Woessner's recommendations, and also discusses other proposed monitoring activities in the Prescott AMA. Additionally, the report presents hydrologic monitoring data and related information that has been compiled by the ADWR for the Prescott AMA during the period from January, 2000 through April, 2001. This year's report includes water level measurement data collected at 119 well sites, and provides compilations of surface water, precipitation and pumpage data.



4



Groundwater Data and Conditions 2000-2001

The measurement of water levels is an important data collection activity that provides information about changing groundwater storage conditions in the regional aquifer system. In general, rising water levels are indicators of increasing groundwater storage conditions, while declining water levels are indicators of decreasing groundwater storage. Groundwater conditions in the AMA's regional aquifer system were assessed by measuring the depth to water at 119 well sites located throughout the AMA. The 2001 water level measurements were made between 03/05/2001 and 04/17/2001. The water level measurements were made by staff from the ADWR Field Services-Basic Data Section. The depths to water, water level changes, and water level elevations are summarized in Table 1. Decreasing groundwater storage trends were observed at the majority of the 92 wells that were measured in both 2000 and 2001 (Figure 1). A statistical analysis of the water level data indicates 82 of the 92 wells (89 percent) that were measured in both 2000 and 2001 showed water level declines that ranged from 0.1 to 21.0 feet (Table 2). The mean decline was 3.7 feet and the median decline was 2.25 feet. Increasing groundwater storage trends were observed in 9 of the 92 wells (10 percent) that were measured in both 2000 and 2001. Water level increases ranged from +0.1 to +15.0 feet (Table 2). The mean increase was +4.0 feet and the median increase was +1.1 feet. One well (1 percent) showed no change in water level between 2000 and 2001. Water level declines were observed in most parts of the AMA. Declines ranged from less than -1 foot to over -8 feet in 25 wells that penetrate the Upper Alluvial Unit (UAU) and Lower Volcanic Unit (LVU) aquifers located in the northwestern portion of the Little Chino sub-basin near the Town of Chino Valley and Del Rio Springs (Townships 16 and 17 North, Range 2 West). Declines ranged from less than -1 foot to over -18 feet in 17 wells that penetrate the UAU, LVU and bedrock in the Williamson Valley area (Township 15 North, Ranges 2 and 3 West). Declines ranged from -1 to -4 feet in 20 wells that penetrate the UAU, LVU and bedrock in the Lonesome Valley and Indian Hills-Coyote Springs areas of the Little Chino sub-basin (Townships 15 and 16 North, Ranges 1 East and 1 West). Water level declines ranged from -17 to -21 feet in 5 wells that are completed in the LVU in the northwest portion of the Upper Agua Fria sub-basin in the Prescott Valley area (Township 14 North, Range 1 West). Water level declines ranged from less than -1 foot to 7 feet in 12 wells located in other parts of the Upper Agua Fria sub-basin (Townships 13 and 14 North, Ranges 1 East and 1 West). Water level increases ranging from less than +1 foot to +15 feet were observed in 4 wells that penetrate the UAU and undifferentiated volcanic rocks in the Upper Agua Fria sub-basin near Dewey and Humboldt (Township 13 and 14 North, Range 1 East). The water level increased +10 feet in one well located at the City of Prescott recharge facility in the southern portion of the Lonesome Valley area. Water levels were observed to



5



increase from less than +1 foot to greater than +2 feet in 2 wells located 2 to 3 miles north of the Williamson Valley area.



Figure 1. Water level changes in the Prescott AMA 2000 to 2001



6



Table 1. Prescott water level data (Water level measurements rounded to nearest 0.1 foot)

