Printed on recycled paper
This page left blank intentionally. 
Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, 

Central Arizona 

By John T.C. Parker, William C. Steinkampf, and Marilyn E. Flynn 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5294 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services
 

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center
 

Denver, CO 80225–0286
 

Prepared by the Arizona Water Science Center, Tucson.
 

For more information about the USGS and its products:
 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS
 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/
 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 
 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.
 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to
 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
 

Suggested citation:
 

Parker, J.T.C., Steinkampf, W.C., and, Flynn, M.E., 2005, Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona:
 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5294, 87 p. 
iii 

Contents
 

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

Purpose and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

Description of the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

Previous investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Geologic history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

Description of geologic units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Cenozoic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Upper Paleozoic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
 

Middle Paleozoic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
 

Lower Paleozoic rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 
 

Proterozoic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

Surface water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

Ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Hydrogeologic units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Tertiary-Quaternary alluvium and basin fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Tertiary volcanic rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Upper Paleozoic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 
 

Middle Paleozoic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 
 

Lower Paleozoic rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 
 

Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

Water chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Chemistry of spring waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Chemistry of well waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

Chemistry of surface waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

Hydrogeologic framework and conceptual model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
 

Recharge zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
 

Upper discharge zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
 

Lower discharge zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

Local water-bearing zones on the Mogollon Rim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
 

Local water-bearing zones below the Mogollon Rim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Water budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Ground-water budget data and approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

Inflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

Outflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

Additional data needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

Summary and conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
 

References cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 
iv 

Figures
 

1.	 Map showing study area and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow­
 

gaging stations in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona ........................................... 3
 

2.	 Map showing U.S. Geological Survey Rural Watershed Initiative 
 

study areas ............................................................................................................................... 4
 

3.	 Graph showing annual ground-water withdrawals by the town of
 

Payson, Arizona ....................................................................................................................... 5
 

4.	 Map showing geology and geologic structure of the Mogollon Highlands, 
 

central Arizona......................................................................................................................... 6
 

5.	 Map showing average annual precipitation and locations of active 
 

weather stations in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona ........................................ 13
 

6–13. Graphs showing:
 

6.	 Seasonal distribution of precipitation for selected sites in 
 

the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................... 14
 

7.	 A. Normalized annual average precipitation for the 
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................... 15
 

B.	 Normalized annual average temperature for Payson, Arizona ....................... 15
 

8.	 Seasonal distribution of annual peak discharges of selected 
 

streams in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona............................................... 18
 

9.	 Seasonal distribution of discharge of selected streams in 
 

the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................... 19
 

10.	 Daily discharge of Tonto Creek above Gun Creek showing 
 

typical range of daily discharge for Mogollon Highlands 
 

streams, central Arizona ............................................................................................... 20
 

11.	 Lowest flows on selected perennial streams in the Mogollon
 

Highlands, central Arizona ........................................................................................... 20
 

12.	 Flow duration curve for selected streams in the Mogollon 
 

Highlands, central Arizona ........................................................................................... 21
 

13.	 Runoff and base-flow components of selected streams in the 
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona ......................................................................... 21
 

14.	 Map showing distribution of springs and wells in the Mogollon 
 

Highlands, central Arizona..................................................................................................... 22
 

15.	 Map showing geology, geologic structure, and locations of springs 
 

for which discharge records are available, Mogollon Highlands, 
 

central Arizona......................................................................................................................... 26
 

16–17. 	 Graphs showing:
 

16.	 Discharge of springs for which repeated measurements are 
 

available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: 
 

A.	 Spring discharge measured at fish hatcheries once a month ........................ 28
 

B.	 Discharge measured once daily in Pine Creek below 
 

Tonto Natural Bridge Spring.................................................................................. 28
 

C.	 Discharge from intermittent current-meter measurements in
 

Fossil Creek above and below springs ................................................................ 28
 

17.	 A. Percentage of total springs by range of discharge ........................................... 29
 

B.	 Percentage of total spring discharge by range of discharge, 
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................... 29
 

18.	 Map showing selected wells for which water-level data are available, 
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................................... 36
 

19.	 Graphs showing time series of water depths in selected wells, 
 

Mogollon Highlands, Arizona ................................................................................................ 38
 

20.	 Map showing springs for which chemical data are available and 
 

sampling sites for isotope analysis of spring water, Mogollon 
 

Highlands, central Arizona..................................................................................................... 46
 
v 

Figures—Continued 

21.	 Graphs showing relative compositions of water from springs in 
 

the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona............................................................................ 48
 

22.	 Graphs showing chemical composition of spring waters within
 

different drainages, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
 

A.	 Specific conductance.................................................................................................... 49
 

B.	 Calcium, magnesium, and sodium ............................................................................... 49
 

C.	 Chloride and sulfate ....................................................................................................... 49
 

D.	 Silica ................................................................................................................................. 49
 

23.	 Graph showing isotope values for water from springs in the
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................................... 51
 

24.	 Map showing wells for which chemical data are available, 
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona................................................................................... 60
 

25.	 Graphs showing chemical composition of waters from wells in 
 

various locations, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
 

A.	 Specific conductance.................................................................................................... 62
 

B.	 Calcium, magnesium, and sodium ............................................................................... 62
 

C.	 Chloride and sulfate ....................................................................................................... 62
 

D.	 Silica ................................................................................................................................. 62
 

26.	 Map showing potentiometric surfaces of the C aquifer, limestone 
 

aquifer, and alluvial aquifer in the lower Tonto Creek Basin, 
 

Mogollon Highlands, Arizona ................................................................................................ 70
 

27.	 Schematic diagram of the ground-water system in the Mogollon 
 

Highlands, central Arizona..................................................................................................... 71
 
iv 

Tables 

1.	 Summary precipitation statistics for Mogollon Highlands, Arizona, 
 

weather stations by decade.................................................................................................. 16
 

2.	 Streamflow-gaging stations in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona, 
 

referred to in this report......................................................................................................... 17
 

3.	 Summary statistics of average daily streamflow values for active 
 

streamflow-gaging stations in the Mogollon Highlands, 
 

central Arizona......................................................................................................................... 20
 

4.	 Discharge values for springs in the Mogollon Highlands, 
 

central Arizona......................................................................................................................... 23
 

5.	 Statistical summary of discharge values for monitored springs,
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona.................................................................................. 29
 

6.	 Selected wells for which water-level data are available,
 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona.................................................................................. 30
 

7.	 Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of 
 

spring waters in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona............................................ 43
 

8.	 Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of 
 

ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona............................. 52
 

9.	 Summary statistics of water-chemistry data for Mogollon 
 

Highlands streams................................................................................................................... 64
 

10.	 Oxygen and hydrogen isotope values for Mogollon Highlands springs...................... 66
 

11.	 Strontium isotope values for spring waters and host rocks........................................... 66
 

12.	 Stream-discharge, spring-discharge, and precipitation values used
 

to compute water budget for regional aquifer .................................................................. 77
 

13.	 Results of regression to extend stream records............................................................... 78
 

14.	 Summation of water inflows and outflows for C aquifer and 
 

limestone aquifer .....................................................................................................................80
 
Conversion Factors and Datum 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

Area 

acre 4,047 square meter (m2) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2) 

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2) 

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume 

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate 

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr) 

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s) 

Specific capacity 

gallon per minute per foot 

[(gal/min)/ft)] 0.2070 liter per second per meter [(L/s/m] 

Transmissivity* 

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: 

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 
 

(NGVD 29).
 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).
 

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
 

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times 
 

foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2

]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot 

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.
 

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 
 

(μS/cm at 25°C).
 

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 
 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
 

v 
Hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands, 

Central Arizona 

By John T.C. Parker, William C. Steinkampf, and Marilyn E. Flynn 

Abstract 

The Mogollon Highlands, 4,855 square miles of rugged, mountainous terrain at the southern edge of the 

Colorado Plateau in central Arizona, is characterized by a bedrock-dominated hydrologic system that results in an 

incompletely integrated regional ground-water system, flashy streamflow, and various local water-bearing zones 

that are sensitive to drought. Increased demand on the water resources of the area as a result of recreational 

activities and population growth have made necessary an increased understanding of the hydrogeology of the 

region. The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a study of the geology and hydrology of the region in cooperation 

with the Arizona Department of Water Resources under the auspices of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative, 

a program launched in 1998 to assist rural areas in dealing with water-resources issues. The study involved the 

analysis of geologic maps, surface-water and ground-water flow, and water and rock chemical data and spatial 

relationships to characterize the hydrogeologic framework. 

The study area includes the southwestern corner of the Colorado Plateau and the Mogollon Rim, which is 

the eroded edge of the plateau. A 3,000- to 4,000-foot sequence of early to late Paleozoic sedimentary rocks 

forms the generally south-facing scarp of the Mogollon Rim. The area adjacent to the edge of the Mogollon Rim 

is an erosional landscape of rolling, step-like terrain exposing Proterozoic metamorphic and granitic rocks. 

Farther south, the Sierra Ancha and Mazatzal Mountain ranges, which are composed of various Proterozoic rocks, 

flank an alluvial basin filled with late Cenozoic sediments and volcanic flows. Eight streams with perennial to 

intermittent to ephemeral flow drain upland regions of the Mogollon Rim and flow into the Salt River on the 

southern boundary or the Verde River on the western boundary. Ground-water flow paths generally are controlled 

by large-scale fracture systems or by karst features in carbonate rocks. Stream channels are also largely controlled 

by structural features, such as regional joint or fault systems. Precipitation, which shows considerable variability 

in amount and intensity, recharges the ground-water system along the crest of the Mogollon Rim and to a lesser 

extent along the crests and flanks of the rim and the Mazatzal Mountains and Sierra Ancha. Flashy runoff in the 

mainly bedrock stream channels is typical. Springs are distributed throughout the region, typically discharging at 

or above the contact of variably permeable formations along the face of the Mogollon Rim with a scattering of 

low-discharge springs in the Proterozoic rocks below the rim. 

The surface of the Colorado Plateau is the primary recharge area for the C aquifer in which ground-water 

flows north toward the Little Colorado River and south toward the Mogollon Highlands. Within the study area, 

flow from the C aquifer primarily discharges from large, stable springs in the upper East Verde River, Tonto 

Creek, and Canyon Creek Basins along the top of the Mogollon Rim and to the west as base flow in West Clear 

Creek. On the basis of chemical evidence and the distribution and flow characteristics of springs and perennial 

streams, the C aquifer is also the source of water for the limestone aquifer that discharges from carbonate rocks 

near the base of the Mogollon Rim. Vertical flow from the C aquifer, the base of which is in the Schnebly Hill 

Formation, recharges the limestone aquifer that discharges mainly at Fossil Springs in the western part of the study 

area and as base flow in Cibecue Creek on the eastern edge of the study area. 
2 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Local, generally shallow aquifers of variable 

productivity occur in plateau and mesa-capping 

basalts in the sedimentary rocks of the Schnebly Hill 

and Supai Formations, in fractured zones of the 

Proterozoic Payson granite, and in the alluvium of the 

lower Tonto Creek Basin. Where time series data 

exist, such water-bearing zones are shown to be 

sensitive to short-term climatic fluctuations, in 

particular, the drought which began in the mid-1990s 

and continued during the course of this study. 

A regional water budget for the C and limestone 

aquifers was developed from precipitation, spring, and 

streamflow data. Of an estimated 1,730,000 acre-feet 

of precipitation that falls on the Mogollon Rim 

annually, about 8 percent is estimated to recharge the 

regional aquifers. About 40 percent of recharge to the 

limestone aquifer is estimated to be leakage from the 

overlying C aquifer. 

Introduction 

The Mogollon Highlands of east central Arizona is 

a region of forested plateau and mountains, deep, sheerwalled canyons, and desert valleys. Known for its scenic 

beauty and characterized by a generally mild climate, 

the area, though still sparsely populated, attracts an 

increasing number of tourists and summer residents. 

Furthermore, the permanent population is expected to 

nearly double during the next 50 years. Consequently, 

there is increased pressure on the water resources of 

this area for a number of sometimes conflicting uses. 

Rational management of water resources is necessary to 

meet increased domestic requirements while ensuring an 

adequate supply of water for commercial and agricultural 

use, for Indian lands, and for preservation of valued 

environmental elements, including surface waters, 

riparian woodlands, forest and grassland areas, and 

wildlife and aquatic habitat. Such management requires 

an understanding of the relations between different 

components of the hydrologic system—recharge areas, 

surface flows, shallow aquifers, deep aquifers, discharge 

areas, and the regional ground-water flow system—and 

how each is affected by geology, climate, topography, 

and human use. 

Purpose and Scope 

This report presents the findings of an investigation 

into the hydrogeology of the Mogollon Highlands (fig.1) 

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 

cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources (ADWR) under the auspices of the State of 

Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative (RWI). The study 

is one of three conducted by the USGS in a contiguous 

area covering about 17,000 mi2 in central and northern 

Arizona (fig. 2). The purpose of the RWI is to provide 

assistance to rural Arizona communities in defining 

and solving local water resources issues. The purpose 

of the USGS studies is to increase understanding of the 

ground-water flow systems in the Mogollon Highlands, 

the middle and upper Verde River watersheds, and the 

Coconino Plateau and in particular to assess the extent 

and availability of water resources, define ground-water 

flow paths and the relations among different sources 

of ground water, define the relations between surfacewater flow and ground water, and assess the effects 

of continued development on the water resources of 

the areas. 

The basic objectives of this study are to: 

1.	 Develop an understanding of the hydrogeologic 

framework, which is the relation between geologic 

units and hydrologic properties. 

2.	 Define the relations among the different 

components of the hydrologic system, namely the 

interactions among climate, water use, and surfacewater and ground-water systems. 

3.	 Synthesize the findings into a conceptual model 

that can be used for water-resources management 

purposes and will support the development of an 

interpretive numerical model to examine the 

effects of climate and water use on the 

sustainability of regional water resources. 