WELL_SITE_ID 343153112122901 343157112135401 343233112164901 343050112130901 343017112124301 343028112135701 343028112135702 343652112172101 343529112162201 343428112123701 343353112144101 343415112161401 343333112160201 343337112152901 343244112150901 344148112172701 344157112150701 344117112130901 344052112171701 344029112143501 343906112154701 343832112172301 342722112225901 343655112192201 343634112205201 343641112204202 343640112204201 343610112203201 343637112195701 343628112193001 343540112195701 343558112205601 343453112203401 343343112183801 343413112193401 343734112295501 344208112191201 344233112193801 344253112233601 344136112205601 344038112194401 343930112235301 CADASTRAL LOCATION A-13-01 01DCA A-13-01 02CAD A-13-01 05ABB A-13-01 12CCC A-13-01 13CAA A-13-01 14BDC1 A-13-01 14BDC2 A-14-01 08BBB A-14-01 17AAD A-14-01 24DCB A-14-01 27ACC A-14-01 28BBB A-14-01 28CDC A-14-01 28DAC2 A-14-01 34CCA A-15-01 07ADA A-15-01 10BBB2 A-15-01 11DDD A-15-01 17BCC A-15-01 22ABB A-15-01 28ACC A-15-01 31AAA B-12H01 20ACD B-14-01 01CCC B-14-01 10ACA B-14-01 10ADB1 PZ1 B-14-01 10ADB2 B-14-01 10DDA B-14-01 11ACB B-14-01 11DAA B-14-01 14ACC B-14-01 15ABB B-14-01 22ADA B-14-01 25DAC B-14-01 26AAA B-14-02 05BBC B-15-01 01CDC B-15-01 02ADC B-15-01 05BBB2 B-15-01 10DBB B-15-01 14DBD B-15-01 19DCD1 MEAS_DATE 04/17/01 03/06/01 03/05/01 04/04/01 03/05/01 03/05/01 03/05/01 03/08/01 03/05/01 03/05/01 03/05/01 03/05/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/05/01 03/15/01 04/17/01 03/09/01 03/15/01 03/09/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/14/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/06/01 03/05/01 03/05/01 03/19/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 03/19/01 03/15/01 03/09/01 03/14/01 323.5 220.8 328.8 225.3 330.7 236.6 366.8 323.1 279.1 325.9 45.4 209.3 57.2 212.0 175.3 370.3 327.0 284.1 522.2 341.3 328.7 371.1 639.3 342 328.5 371.8 477.8 69.9 336.4 583.6 566.3 68.7 336.3 603.2 585.5 590.1 654.4 340.8 327.5 370.9 686.8 326.6 56.6 212.5 175.5 371.9 328.3 287.8 212.7 313.8 57.9 312.9 216.6 314.2 60.2 313.2 217.2 314.1 60.9 313.9 66.7 458.7 73.9 463.7 75.5 465.5 197.6 113.3 306.3 48.3 52.1 43.8 63.6 173.6 200.6 115.9 69.8 110.3 28.7 71.0 130.8 134.3 30.5 39.6 199.3 116.3 301.2 42.9 63.1 86.4 1994 DTW 1999 2000 DTW DTW 207.6 82.9 83.7 152 2001 2001 WL 94-01 DTW ELEV CHG 208.1 4531 83.4 152.6 72.0 136.1 30.0 33.4 199.4 117 301.5 42.8 48.1 161.9 92.1 77.5 467.5 92.4 217.8 314.1 61.9 314.4 338.1 67.6 337.5 620.6 603.3 611.1 673.5 341.9 328.6 371.0 706.2 333.9 59.5 213.5 176.7 372.8 330.7 289.3 307.5 332.6 226.4 4519 4667 4498 4513 4470 4466 4682 4662 4626 4617 4666 4562 4573 4572 4542 5242 5264 4664 5218 4757 4661 6342 4687 4379 -142.8 4411 4403 4408 -151.3 4701 4714 4740 4405 4850 4873 4906 5128 4540 4549 4538 4250 4537 4683 -9.1 -5.6 -3.8 -1.1 -1.9 10.2 -6.0 -7.6 -10.2 -8.0 -14.1 -4.2 -2.3 -1.5 -1.4 -2.5 -3.7 -5.2 -0.6 0.1 0.1 -34.2 0.1 -0.1 0.8 2.3 -1.1 -37.0 -37.0 1.1 -1.2 -17.4 -17.8 -21.0 -19.1 -1.1 -1.1 -0.1 -19.4 -7.3 -2.9 -1.0 -1.2 -0.9 -2.4 -1.5 -5.1 -0.3 -4.0 -1.5 -1.2 0.1 -1.7 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 -1.0 -0.5 -10.8 -8.8 -3.6 -3.8 -2.0 -2.0 -1.8 -3.7 4.8 5.5 4.0 1.0 15.5 11.7 -1.2 -1.1 -2.2 -25.8 -1.4 -1.0 -5.3 -1.8 0.5 6.2 -0.1 -0.7 -0.3 0.1 15 3.0 99-01 00-01 CHG CHG -0.5 -0.5 0.3 -0.6



7



Table 1. Prescott water level data (Water level measurements rounded to nearest 0.1 foot)

WELL_SITE_ID 343930112235601 344011112200901 343847112190401 343854112202701 343836112195501 343746112242601 343820112195701 344038112253701 344106112291501 344005112300201 343928112301401 343905112301401 343927112304701 343843112303101 343858112300301 343836112302401 343813112301702 343829112303501 343827112304801 343754112301101 344241112312201 344122112322201 344108112311001 344147112313201 344110112322201 344059112325401 344022112323501 344038112321101 344029112321501 344006112321601 343957112322001 343938112320101 343932112310401 344210112330901 344727112231201 344628112174901 344540112202601 344501112232601 344459112232601 344358112182901 344429112222001 344314112202401 CADASTRAL LOCATION B-15-01 19DCD2 B-15-01 23BAD B-15-01 25CDB B-15-01 26CBC1 B-15-01 26DCC B-15-01 31CCD B-15-01 35ABD B-15-02 13CCB B-15-02 17ABA B-15-02 19ADA B-15-02 19DDC B-15-02 30ADC B-15-02 30BAB B-15-02 30CDA B-15-02 30DAA B-15-02 30DCB B-15-02 31ACD3 B-15-02 31BAD1 B-15-02 31BBD B-15-02 31DDB B-15-03 01DCD B-15-03 11DDB B-15-03 13AAA B-15-03 13ACC B-15-03 14AAB B-15-03 14BAD B-15-03 14CDD B-15-03 14DAD B-15-03 14DDA B-15-03 23ACA B-15-03 23ADC B-15-03 24CCB B-15-03 24DDD B-15-03S02CCB B-16-01 05CDD B-16-01 07CDD B-16-01 14CCC B-16-01 20CAC B-16-01 20CBD1 B-16-01 25DDA B-16-01 28BCA B-16-01 35CBC MEAS_DATE 03/14/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 02/18/01 02/20/01 03/19/01 03/09/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/19/01 03/16/01 03/19/01 04/04/01 03/19/01 04/04/01 03/19/01 03/14/01 04/10/01 03/19/01 04/04/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/14/01 03/15/01 03/12/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 03/15/01 45.2 409.3 267.3 305.8 174.9 158.4 284.7 180.9 163.9 290.3 222.2 44.4 414.6 272.7 310.5 415.9 274.7 311.9 180.5 165.6 291.8 220.1 54.7 84.0 140.4 54.7 84.9 144.1 102.0 363.7 297.2 365.1 295.5 334.4 308.1 119.5 159.0 156.6 144.7 148.5 208.2 210.8 166.3 208.3 95.1 64.5 206.8 217.4 66.6 204 217.1 365.5 294.9 334.4 308.7 123.1 158.9 159.7 148.8 151.9 213.9 216.6 169.6 209.2 341.7 341.8 328.7 292.8 1994 DTW 1999 2000 DTW DTW 370.5 336.3 296.0 399.2 339.3 296.3 398.3 2001 2001 WL 94-01 DTW ELEV CHG 374.6 4535 340.2 297.1 399.9 447.7 344.1 379.5 367.5 294.7 334.5 309.5 128.7 164.7 166.7 154.2 157.9 220.9 222.0 187.9 210.9 94.0 69.0 205.8 217.2 51.5 44.8 3.7 49.7 14.0 26.4 52.6 85.1 149.2 15.7 184.1 167.9 293.7 223.6 49.3 418.1 276.2 313.4 4541 4629 4555 4542 4663 4581 4587 4761 4805 4900 5041 5036 5051 5045 5042 5029 5034 5092 5324 4916 4991 4876 4882 4998 4995 5026 5025 5036 5043 5032 5034 5040 4974 4532 4537 4539 4556 4727 4542 4530 4528 -4.1 -8.8 -8.9 -7.6 -9.2 -9.5 -9 -3.2 -4 -3.4 -1.4 -4.9 -3.5 -3.5 -2.9 -2.2 -1.5 -1.5 -3.6 -2.3 -1.9 -3.5 2.1 -1.1 -8.8 2.1 -0.2 -5.1 8.0 -3.8 2.5 -2.4 0.8 -0.1 -1.4 -9.2 -5.7 -10.1 -9.5 -9.4 -12.7 -11.2 -21.6 -2.6 1.1 -4.5 1.0 0.2 -2.4 -1.8 -0.1 -2 0.2 -0.1 -0.8 -5.6 -5.8 -7.0 -5.4 -6.0 -7.0 -5.4 -18.3 -1.7 -2.4 -2.3 -11.5 -4.3 99-01 00-01 CHG CHG -4.1 -3.9 -1.1 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8 -1.6



8



Table 1. Prescott water level data (Water level measurements rounded to nearest 0.1 foot)