The scope of work included collection, compilation, 

and analyses of existing hydrologic, chemical, and 

geologic data to describe the spatial and temporal 

behavior of the hydrologic system. For the most part, 

the study considers the hydrological system beginning 

in the mid-20th century during a period of considerable 

water-resources development and through two periods 

of extreme drought. Additional data collected during 

the course of the study included spring-discharge 

measurements and water-chemistry analyses for 

purposes of delineating the ground-water flow paths 

in both regional and local aquifers. The report presents 

these findings and uses them to present a conceptual 

model of the hydrologic system and a water budget for 

the regional aquifers of the study area. 
O

RIM 

MO OL LO 

G 

N 

Payson Shelf 

Ri e r 

Ri 

Ve 

e 

F 

ine 

W 

ek er C ebber 

Pine C e k 

Creek 

Cr rekr aP eek 

Creek k 

do 

nott o C 

o w 

C 

C 

C 

V de 

ke e R 

W Bo om

Creek 

tt et 

y erC 

C C

hris

r 

ophe r 

t 

er 

S 

C 

k 

c 

e 

y a mor 

E 

River 

ast 

lea

reek 

r 

est W 

reek 

C ek

re 

ossil 

rd 

ver 

Salt 

Cr k ee 

r k 

noy na C 

ee 

To nt o 

Cr 

k ee 

Ch ry er 

C 

Creek 

ibec eu 

R eservation 

ree 

COLORADO

PLATEAU 

MAZATZAL MOUNTAINS Hardscrabble 

Baker Butte

Canyon

Mesa Mesa

Bear Tablelands

Tablelands 

Flat

SIERRA ANCHA

Black 

Colcord Canyon

Can on y 

C 

Jack s 

anyon

Buckwheat 

Strawberry 

Houston

v 

P 

r e 

a

Milk Ranch 

Natural 

Bridge 

Strawberry 

C 

09507500

09507980

09507600

09497850

EXPLANATION 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STREAMFLOW-GAGING

STATION AND STATION IDENTIFICATION 

111o30’ 111o

87 

09505800 34o30’ 

09507580

Point Overgaard Pine 

Tonto 

Childs Kohls

Ranch Christopher Tonto 260 Creek Village 

Mesa 

Payson 110o30’ 

09508300 Gisela 

Rye Young

09498870

34o 

09499000

Sunflower 

09510150 09497800 188 

0 10 MILES

0 10 KILOMETERS

09497980

87 

Theodore 

Roosevelt
 

Lake
 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 

Universal Transverse Mercator 09498870

projection, Zone 12 

Fort Apache Indian 

Introduction 3 

Figure 1. Study area and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
4 

Colo

Li

r

tt

a

le

do

Colorad o

R

River

iver

Rive r

River Gila

Description of the Study Area 

The Mogollon Highlands, as defined in this study, 

consists of four distinct physiographic regions (fig.1)

The northern part of the study area is the southernmost

part of the Colorado Plateau, a region formed by the 

broad uplift of lightly deformed rocks that covers 

more than 75,000 mi2 of Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and 

New Mexico (Fenneman, 1931). The Mogollon Rim, 

which trends generally northwest-southeast through 

the study area, is the eroded edge of the Colorado 

Plateau and is characterized in the study area by a

well-delineated, steep to nearly vertical scarp about 

2,000 ft high. The crest of the Mogollon Rim is the 

narrow strip of land above the scarp separating the 

drainages of the Gila River from the drainage of the 

Little Colorado River that are well to the south and north 

of the study area, respectively (fig. 2). Below the steepest 

part of the Mogollon Rim, referred to here as the face, 

the landscape is characterized by tablelands generally 

bounded by the scarps of large regional faults (fig. 1). 

Along the eastern side of the study area, the tablelands 

form a broad, rugged plateau that flanks the eastern side 

of the Sierra Ancha to the Salt River. To the south, the 

study area mainly is within the transitional zone that 

separates the Colorado Plateau from the Basin and Range 

Physiographic Province. Most of the study area is 

characterized by rugged, rocky terrain, especially on 

the face of the Mogollon Rim and in the two mountain 

ranges, the Mazatzal Mountains and the Sierra Ancha 

that flank lower Tonto Creek on the west and east, 

respectively (fig. 1). The lower Tonto Basin and the 

middle reaches of Cherry Creek near the town of Young 

(fig. 1) contain the only significant area of alluvial valley 

bottoms. Total relief is about 6,700 feet with the highest 

point on Baker Butte above the Mogollon Rim at an 

altitude of 8,077 ft, and the lowest point at the confluence 

of the Salt and Verde Rivers at an altitude of about 

1,330 ft (fig. 1). 

The Mogollon Rim and the Colorado Plateau, at 

altitudes of 6,000 ft and above, are covered mainly 

with a conifer forest dominated by ponderosa pine. 

Smaller stands of ponderosa pine forest occupy the 

higher ridges and peaks south of the Mogollon Rim. 

Piñon pine and juniper woodlands dominate the 

tablelands and the northern slopes of the Mazatzal 

Mountains and much of the northern part of the Sierra 

Ancha. The ponderosa and piñon-juniper forests cover 

almost 60 percent of the study area. A severe infestation 

of pine-bark beetle beginning in 2002 has resulted in high 

mortality of ponderosa and piñon pine throughout much 

of north-central Arizona. Some stands of ponderosa 

pine have suffered as much as 80 to 90 percent mortality 

during the outbreak that has been blamed on severe 

drought and overcrowding of trees. In April 2002, nearly 

50 percent of the ponderosa pine forest in Tonto National 

Coconino 

Plateau

study area 

Mogollon Upper and Highlands middle study area Verde River

watersheds 

study area 

Phoenix 

Metropolitan Area 

ARIZONA 

Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 2. U.S. Geological Survey Rural Watershed Initiative 

study areas. 

Acknowledgments 

The Pine-Strawberry Water Improvement District 

provided supplemental funding through the ADWR for 

this project; the Northern Gila County Water Plan 

Alliance provided technical and community support for 

the project; Robert Sejkora, Arizona State Parks, 

provided data on spring flow at Tonto Natural Bridge 

State Park; Kevin Bright, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department provided data on spring flow at the Tonto 

Creek and Canyon Creek fish hatcheries; Grant Loomis, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 

Tonto National Forest, provided data on discharge 

measurements at Fossil Creek and Tonto Creek; Michael 

Ploughe, town of Payson and Arizona Hydrologic 

Sources, provided data on wells in the Payson area and 

for a well in the community of Pine; Dr. Donald Burt, 

Arizona State University, provided an overview of the 

geology of the study area; several property owners 

granted access to springs for water sampling and 

discharge measurements. 
Forest was affected by the infestation, and the winter 

of 2003 was considered favorable for continued spread 

of the infestation (DeGomez, 2002, 2003). Most other 

hillslopes are covered with interior chaparral vegetation 

consisting of woody shrubs and oak species. Desert 

grasslands occupy the valley floors above about 3,000 ft, 

and upland Sonoran desert vegetation dominates below 

that altitude. From June 18 to July 7, 2002, the largest 

fire to date in Arizona history burned 467,066 acres of 

forest and brushland in the east-central part of the State, 

including much of the Cibecue Creek watershed along 

the eastern edge of the study area (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, 2003). 

Population of the study area is approximately 

24,400, of which almost 60 percent is in the town of 

Payson (fig.1; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). According to 

the Arizona State Land Department, about 80 percent 

of the land is owned by the Federal Government, 

primarily within the Tonto National Forest, and about 

15 percent of the land is included within five Indian 

reservations. Only 2.4 percent of the land within the study 

area is privately owned. Water use is almost entirely 

municipal and domestic, and virtually all water comes 

from ground-water sources. Annual ground-water 

withdrawals by the town of Payson, which is the largest 

consumer of water in the area, increased at an average 

rate of about 8 percent a year from 268 acre-ft in 1975 

to about 1,706 acre-ft in 2000 (fig. 3; Ploughe, 2001). 

Water-use figures for the rest of the study area have not 

been as diligently reported, but in 1997, the most recent 

year for which generally complete data are available, 

17 water companies reported a combined annual water 

use of 670 acre-ft (Arizona Corporation Commission, 

written commun., 2000). GROUND-WATER WITHDRAWALS, IN ACRE-FEET

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

19751980198519901995

2000

Introduction 5 

Figure 3. Annual ground-water withdrawals by the town of 

Payson, Arizona (Ploughe, 2001). 