WELL_SITE_ID 344738112253301 344809112275201 344723112265701 344704112291601 344629112283401 344653112264901 342658112244601 344645112253401 344603112264001 344540112264501 344543112262201 344626112265101 344622112275701 344607112294301 344534112282901 344535112283001 344507112270101 344458112270601 344507112263801 344422112283201 344357112280901 344347112271001 344304112254701 344348112331401 345048112292201 345030112282301 345056112271601 344950112291101 344928112294601 344846112271401 344819112265701 344819112265601 344821112301701 344820112272701 344917112273101 CADASTRAL LOCATION B-16-02 01CBD B-16-02 03BBB1 B-16-02 03DDC4 B-16-02 08ACA B-16-02 09CDC B-16-02 11CBB1 B-16-02 12ADD B-16-02 12CBD B-16-02 14BCC B-16-02 14CCC B-16-02 14CDA B-16-02 15AAA B-16-02 16AAD B-16-02 17BDC B-16-02 21BAA1 B-16-02 21BAA2 B-16-02 22DBA B-16-02 22DBD B-16-02 23CBA B-16-02 28BDD B-16-02 28DDC B-16-02 34ABA2 B-16-02 35DDD B-16-03 35BBB B-17-02 20ABD B-17-02 21ACC B-17-02 22ABB B-17-02 29ADC B-17-02 29CAC B-17-02N34ACC B-17-02N34DDD1 B-17-02N34DDD3 B-17-02S31ABA B-17-02S34ABB B-17-02W27DCC MEAS_DATE 03/14/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/13/01 03/14/01 04/04/01 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/13/01 03/16/01 03/14/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/13/01 04/17/01 03/21/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 9.2 11.6 12.2 10.7 4.6 30.1 35.2 498.8 230.6 456.0 12.9 11.1 10.7 34.9 287.0 288.1 265.1 297.0 166.2 216.8 218.6 192.4 163.7 93.5 154.9 1994 1999 2000 2001 2001 WL 94-01 99-01 00-01 DTW DTW DTW DTW ELEV CHG CHG CHG 57.2 63.6 64.7 67.2 4522 -10 -3.6 -2.5 51.5 37.6 106.4 166.8 53.2 110.2 55.7 46.7 105.0 175.8 55.9 115.6 76.9 136.9 173.1 152.5 103.9 155.3 175.5 223.9 225.6 201.8 212.2 167.6 301.9 295.7 272.4 302.5 115.0 115.5 163.4 106.2 157.8 176.0 226.4 228.1 201.0 214.6 169.2 304.5 296.4 274.2 56.7 50.0 107.0 176.7 56.6 117.1 78.4 145.8 57.6 52.4 109.4 179.7 58.4 118.1 81.0 151.0 179.3 171.1 110.8 160.4 178.4 228.7 230.4 207.6 217.5 172 309.0 301.0 276.6 306.5 117.8 177.2 112.2 23.7 232.4 457.6 12.7 12.7 35.9 501.0 1.5 12.4 4481 4537 4505 4508 4551 4529 4518 4508 4500 4502 4533 4514 4521 4509 4510 4518 4515 4508 4511 4528 4523 4528 5082 4289 4367 4351 4372 4292 4497 4500 4479 4369 4514 4457 -3.2 -0.8 -0.2 -2 -8.1 -5.8 -0.7 -2.2 -0.2 -1.6 0.2 -1.6 -2.0 -1.0 -1.8 -22.0 -12.9 -11.5 -9.5 -12.2 -11.9 -11.8 -15.2 -7.4 -17.3 3.9 -6.1 -14.8 -3 -12.9 -5.3 -7.9 -1.9 -5.7 -4.4 -3.9 -2.5 -2.5 -4.1 -14.1 -6.2 -18.6 -6.9 -5.1 -2.9 -4.8 -4.8 -5.8 -5.3 -4.4 -7.1 -5.3 -4.2 -4.0 -2.8 -2.3 -7.7 -4.6 -2.6 -2.4 -2.3 -2.3 -6.6 -2.9 -2.8 -4.5 -4.6 -2.4 -0.9 -2.4 -2.4 -3.0 -1.8 -1.0 -2.6 -5.2



9



Table 2. Statistical summary of water level change data in the Prescott AMA (1995 to 2001)

19951996 1 +0.6 +0.6 +0.6 +0.6 +0.6 19961997 4 +18.0 +2.0 +7.0 +4.5 +4.5 19971998 10 +33.0 +0.1 +9.2 +3.3 +1.5 19981999 7 +39.5 +0.1 +16.3 +5.6 +4.4 19992000 21 +22.7 +0.1 +4.8 +0.9 +1.2 20002001 9 +35.7 +0.1 +15.0 +4.0 +1.1



Period of Change umber of wells showing increases in water levels Sum of increase (feet) Minimum increase (feet) Maximum increase (feet) Mean of increases (feet)* Median of increases (feet)**



Number of wells showing declines in water levels Sum of declines (feet) Minimum declines (feet) Maximum declines (feet) Mean of declines (feet)* Median of declines (feet)**