Previous Investigations

 Feth and Hem (1963) conducted the first detailed 

hydrogeologic investigation with an inventory of springs 

and a general description of the geology of upland areas 

of north-central Arizona that included the Mogollon 

Highlands. In many cases, spring-discharge data reported 

in that study are the only such data available for the study 

area. The report also described likely recharge paths from 

the crest of the Mogollon Rim to the underlying waterbearing rocks. Ross (1977) published the first description 

of ground-water conditions in the Mogollon Highlands 

area based on well data, primarily in the Payson and PineStrawberry areas. Denis (1981) conducted a more 

comprehensive survey of ground-water conditions 

throughout the Tonto Basin using well data. Hart and 

others (2002) conducted a regional study of the C aquifer 

that overlapped somewhat with the study area of this 

investigation. They produced a potentiometric map of the 

C aquifer along the crest of the Mogollon Rim that 

indicates possible flow paths into the ground-water 

system of the Mogollon Highlands study area. 

Water-resources issues have provided the impetus 

for several recent studies for the town of Payson, 

including Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. 

(1998), Ploughe (2000, 2001), and Gæorama, Inc. (2001, 

2003). Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. (1998) 

projected future water needs for the town of Payson and 

estimated the extent of water resources developed at the 

time of the study. Southwest Ground-water Consultants, 

Inc. also described the relation of structural features 

within the Payson granite (fig. 4) to the ground-water 

system and presented detailed mapping of faults and 

lineaments. Ploughe (2000, 2001) described results of 

exploratory well-drilling and monitoring of wells in 

granitic rocks north of Payson. Gæorama, Inc. (2001, 

2003) presented the results of detailed mapping of the 

Diamond Rim Fault system (fig. 4) east of Payson and 

reported on hydrogeologic characteristics of the Payson 

granite and related rocks from which Payson draws its 

water. Similar studies were conducted east of Payson by 

AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. (1999) for the 

Arizona Department of Transportation, which was 

seeking to secure a water supply for the major upgrading 

of State Route 260 east of Payson (fig. 1). 
6 

Ri e 

Ri 

Verde 

ver 

S t 

SLATE CREEK BREADPAN 

CANYON 

SHEAR ZONE 

al 

v r 

Isla

111o30’ 111o 

34o30’ 

Christopher

Island 

Pine 

nd 

ZONE FAULT RIM DIAMOND 

Payson 110o30’ 

34o 

0 10 MILES

0 10 KILOMETERS

Theodore 

Roosevelt 


Lake 


Geology modified from Reynolds, 1988 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 


digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 


Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 12 


Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 4. Geology and geologic structure of the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
EXPLANATION 

SURFICIAL DEPOSITS, MOSTLY ALLUVIUM—Holocene to Middle Pleistocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

VOLCANIC ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIFFERENTIATED—Cretaceous 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian (Kaibab Formation and Coconino Sandstone) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian and Pennsylvanian (Schnebly Hill Formation, 

Supai Formation, and Naco Formation) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Mississippian to Cambrian (Redwall Limestone, Martin

 Formation, and Tapeats Sandstone) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Middle Proterozoic (Apache Group) 

DIABASE—Middle Proterozoic

GRANITOID ROCKS—Middle Proterozoic

GRANITOID ROCKS—Early Proterozoic (Payson granite) 

QUARTZITE —Early Proterozoic (Mazatzal Group quartzite of Tonto Supergroup) 

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCKS, DIFFERENTIATED—Early Proterozoic

 (Tonto Supergroup: Red Rock Group, Alder Group, East Verde River Formation) 

FAULT 

Geology 7 

Figure 4. Continued. 

In the Pine-Strawberry area (fig. 1), Weitzman (2002) 

surveyed the geology and hydrology south of the 

Mogollon Rim between Strawberry and the headwaters of 

the East Verde River north of Payson. His work included 

the detailed geologic mapping of the Buckhead Mesa and 

upper East Verde River area, and he plotted ground-water 

flow paths along Pine Creek and the East Verde River 

(fig. 1). Kaczmarek (2003) investigated the hydrogeology 

of the Pine-Strawberry area and concluded that prolonged 

pumping of wells that tap the Schnebly Hill Formation and 

the Supai Formation (fig. 4) results in decreased yields 

over time. Wells in the Strawberry area that draw water 

from the Schnebly Hill Formation were found to be 

somewhat more reliable than those in the Pine area that 

draw water from the Supai Formation because the porosity 

of the Schnebly Hill Formation allows for some storage 

of water within those rocks. In the Supai Formation, 

Kaczmarek (2003) found, water is produced entirely from 

fractures, and there is no significant storage in the 

essentially impermeable rocks. He concluded that neither 

formation is an adequate resource to meet current and 

future water demands in the area. Using the few available 

borehole data and the analysis of discharge from Fossil 

Springs, Kaczmarek concluded that the limestone aquifer, 

consisting of the Martin Formation, Redwall Limestone, 

and possibly the Naco Formation (fig. 4), may provide a 

dependable source of water at a depth of more than 

1,500 ft below the land surface in Strawberry. 

Geology 

The significant geologic components of the Mogollon 

Highlands (fig. 4) are (1) the Paleozoic sedimentary 

rocks of the Colorado Plateau that are exposed like the 

edge of a card deck on the face of the Mogollon Rim; 

(2) Proterozoic metamorphic and granitic rocks that 

underlie the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and form the 

rolling, step-like terrain south of the Mogollon Rim; 

(3) Proterozoic metamorphic, sedimentary, and volcanic 

rocks that form the Sierra Ancha and Mazatzal Mountain 

ranges; (4) a system of generally northwest-southeast 

trending faults associated with Basin and Range 

extensional deformation; and (5) late Cenozoic volcanic 

rocks that overlie the Paleozoic section in the northeastern part of the study area, and late Cenozoic volcanic 

and basin-fill sediments primarily in the lower Tonto 

Creek Basin. 
8 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Geologic History 

Proterozoic rocks record a period of volcanism, 

sedimentation, and deformation that concluded about 

1.7 billion years ago (Karlstrom and others, 1987; 

Conway and Silver, 1989). Subsequently, the Proterozoic 

rocks constituted the surface of several positive areas in 

what is now eastern Arizona that affected deposition 

patterns throughout the Paleozoic Era. The main area 

of positive relief was in the region of the Defiance Uplift, 

a structural feature formed during the Laramide 

deformational episode in the Cretaceous Period about 

150 mi northeast of the study area. Pine Ridge is a 

buried extension of that uplift that extends beneath the 

Mogollon Rim with an arm extending south toward Pine 

and another arm extending south toward Christopher 

Creek (fig. 1; Teichert, 1965). Although relief generally 

was low on this positive area, it at times formed a barrier 

to transgressing seas during the time that the lower 

Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of the study area were being 

deposited. Consequently, such units in the Mogollon 

Highlands are often thinner and less continuous than 

their equivalents in Grand Canyon and elsewhere on the 

Colorado Plateau and southeastern Arizona. Two islands 

delineated by outcrops of Mazatzal Group quartzite near 

Pine and Christopher Creek (fig. 4) stood above base 

level throughout the early Paleozoic Era, truncating 

deposition until they were buried by sediments in the 

Mississippian Period or Early Pennsylvanian Epoch 

(Teichert, 1965; McKee and Gutschick, 1969). 

The first Paleozoic deposition was a layer of 

sandstone that was deposited in a braided stream 

environment at the edge of the North American craton. 

Teichert (1965) called this unit the “basal sandstone” 

and considered it Devonian in age, but Hereford (1977) 

found the unit to be lithologically similar to the Tapeats 

Sandstone of Cambrian age, which immediately overlies 

Proterozoic rocks in the upper Verde River Basin and 

Grand Canyon. Assuming the Cambrian designation is 

correct, the Mogollon Highlands then underwent a long 

period of erosion, nondeposition, or both, producing a 

stratigraphic unconformity representing at least 

80 million years.

 Shallow marine conditions prevailed during the 

Devonian and Mississippian Periods when the carbonate 

rocks of the Martin Formation and Redwall Limestone 

were deposited. Deposition of both units was truncated 

against the quartzite cliffs of the Pine and Christopher 

Creek islands. A long period of surface exposure in the 

Late Mississippian Epoch led to the development of a 

karst topography that includes extensive caves and 

sinkholes throughout central Arizona; karst features 

are particularly extensive and well developed in the 

study area, presumably reflecting the greater duration 

of exposure in the Mogollon Highlands than occurred 

over more negative areas of the State. The period of 

surface exposure was followed by renewed shallow 

marine conditions in the Early Pennsylvanian Epoch 

with deposition of the mainly carbonate rocks of the 

Naco Formation (Brew, 1965). The gradual transition 

from Naco Formation carbonate rocks to overlying 

siltstones and sandstones records the fluctuating position 

of the coastline in Late Pennsylvanian time. Increasingly 

terrestrial conditions prevailed during the deposition 

of the Supai Formation in the Late Pennsylvanian and 

Early Permian Epochs. Fluvial sediments were laid down 

in coastal marshes and flood plains to produce the red 

siltstones and sandstones that characterize most of the 

formation. In the middle Permian Period, mudstones, 

evaporites, and carbonates were deposited in the 

Holbrook Basin to form the Schnebly Hill Formation, 

which includesthe carbonate Fort Apache Member in the 

middle of the depositional sequence (Blakey, 1990). 

The record of Paleozoic deposition within the study 

area concluded with another period of shallow marine 

conditions and deposition of the Kaibab Formation 

(Hopkins, 1990); the subsequent Mesozoic history is 

missing because of erosion. According to Bilodeau 

(1986), the Mogollon Rim area was the site of a surface 

of gentle relief he termed the Mogollon Slope, across 

which volcanic ash and fluvial sediments were 

transported to the northeast from a volcanic arc terrane 

in southern Arizona and Mexico. 

The next episode in the formation of the present-day 

geologic setting of the Mogollon Highlands was the uplift of the Colorado Plateau, possibly in late Cretaceous 

time during the period of Laramide deformation 

(Bilodeau, 1986). Formation of the Mogollon Rim was a 

result of Basin and Range extensional tectonics along the 

southern margins of the plateau and the subsequent cliff 

erosion parallel to major faults (Mayer, 1979). The last 

major geologic event in the region was a period of 

volcanism in middle Miocene times that saw mainly 

basaltic lava flows over the crest of the Mogollon Rim at 

the western edge of the study area and into Fossil Creek 

canyon. Lava deposition also occurred in the Mazatzal 

Mountains along the edges of the Tonto Creek valley in 

the lower basin. 
Description of Geologic Units 

Geologic mapping of the study area has not been 

as detailed relative to other parts of Arizona until 

recently, in part because of the absence of significant 

mineral resources. Most of the study area falls within 

Gila County for which geologic mapping was done by 

Wilson and others (1959) and State-level mapping was 

done by Reynolds (1988). Geologic mapping was done 

for the Strawberry and Pine 7.5-minute quadrangles 

northwest of Payson by Weir and Beard (1997) and 

Weisman and Weir (1990), respectively. Detailed 

stratigraphic studies of rocks that occur in the study area, 

particularly the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, have been 

conducted by Brew (1965), Teichert (1965), McKee and 

Gutschick (1969), Hereford (1977), and Blakey (1990). 

Proterozoic rocks and associated structure have been 

extensively mapped by Conway (1976), Karlstrom and 

others (1987), Conway and Silver (1989), Cox and others 

(2002), and Gæorama, Inc. (2003). The geologic units 

described here have been generalized from those mapped 

by Reynolds (1988). 

Cenozoic Rocks 

Tertiary volcanic rocks cover much of the western 

Mogollon Rim as far east as Milk Ranch Point where 

Baker Butte (fig. 1), the highest point in the study area, 

stands above basalt flows (fig. 4). Lava flows fill the 

canyon west of Fossil Creek to a thickness of more than 

3,000 ft (Twentner, 1962) and spill onto Hardscrabble 

Mesa to the south where flows are nearly 2,000 ft thick. 

In addition to basalt flows, volcanics in the region include 

tuff, agglomerates, cinders and interspersed fluvial 

deposits (Weisman, 1984). Potassium-argon dating of the 

basalt from the top of Baker Butte yielded an age of 

11.4 + 0.27 million years and from the base of the top 

flow layer on the southern end of Milk Ranch Point 

yielded an age of 14.23 + 0.74 million years (Peirce and 

others, 1979). Stratigraphic relations show that the 

Mogollon Rim pre-dates all the basalt flows in the area 

although abundant basalt float on slopes beneath Milk 

Ranch Point is testament to some degree of cliff retreat 

since emplacement of the basalt flows. 

The Tonto Creek Basin below Payson is the site of 

the most significant basin-fill deposits in the study area 

(figs. 1 and 4). Tertiary and Quaternary colluvial, 

alluvial-fan, stream-terrace, pediment-terrace, and fluvial 

deposits interlayered with basalt flows fill the basin to 

depths of 1,000 to 3,500 ft (Richards, 1987; Mayes, 

Geology 9 

1990). Mesa-capping gravels and sedimentary rocks of 

Oligocene to Miocene age that are both preceded and 

followed by Basin and Range faulting are exposed mainly 

along the western and southern boundaries of the study 

area (Reynolds, 1988) and are not differentiated here 

from other late Cenozoic sedimentary units. 

Upper Paleozoic Rocks 

Middle to Late Permian age rocks form the cap of the 

Mogollon Rim except where buried by younger volcanic 

rocks (fig. 4). The Permian Coconino Sandstone is a 

clean, aeolian sandstone that forms a nearly vertical 

escarpment at the top of the Mogollon Rim (Blakey, 

1990). The unit varies greatly in thickness; it is an 

erosional veneer on top of Milk Ranch Point but attains 

a maximum thickness of nearly 1,200 ft above the 

headwaters of the East Verde River (Reynolds, 1988). 

The fine- to medium-grained sandstone is extensively 

crossbedded, is heavily fractured, and is in gradational 

contact with the underlying Schnebly Hill formation 

(Blakey, 1990).

 The Permian Kaibab Formation is a fossiliferous 

limestone containing chert nodules and interbeds of 

layered chert, shale, and poorly cemented sandstone 

reflecting the near-shore depositional environment of the 

unit in the study area (Weisman, 1984; Hopkins, 1990). 

A measured section of the Kaibab Formation on the 

Mogollon Rim above Strawberry Canyon (fig. 4) showed 

a thickness of about 300 ft lying unconformably over the 

Coconino Sandstone (Weisman, 1984). 

Middle Paleozoic Rocks 

Rocks of Pennsylvanian to Early Permian age 

form the middle slopes of the Mogollon Rim from 

Fossil Creek, where they are buried beneath younger 

volcanic flows, southeast to the Salt River (fig. 4). 