15 -54.3 -0.5 -13.4 -3.6 -2.2



10 -23.0 -1.0 -6.0 -2.3 -1.5



34 -71.4 -0.2 -12.6 -2.1 -2.1



35 -51.5 -0.1 -7.5 -1.5 -1.2



63 -188.2 -0.1 -19.6 -3.0 -1.6



82 -300.1 -0.1 -21.0 -3.7 -2.25



Number of wells showing no change in water levels



0



3



0



1



3



1



* The mean of increases or declines is the arithmetic average of each group of measurements (that is, the average change in water level for wells with measured increases in water level or the average change in water level for wells with measured decreases in water level). For example, the sum of all measured water level increases in the 9 wells that showed increases between 2000 and 2001 was +35.7 feet. The mean of increases, +4.0 feet, was calculated by dividing the sum of increases (+35.7 feet) by the number of measurements that showed increases (9). ** The median of increases or declines is a statistical measure of the central value of each group of measurements. Half of the measurements in each group are less than the median, and half of the measurements in each group are greater than the median. For example, the median measured increase of +1.1 feet was measured in the 5th ranked well of the 9 total wells that showed increases between 2000 and 2001.



10



Surface Water Data 2000-2001

Surface water discharge data provide important information concerning the amount of flow in rivers and streams. Many of the discharge measurements are direct indicators of the volume of groundwater that is discharged from the regional aquifer system to springs and river channels. Surface water data are also used to estimate the volume of water that is recharged to the aquifer system from streambed infiltration. Surface water data were obtained for the period January 1, 2000 to April 13, 2001 from 7 United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages that are located in or near the Prescott AMA. The surface water data are tabulated in Table 3. Daily discharge hydrographs for these gages are assembled in Appendix A. Comparisons of recent (January 1, 2000 to April 13, 2001) discharge data were made to long-term annual mean discharge data and to median daily discharge data for the USGS gages with comparatively long periods of record. Comparisons were made for the gage on the Verde River near Paulden (09503700  period of record 1963 to present), and for the gage on the Agua Fria River near Mayer (09512500  period of 1940 to present). The recent annual mean discharge at the USGS gage on the Verde River near Paulden (09503700) was 17,614 acre-feet per year, or about 56 percent of the long-term mean of 31,420 acre-feet per year (from 1963 to 2000) (USGS,2001). The recent median daily discharge was 23 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 92 percent of the long-term median daily discharge of 25 cfs (USGS, 2001). The median daily discharge at the Paulden gage is generally indicative of the typical baseflow of the Verde River at that location. The baseflow is primarily sustained by a series of springs that discharge groundwater to the channel of the Verde River and to the channel of lower Granite Creek a few miles upstream from the gage. The recent annual mean discharge at the USGS gage on the Agua Fria River near Mayer (09512500) was 9,269 acre-feet per year, or about 55 percent of the long-term mean of 16,724 acre-feet per year (USGS, 2001). The recent median daily discharge was about 3.5 cfs, or about 157 percent of the long-term median daily discharge of 2.2 cfs (USGS, 2001). Baseflow conditions begin on the Agua Fria River near Humboldt. However, some reaches of the river between Humboldt and the Mayer gage are dry during average to dry years (Wilson, 1988).



11



Table 3. Summary of provisional USGS stream gage data for selected gages in and near the Prescott AMA (01/01/2000 - 04/14/2001)



Gage Description



Gage Number



Period of Record



Mean Dail y Discharge (cfs) 01/01/00 to 04/13/01



Median Dail y Discharge (cfs) 01/01/00 to 04/13/01 2.00 1.20



Minimum Dail y Discharge (cfs) 01/01/00 to 04/13/01 1.30 0.01



Maximum Dail y Discharge (cfs) 01/01/00 to 04/13/01 3.10 190.0



Total Discharge (AF) 01/01/00 to 04/13/01 1,724 5,675



Annualized Discharge (AF/yr) 01/01/00 to 04/13/01 1,346 4,434



Del Rio Springs near Chino Valle y Granite Creek near Prescott Granite Creek at Prescott Granite Creek below Watson Lake Verde River near Paulden Agua Fria River near Humboldt Agua Fria River near Mayer



09502900



19962001 19321947



1.86 6.14



09503000 19942001 19942001 19992001 19632001 20002001 19402001 5.29 0.80 24.38 3.79 12.86 0.38 0.03 23.00 2.20 3.45 0.00 0.00 19.0 0.53 0.09 191.0 62.00 170.0 573.0 900.0 4,893 735 22,546 3,459 11,864 3,823 574 17,614 2,702 9,269



09502960 09503300 09503700 09512450 09512500



Stream gage data and graphics downloaded from USGS website: http://water.usgs.gov/az/nwis/



12



Precipitation Data 2000

Monthly precipitation data are used to assess variations in climatic conditions. Comparisons between recent and long-term precipitation data are useful and aid in the interpretation of water level and surface water data. Precipitation data are also used in the evaluation and quantification of groundwater recharge. Monthly total precipitation data for the year 2000 were collected for the Prescott (026796) and Chino Valley (021654) precipitation stations. The provisional precipitation data are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. The data indicate the total precipitation at Prescott in 2000 was about 82 percent of the long-term average. The data indicate that the total precipitation at Chino Valley was equal to the long-term average. Table 4. Monthly total precipitation in calendar year 2000 Prescott, Arizona (inches)