The Pennsylvanian age Naco Formation unconformably 

overlies the Redwall Limestone with a basal red shale 

composed of reworked residuum that fills the underlying, 

uneven karst surface (Brew, 1965). The contact generally 

is hidden beneath slopes of colluvium. All stratigraphic 

and lithologic descriptions of the Naco Formation that 

follow are from Brew (1965) and from observations made 

during this study. Above the shale, the Naco Formation 

consists mainly of discontinuous, ledge-forming, light 

gray nodular limestones in tabular beds from less than 1 ft 

thick to 10 ft thick and more, alternating with layers of 

purple to red siltstone and shale. Orange chert is locally 
10 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

present in the limestone, and some units are highly 

fossiliferous. Measured sections show thicknesses of 

more than 400 ft at Fossil Creek and north of the East 

Verde River; measured sections along Tonto Creek 

show a thickness of about 114 ft north of Highway 260, 

and a thickness of nearly 240 ft near Kohls Ranch 

(figs. 1 and 4). The Naco Formation thickens to more 

than 1,000 ft east of the study area on the Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation. 

According to Blakey (1990), the suite of reddish to 

yellow sandstones, siltstones, and shales that constitute 

the lower half of the Mogollon Rim escarpment are here 

separated into the lower and upper parts of the Supai 

Formation and the overlying Schnebly Hill Formation. 

The Supai Formation’s contact with the underlying Naco 

Formation is transitional, and placement of that contact is 

within a complex 100- to 200-ft interval of limestone, 

mudstone, and sandstone, which Blakey (1990) notes 

is poorly exposed and difficult to map. All descriptions 

of the Supai and Schnebly Hill Formations that follow 

are from Blakey (1990). The lower part of the Supai 

Formation of Pennsylvanian age is about 300 ft thick 

and consists primarily of very fine-grained massive 

sandstone, cross-stratified sandstone, and conglomerate 

that range in color from reddish gray to reddish brown to 

pale grayish orange. The unit forms ledges, steep slopes, 

and local cliffs. The upper part of the Supai Formation, 

which averages about 300 ft in thickness, contains a 

variable assemblage of sandstone and conglomerate red 

beds, which generally are of local extent with abrupt 

lateral changes. At Fossil Creek, the middle of the upper 

part of the formation contains a complex suite of fluvial 

features and deposits with several fining-upward 

sequences, cross-stratified sandstones, conglomerate 

beds, and accumulations of organic material including 

plant debris. On the basis of regional correlations, Blakey 

(1990) places the Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary at 

the top of the channeled complex. 

The Permian Schnebly Hill Formation is in sharp 

contact with the underlying Supai Formation and is 

the product of deposition in a rapidly subsiding closed 

basin. The unit is exposed along the full length of the 

Mogollon Rim within the study area, forming steep 

slopes at Fossil Creek where it is about 835 ft high and 

thickens slightly to the east. The bottom 425 ft of the 

Schnebly Hill Formation is poorly exposed, very finegrained sandstone and reddish-brown siltstones. A little 

more than half way up the sequence, the Fort Apache 

Member is a 50- to 60-ft-thick carbonate unit that 

consists mainly of limestone in the study area and 

becomes more dolomitic to the north; the upper parts 

of the formation consist of siltstone, mudstone, and 

some carbonates capped by a 130-ft sequence of 

extensively cross-stratified sandstone that thins to 

the east from Fossil Creek. 

Lower Paleozoic Rocks 

Rocks of Cambrian to Mississippian age are exposed 

continuously along the base of the Mogollon Rim from 

Pine Creek southeast to the Salt River (fig. 4), as well as 

in several fault blocks north and east of Payson and as 

outliers scattered throughout the southern part of the 

study area. The Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone lies 

unconformably upon the Payson granite and is exposed 

north of Payson on Houston Mesa (figs. 1 and 4), along 

the East Verde River and along the base of the Diamond 

Rim Fault north of Webber Creek and as far east as Kohls 

Ranch (figs. 1 and 4). Within the study area, the Tapeats 

Sandstone is a very coarse-grained sandstone to small 

pebble conglomerate with thin, lenticular beds of shale 

and siltstone. In vertical sections, it shows distinct 

crossbedded sandstone and conglomerate that fill 

channels cut into underlying beds (Hereford, 1977). 

The Devonian age Martin Formation lies 

unconformably over the Tapeats Sandstone in the 

East Verde River area and directly overlies Proterozoic 

rocks farther to the east. Exposures of the unit, which 

forms vertical, blocky cliffs of well-bedded dolomite, 

limestone, and clastic sedimentary rocks, are visible 

along State Highway 87 between Payson and Pine north 

of the East Verde River crossing (figs. 1 and 4); on the 

eastern side of the canyon above Tonto Natural Bridge; 

along most canyon walls that are cut into the Paleozoic 

section of the Mogollon Rim, including Webber Creek, 

the East Verde River, Tonto Creek, Christopher Creek, 

and Canyon Creek; along the Diamond Rim escarpment; 

and along the north bank of the Salt River east of Cibecue 

Creek. The Martin Formation consists of two members 

(Teichert, 1965). The lower Becker Butte Member 

reportedly is as thick as 160 ft, but it is not exposed or 

is missing in most measured sections. Teichert (1965) 

describes it as having a basal crossbedded sandstone 

and conglomerate below a dolomitic sandstone and 

shale, but Hereford (1977) believes that only the 

dolomitic sandstone is part of the Martin Formation, 

and that the basal sandstone is the Tapeats Sandstone. 

The Jerome Member can include any of the following 

units: (1) a finely laminated lower unit at the base 

called the fetid dolomite that is up to 55-ft thick; 

(2) an aphanitic dolomite up to 159-ft thick that may be 

sandy and in some places contains chert; and (3) an upper 

sequence as much as 385-ft thick that contains beds of 

fine to coarse-grained mottled dolomite, which east of 

the East Verde River contains varying amounts of 

sandstone, siltstone, and shale (Teichert, 1965). Isopach 
maps of the Jerome Member show the unit as thickening 

from less than 100 ft northeast of the Mogollon Rim 

above Christopher Creek to more than 300 ft parallel to 

the rim and to nearly 400 ft at Tonto Natural Bridge 

Spring (Teichert, 1965). The Martin Formation is also 

shown as pinching out around the margins of Pine and 

Christopher Islands (fig. 4). 

Throughout much of the study area, the Redwall 

Limestone of Mississippian age is little more than a 

layer of rubble, the residuum of extended weathering of 

the Redwall surface during a period of surface exposure 

that lasted tens of millions of years before deposition of 

the overlying Naco Formation (Brew, 1965). Of the four 

members of the formation that are present in the Grand 

Canyon, where the unit is nearly 800 ft thick, only the 

Mooney Falls Member, the second youngest member, 

is present east of Fossil Creek (McKee and Gutschick, 

1969). East of Pine, McKee and Gutschick’s isopach 

maps show the Redwall Limestone generally to be less 

than 50 ft thick, not counting residuum, and to pinch out 

to the northeast of the Mogollon Rim in approximately 

the same area as the Martin Formation does. West of 

Pine, isopach maps show the Redwall abruptly thickening 

to more than 100 ft at Fossil Creek. Well cuttings and 

geophysical evidence at a recently developed well 

northwest of Pine, however, were interpreted as showing 

a thickness of 495 ft of Redwall Limestone, a much 

greater thickness for the unit than previously reported in 

that area (Michael Ploughe, hydrologist, Arizona 

Hydrologic Sources, oral commun., 2003). The residuum 

typically consists of a conglomerate containing pebbleto boulder-sized limestone gravel and white pebble- to 

cobble-sized chert in a red clay matrix (McKee and 

Gutschick, 1969). Fossils are abundant in some 

exposures. In exposures along State Highway 87 north 

of the East Verde River (figs. 1 and 4), the residuum 

comprises nearly 50 percent of the total thickness of 

the Redwall, and at exposures along Tonto Creek, it 

comprises nearly 40 percent of the formation’s total 

thickness. The intact part of the Redwall Limestone 

consists of various textures of light-gray limestone 

that form knobby outcrops. Bedding, where present, 

ranges from 2 to 12 ft thick, but massive, unbedded 

outcrops are common. The limestone may contain a 

variety of fossils, including brachiopods, corals, horn 

corals, and foraminifers. The upper part of the Mooney 

Falls Member is a clean limestone that is permeable and 

susceptible to solution, so that it is often honeycombed 

with solution openings along bedding and joint surfaces. 