Month -> J an Feb Mar Apr 2000 .26 1.20a 2.13 0.24 Long-term Mean 1.78 1.86 1.77 0.95 1898-2000 (period of record 1898 to present) Ma y 0.00 0.50 June 1.48 0.41 July 1.06 2.94 Aug 3.71 3.32 Sept 0.00 1.74 Oc t 5.18 1.06 Nov 0.51r 1.27 De c 0.05z 1.68 T o tal 15.82 19.26



Table 5. Monthly total precipitation in calendar year 2000 Chino Valley, Arizona (inches)

Month-> J an Feb Mar Apr 2000 0.08b 1.14c 1.32c 0.10b Long-term Mean 0.97 0.94 0.98 0.57 1948-2000 (period of record 1948 to present) Ma y 0.00 0.39 June 0.61b 0.35 July 0.47e 1.94 Aug 2.55h 2.09 Sept 0.21 1.29 Oc t 4.42n 0.84 Nov 0.90t 0.64 De c 0.00z 0.93 T o tal 11.80 11.79



( some months during 2000 were missing one or more days of data, therefore monthly and annual total data are considered provisional) a=1 day missing, b=2 days missing, c=3 days missing,.. etc.., z=26 or more days missing



Precipitation data downloaded from the National Climate Data Center websites: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/online/ http://www.wrcc.sage.edu/summary/climsaz.html



13



Groundwater Pumpage 2000

Groundwater pumpage represents the single largest component of outflow from the aquifer system in the Prescott AMA. Groundwater pumpage data provides important information that is used to assess the ever-growing demand on the aquifer system. Groundwater pumpage data are used to compile hydrologic water budgets, and supply well-specific pumpage inputs to groundwater flow models. Annual groundwater pumpage totals are metered for each non-exempt well in the AMA, and are reported by the well owners to the ADWR. These data are tabulated in Table 6 for the period 1990 to 2000. The 2000 non-exempt well pumpage total in the Prescott AMA was 17,291 acre-feet (Table 6). The 2000 non-exempt pumpage was about 11 percent greater than the average annual non-exempt pumpage of 15,502 acrefeet during the 1990's (Table 6).



Table 6. Reported non-exempt well pumpage in the Prescott AMA (1990 - 2000) (Acre  Feet) Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990-2000 Total 1990-2000 Average Pumpage 16,088 13,780 12,007 15,279 15,426 15,011 17,635 17,132 15,229 15,642 17,291 170,520 15,502



14



New and Proposed Additions to the Hydrologic Monitoring Network

Pressure Transducer Data and Installations This section provides an update on the installation of pressure transducers in wells in the Prescott AMA groundwater monitoring network. A characteristic hydrograph from one of the pressure transducer wells located near Del Rio Springs is shown in Figure 2. Some of the value and utility of pressure transducer data can be seen in its capacity to show seasonal water level trends, and how these trends may correlate to other important hydrologic phenomenon such as the variation in discharge from Del Rio Springs (Figure 2).



Figure 2. Comparison of depth to water in B(17-2) 27dcc and Del Rio Springs mean daily discharge (Oct. 29, 1999 - Nov. 21, 2000)



- 12 - 13 Depth to Water (feet) for well 27dcc - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 10/17/9 12/6/99 1/25/00 3/15/00 5/4/00 9 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00



3



2.5 Del Rio Springs (CFS) (USGS) Provisional



2



1.5



1



0.5



0 6/23/00 8/12/00 10/1/00 11/20/0 1/9/01 0:00 0:00 0:00 0 0:00 0:00



da te

27dc c Gr oundw ater Discharge



15



Figure 3. Wells in monitor network with pressure transducers



16



Monitor Well Selection Process The following main criteria were considered for selecting wells to be added to the Prescott AMA monitoring network: owner cooperation, unused and unequipped status, location, driller's log availability, period of record, well depth and completion interval. Well locations were selected either for their strategic location for regional groundwater monitoring, and/or because they were located in areas of current or potential future hydrologic concern. Most of the selected wells had driller's logs that ranged from poor to good quality. In general, deeper wells that penetrated volcanic deposits, and/or bedrock were selected. It is possible that additional wells may be added to the pressure transducer monitoring network in the future. Table 6 lists the wells that have been installed with pressure transducer equipment. Figure 3 shows the locations of wells with pressure transducer installations. Method of Installation and Work Completed The method of transducer installation varied from site to site depending upon the well diameter and depth. In all cases a .75" PVC sounding tube was installed along with the pressure transducer. In small-diameter wells (less than 6") the pressure transducer, stainless steel cable, and airline were taped to the bottom piece of PVC tubing. For added stability, the airline and stainless steel cable were also tie-wrapped to the PVC sounding tube at 10 foot intervals. In larger-diameter wells the pressure transducer was generally not taped to the bottom piece of PVC tubing, but instead was hung freely by the stainless steel cable. All transducer installations were completed by teams of 2 to 4 staff (Figure 4) who lowered and connected the PVC tubing and transducer equipment into the well by hand (a specially constructed metal slip was used to support the PVC tubing while connections were being made). The practical depth that such installations could be accomplished by hand was in the 350 to 450 foot range. Due to the great set depth at the Fat Chance well, B(15-1) 10ADB1, the transducer installation was contracted to a pump company. Approximately 50 feet of extra airline and stainless steel support cable were included with each pressure transducer installation. The extra airline and cable will be required when water levels decline in the wells (which is anticipated) and it becomes necessary to lower the transducers to greater depths. Once the pressure transducer and sounding tube were installed in a well, a surface hanger was set on the top of the well casing to support the data logger (Figure 5). The data loggers were set to record a pressure reading every 15 minutes. The frequency of pressure readings will likely be decreased as more experience is gained and more data is collected which will indicate optimal time intervals between pressure measurements. Initially the data loggers will be down loaded every 3 months to assure proper operation of the equipment.



17



The pressure transducer wells are secured using locking stainless steel shelters (Figure 6). The shelters are bolted to cement pads, and are designed to withstand the typical range of weather conditions and are resistant to vandalism. As of May , 2001, 17 sites have been instrumented with pressure transducers.



Figure 4. ADWR field crew installs pressure transducer in Chino Valley well



18



Figure 5. Surface hanger supports data logger



Figure 6. Typical shelter design



19



Table 7. Summary of well construction and hydrogeologic data for wells in Prescott AMA monitoring network installed with pressure transducers

Local ID Well Registry Number 502012 536623 613025 613024 613034 519873 Owner Depth Casing Perfs Hydrogeologic Units 1st Year of Record GWSI (WLS) 1988 1994 1979 1967 1979 1994 WL Change 19942001 NA -1.83 -3.65 +5.48 -1.52 -3.98 WL Change 20002001 -0.63 -.13 -0.66 +0.10 -0.53 -1.02



A-13-01 5abb A-14-01 8bbb A-14-01 17aad A-14-01 27acc A-15-01 28acc A-15-01 22abb



Porter PVWD Fain Fain Fain Yavapai County



230 861 1103 606 372 220



6" PVC 1-230' 6.62" Steel 16" Steel 12" Steel 5" Steel 6" Steel 0218'



170230 675861 100640



UAU UAU / Volcanics Schist UAU/ Volcanics Granite UAU / Volcanics Conglomerate UAU UAU / Schist



B-15-01 10adb1 B-14-01 26aaa B-15-01 14dbd B-15-01 26cbc1 B-15-02 31bad1 B-16-02 11cbb1 B-16-02 12cbd B-16-02 21baa2 B-16-02 23cba B-16-02 28ddc B-1702N34ddd1 B-1702W27dcc



519687 612018 523925 541372 638196 602559 606300 604725 800688 628072 608242 609768



PVWD Lynx Ranch Richter PVWD Cravatzo Mayes Town of Chino Valley Town of Chino Valley Town of Chino Valley Cemetery Bond Bond



1255 328 504 610 270 125 610 400 518 605 722 755



16" Steel PVC 0-940 12" Steel 0-30' 7" Steel PVC 0-284' 7" Steel 0-594' 4.5" Steel 0-270' 48" Concrete 8" Steel 20" Steel 0-260' 14" Steel 0-216' 16" Steel 10" Steel 0-263' Steel 18" 0-280' 12" 280-710' 6" 710-750'



50-73' 112135' 195218' 910940 284504' 400594' 240270'



UAU / Volcanics Conglomerate UAU / Granite UAU / LVU UAU / LVU UAU / LVU UAU UAU / LVU



1988 1978 1994 1994 1980 1938 1941 1981 1948 1958 1943 1962



NA -4.2 -9.13 NA NA -5.25 NA -11.9 NA -12.92 -8.1 -3.2



NA -1 -1.95 -1.63 -5.40 -1.81 -2.6 -2.3 -2.75 4.62 -2.02 -0.17



260400 216518 40-605 263722



UAU / LVU UAU / LVU UAU / LVU UAU / LVU UAU / LVU



20



Table 8. Summary of (as-built) information for wells installed with pressure transducers