Measured sections within the study area are 38 ft (16 ft 

of residuum) at Colcord Canyon near the base of the 

Geology 11 

Mogollon Rim at the eastern end of the study area (figs. 1 

and 4), 80 ft (30 ft of residuum) at Tonto Creek north 

of Kohls Ranch, and 31 ft at Tonto Natural Bridge 

(no residuum; figs. 1 and 4). Southeast from Colcord 

Canyon the Redwall thickens to 316 ft (95 ft of residuum) 

in the Salt River canyon (McKee and Gutschick, 1969). 

Proterozoic Rocks 

Proterozoic sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic 

rocks are exposed mainly south of the Mogollon Rim 

within the Mazatzal Mountains and Sierra Ancha 

(figs. 1 and 4). The Tonto Super Group includes within 

its nearly 30,000 ft-thick sequence from top to bottom, 

the 1.70 billion year old Mazatzal Group consisting 

mainly of quartzite, shale, and a basal conglomerate; 

the 1.70 billion year old Red Rock group consisting of 

rhyolitic ash, tuff, and flows; the 1.71 billion year old 

Alder Group consisting of alternating sequences of 

volcanic rocks, sand and siltstone, ash flows and basalt, 

and shale, sandstone, and carbonate rocks; and the 

1.72 billion year old East Verde River Formation 

consisting of graywacke sandstones and ash flow tuff 

(Cox and others, 2002). Only the Mazatzal Group is 

exposed within the Mogollon Rim itself where it 

appears within fault blocks at the base of Paleozoic 

sedimentary rocks in Pine Creek at Tonto Natural Bridge 

and just south of the community of Pine (figs. 1 and 4). 

The Mazatzal Group rocks are also exposed in the lower 

reach of Christopher Creek near its confluence with 

Tonto Creek (figs. 1 and 4). Quartzites in the Mazatzal 

Group, which include the Mazatzal Peak Quartzite and 

the lower-lying Deadman Quartzite generally are coarse 

to fine grained with good preservation of primary 

depositional features such as ripples and crossbedding 

(Cox and others, 2002). Proterozoic sedimentary rocks of 

the Apache Group and diabase are exposed over much of 

the eastern Sierra Ancha (fig. 4). 

Proterozoic plutonic rocks include the Payson 

granite and associated granophyres and rhyolite 

intrusions, which are about 1.69 to 1.70 billion years 

old (Karlstrom and others, 1987) and are exposed over 

a 128 mi2 area informally known as the Payson Shelf 

(figs. 1 and 4). The Payson granite intrudes the mafic 

rocks of the Gibson Creek batholith south of Payson 

(Conway, 1976) and a complex of gneissic granitoids 

north of the town (AGRA Earth and Environmental, 

1999). Both of the mafic complexes are included with the 

Payson granite map designation (fig. 4). The Payson 

granite is also exposed on the northwestern and 

southeastern edges of the Mazatzal Mountains and 

in scattered exposures along upper Cherry Creek. 

The Payson granite is a tan to reddish potassium feldspar 

and quartz-rich granite with numerous intrusions of 
12 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

silica-rich, finer-grained, alkali-rich granite that form 

ridges and hills because they are more resistant to 

weathering and erosion than the host rock. Weathering of 

the Payson granite is most developed where the unit is 

close to the overlying Tapeats Sandstone; outcrops of the 

rock are sparse in the town of Payson because of deep 

weathering and the accumulation of grus, the residual 

particles of resistant quartz and feldspars that are the 

remains of the original rock. 

Structure 

The region’s geologic history has left a substantial 

structural imprint on rocks in the study area. Tectonic 

stresses have raised land surface and deformed rock 

formations and have enabled erosional forces to 

dramatically sculpt the landscape. The overlying 

sedimentary beds are relatively flat-lying and generally 

dip gently to the northeast. Within fault blocks, the 

lowermost formations in this assemblage dip 10 degrees 

or more (Gæorama, Inc., 2003). 

Faulting has been sporadic. Major Proterozoic faults 

and lineaments trend northeast-southwest across the 

structural trend of more recent faulting and generally are 

highly silicified (Gæorama, Inc., 2003). The Slate CreekBreadpan Canyon Shear Zone defines the middle reaches 

of the Tonto Creek canyon through the Sierra Ancha 

(fig. 4; Karlstrom and others, 1987). 

The most abundant faults, however, and those most 

significant in controlling the modern landscape are the 

product of a Miocene episode of crustal extension that 

has left a generally north-south to northwest-southeast 

trending structural fabric (fig. 4; Reynolds, 1988). 

This activity yielded high-angle normal and reverse 

faults throughout the Basin and Range Physiographic 

Province. In the Mogollon Highlands, major extensional 

faults show displacements of as little as 50 to 100 ft 

locally and as much as 600 to 1,500 ft on the Diamond 

Rim Fault north of Payson and where it crosses the East 

Verde River (fig 4; Gæorama, Inc., 2003). The Diamond 

Rim Fault, which dips 75 to 80 degrees to the south and 

is upthrown on the northern side, is the major regional 

fault in the study area and extends 30 mi, generally eastwest from east of Tonto Creek to Pine Creek (Conway 

1976, Wrucke and Conway, 1987), and likely continues 

for some distance west of Pine Creek (Gæorama, Inc., 

2003). The juxtaposition of crystalline and sedimentary 

formations caused by such displacements plays a 

significant role in the development of surface drainage, 

determination of ground-water flow directions, and the 

occurrence and distribution of springs below the 

Mogollon Rim as faults variably enable or preclude 

drainage of water-bearing formations. 

Fracturing of rocks by jointing is apparent in several 

geologic units, particularly the Payson granite, the rocks 

of the Coconino Sandstone and Schnebly Hill Formation 

near the top of the Mogollon Rim, and the Tertiary 

volcanic rocks in the northwestern part of the study area. 

Fractures affect recharge, ground-water flow paths, and 

the location of springs. An unpublished synthesis of 

geophysical data shows evidence of large-scale fracture 

systems within Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that extend 

from the face of the Mogollon Rim northward beneath 

the Colorado Plateau (Mark Gettings and Mark Bultman, 

geologists, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2003). Within carbonate rocks, fracture systems may be 

enlarged by dissolution of rocks to create opportunities 

for karstic ground-water flow. 

Climate 

Precipitation and temperature generally vary with 

altitude throughout the study area; some variation is 

attributable to local rain-shadow effects. Precipitation 

contours closely parallel the topographic features of the 

study area; the highest annual amounts occur in a narrow 

band along the crest of the Mogollon Rim (fig. 5). 

Mean precipitation over the entire study area is about 

21.3 in/yr. Mean monthly maximum temperatures, 

occurring in June and July range from more than 100°F 

in the Sonoran Desert near Roosevelt Lake to the mid80s°F in the ponderosa forests of the Mogollon Rim and 

Colorado Plateau. Mean minimum temperatures range 

from the upper-30s°F in the lowest parts of the region to 

between 10 and 20°F in the upland areas (Sellers and 

others, 1985). 