Local ID A-13-01 5abb A-13-01 8bbb A-14-01 17aad A-14-01 27acc A-15-01 28acc A-15-01 22abb B-15-01 10adb B-15-01 14dbd B-15-01 26cbc1 B-15-02 31bad1 B-16-02 11cbb1 B-16-02 12cbd B-16-02 21baa2 B-16-02 23cba B-16-02 28ddc B-17-02N34ddd1 B-17-02W27dcc



Owner Porter PVWD Fain Fain Fain State Land Dept. PVWD Richter PVWD Cravatzo Mayes Town of Chino Valley Town of Chino Valley Town of Chino Valley Cemetery Bond Bond



Site Name Closure Williams Fain North Fain South Coyote Indian Hills Fat Chance Richter South Viewpoint Smilin' Jack Old Home Manor Geiler Magee Cemetery Echols 007



Depth 230 861 1103 606 378 220 1220 504 610 270 125 644 400 518 605 722 755



Transducer (PSI) 15 15 15 30 15 15 75 15 30 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 15



Cable Length 200 260 175 125 375 200 900 390 500 270 120 175 325 300 425 150 125



Depth Set 175 220 155 80 333 90 800 353 454 255 85 150 302 250



Shelter Type Big Small Big Bi g Small Small Big Bi g Big None Existing Bi g Big Big Big Small Bi g



Anchor Method Bolt down Weld Pour concrete Pour concrete Bolt down Pour concrete Pour concrete Pour concrete Pour concrete Not Applicable Weld Pour Concrete Pour concrete Bolt down Bolt down Weld Bolt down



21



Stream Gage Installations Five new USGS stream gages have been established in the Prescott AMA since 1994. One gage was established in 1999 on Granite Creek below Watson Lake by the USGS and the ADWR (095033000). This gage was established to quantify previously unmeasured spills from the reservoir (Figure 7). The quantification of these previously unmeasured spills is important because they periodically provide significant recharge to the regional aquifer system in the AMA. Two other gages were established on Granite Creek (09503000 and 09502960) upstream of Watson Lake in 1994. These gages were established by the USGS and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe to help quantify the volume and source(s) of flow on Granite Creek above Watson Lake. Two other stream gages have recently been established by the USGS and the ADWR in the Prescott AMA. The Del Rio Springs gage (09502900) was established in 1996 to help quantify the volume of groundwater discharged to the channel of Little Chino Creek from Del Rio Springs. A gage was also established in 2000 on the Agua Fria River near Humboldt (09512450). This gage was established to quantify the volume of groundwater discharged to the channel of the Agua Fria River near Humboldt, and to quantify the volume of surface flow leaving the Prescott AMA from run-off events. Figure 7. New USGS stream gage (095033000) located on Granite Creek below Watson Lake



22



Monitor Well Drilling Another monitoring activity that was initiated during 2000 was the acquisition of leases to three sites located on State Trust lands where deep monitor wells will be drilled. The well sites are located in data deficient areas of the regional aquifer system where the aquifer thickness and hydrologic characteristics are comparatively unknown. Once drilled, these wells will be instrumented with pressure transducer systems and be added to the ADWR monitoring network. At least one well will be drilled during 2001, with the possibility of a second well being drilled if funding is available. Gravimetric Aquifer Storage Monitoring and Land Subsidence Monitoring Additional monitoring activities that may be implemented sometime in the future are the establishment of land subsidence and aquifer storage monitoring networks in the AMA that will rely on survey grade Global Positioning Service (GPS) measurements and precision microgravity measurements. These types of networks have recently been established in the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs, and it is believed that this type of monitoring would also be effective and beneficial in the Prescott AMA. The aquifer storage monitoring using microgravity techniques is particularly important because it provides another method for estimating changes in aquifer storage that is independent of other types of data and methods. Indications of changing aquifer storage conditions that are provided from water level measurements, water budgets and groundwater modeling can be supported and corroborated with the gravity data.



23



References

ADWR, 1999, Arizona Department of Water Resources Report on the Final Decision and Order That the Prescott Active Management Area is No Longer at Safe-Yield, 31 p. Corkhill, E.F., and Mason, D.M., 1995, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrogeology and Simulation of Groundwater Flow Prescott Active Management Area Yavapai County, Arizona, Modeling Report No. 9, 143 p. USGS, 2001, Water Resources Data Arizona Water Year 2000, Water-Data Report AZ-00-1, 390 p. Wilson, R.P., 1988, Arizona Department of Water Resources Bulletin 5, Water Resources of the Northern Part of the Agua Fria area, Yavapai County, Arizona, 109 p. Woessner, W.W., 1998, Evaluation of Two Groundwater Models of the Prescott Active Management Area ADWR Model (1995) and Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Model (1998), 2 Vols.



24



Appendix A - Daily discharge hydrographs for selected USGS streamgages



25



26



27



28



29



30



31



32