Precipitation results primarily from two types of 

storms: intense, convective thunderstorms in the summer 

and less intense but more regional, frontal storms in the 

winter. Tropical storms, which tend to be more regional 

than convective thunderstorms but produce locally 

intense precipitation, occasionally deliver large amounts 

of precipitation, usually in late September and October 

(Sellers and others, 1985). At higher altitudes, much of 

the winter precipitation falls as snow; annual mean 

snowfall ranges from about 48 in. at Blue Ridge Ranger 

Station at an altitude of 6,880 ft to 24 in. at Payson at an 

altitude of about 4,900 ft (fig. 5). Precipitation is spread 

somewhat equably throughout the year; it is only slightly 

less in spring than in the other three seasons (National 

Climatic Data Center, 2003a; fig. 6). 
Ve 

e rd 

River 

Salt 

Rive r 

Blue Ridge 111o

Ranger Station

precipitation gage 

Tonto 

Fish Hatchery 

precipitation

gage 

111o30’ 

34o30’ 

Payson

precipitation 110o30’ 

gage 

Gisela 

precipitation gage Pleasant Valley 

precipitation

gage 

0 10 MILES

34o 

0 10 KILOMETERS

Theodore 


Roosevelt 


Lake 


EXPLANATION 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES: Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 12 Less than 9 17–19 27–29 

9–11 19–21 29–31 

11–13 21–23 31–33 

13–15 23–25 33–35 

15–17 25–27 Greater than 35 

Climate 13 

Figure 5. Average annual precipitation and locations of active weather stations in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
TOTAL PRECIPITATION, IN PERCENT 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Blue Ridge Ranger Station 

Tonto Fish Hatchery 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Payson 

Gisela 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL 

Pleasant Valley 

14 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 6. Seasonal distribution of precipitation for selected sites 

in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 

For the active weather stations within the Mogollon 

Highlands that have a period of record extending to the 

1950s or earlier, certain precipitation trends are apparent. 

Examination of the precipitation record for selected 

stations shows a cluster of lower annual precipitation 

during the 1950s with a less pronounced cluster of 

low precipitation beginning in the 1990s (fig. 7A). 

The pattern is clearer at the Tonto Fish Hatchery and the 

Payson and Gisela stations and less so at Pleasant Valley. 

Average decadal precipitation and variability show 

limited change from one decade to another. The 1980s is 

the wettest decade at all four stations; however, the driest 

decade on record is different at all four stations (table 1). 

During the course of this investigation, the 

Mogollon Highlands was undergoing a period of severe 

drought to the extent that most of the study area was 

within the most severely drought-stricken part of Arizona 

throughout 2002 and much of 2003. The drought, which 

extended throughout the Southwest, was the most severe 

since the 1950s (National Climate Data Center, 2003b). 

The 1950s drought appears to be characterized by 

greater extremes of low precipitation than other periods 

(fig. 7A), including the most recent drought period; 

however, an examination of the temperature record at 

Payson (fig. 7B) shows a major rise in mean annual 

temperature since 1989. Such temperatures can affect 

evapotranspiration, snowfall, and snowmelt in ways that 

would account for the historically high values of the 

Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index in the early 2000s. 

(National Climate Data Center, 2003b, 2003c). 

Hydrology 

The hydrologic system of the Mogollon Highlands 

is characterized by a surface network of short, steep 

stream channels that drain the upland regions and flow 

into the Salt River, including Theodore Roosevelt Lake, 

on the southern boundary of the study area, or the Verde 

River on the eastern boundary (fig. 1). Ground-water 

flow paths generally are controlled by large-scale 

fracture systems or by karst features in carbonate rocks. 

Stream channels are also largely controlled by structural 

features, such as regional joint or fault systems. 

Precipitation, which shows considerable variability in 

amount and intensity, recharges the ground-water system 

along the crest of the Mogollon Rim and, to a lesser 

extent, along the crests and flanks of the Mazatzal 

Mountains and Sierra Ancha. Flashy runoff in the 

generally bedrock stream channels is typical. Springs are 

distributed throughout the region, typically discharging 

at or above the contact of variably permeable formations. 

Drought and the limited surface- and near-surface 

water resources have resulted in not-infrequent water 

shortages for more than a century. Anecdotal reports 

describe declining ground-water levels and the 

drying up of previously productive springs and 

creeks between 1882 and 1922 that were attributed 

to an increase in well production; an 18-month drought 

in 1904–1905 reportedly devastated the cattle ranching 

industry (Northern Gila Historical Society, 1984). 

Water shortages continue to plague the region, 

particularly in the Pine-Strawberry area (Arizona 

Department of Water Resources, written comm. 1984, 

1996), one of many such areas that has organized to 

address rural water-supply issues under the auspices of 

the state of Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative. 
5

0 5050 

344556

191919191919

B. Normalized annual average temperature for Payson NORMALIZED ANNUAL TEMPERATURE VALUES

50 5050 

344556

191919191919

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0 

–1.0 

–2.0 

550505

678899

19

1970 

1919191919

20002005

5

1970 

50505

678899

191919191919

20002005

Tonto Fish Hatchery 

IPITATION VALUES NORMALIZED ANNUAL PREC

2.5 

1.5 

0.5 

0 

–0.5 

–1.5 

–2.5 

Gisela 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0 

–1.0 

–2.0 

–3.0 

Pleasant Valley 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0 

–1.0 

–2.0 

Payson 

2.5 

1.5 

0.5 

0 

–0.5 

–1.5 

–2.5 

A. Normalized annual average precipitation for Mogollon Highlands 

Figure 7. A, Normalized annual average precipitation for the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona; B, Normalized annual average 

temperature for Payson, Arizona. Blue Ridge Ranger Station record begins in 1967 and is not shown here. 

Hydrology 15 
Table 1. Summary precipitation statistics for Mogollon Highlands, Arizona, weather stations by decade 

[Precipitation values are in inches. Data from National Climate Data Center, 2003a; ***, no record; ---, only three years of record for the period] 

Period of Station 1940–49 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–2001 record 

Blue Ridge Ranger Station Mean *** *** --- 18.79 22.20 20.09 20.43 

Standard deviation *** 10.01 6.42 3.94 3.83 4.81 4.36 

Coefficient of variation *** .31 .19 .21 .17 .24 .21 

Tonto Fish Hatchery Mean *** 31.99 33.26 32.03 37.47 31.36 33.04 

Standard deviation *** 10.01 6.42 7.30 8.93 6.74 7.89 

Coefficient of variation *** .31 .19 .23 .24 .21 .24 

Pleasant Valley Mean 20.38 20.33 18.40 19.94 23.20 23.14 20.92 

Standard deviation 4.40 5.35 4.74 5.64 5.02 4.97 5. 07

Coefficient of variation .22 .26 .26 .28 .22 .22 .24 

Payson Mean *** 21.73 20.99 20.60 23.40 21.20 21.53 

Standard deviation *** 6.44 5.13 5.22 4.08 5.12 5.13 

Coefficient of variation *** .30 .24 .25 .17 .24 .24 

Gisela Mean 17.07 16.99 17.41 18.31 19.90 17.81 17.70 

Standard deviation 4.82 5.98 5.70 4.74 3.69 5.57 5. 01

Coefficient of variation .28 .35 .33 .26 .19 .31 .28 

16 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Surface Water 

All of the major streams within the study area 

originate on the Colorado Plateau or the face of the 

Mogollon Rim and then flow eastward into the Verde 

River or southward into Theodore Roosevelt Lake or the 

Salt River (fig. 1). The largest streams generally are 

intermittent on the face of the Mogollon Rim and become 

perennial below the Mogollon Rim, and in some cases 

become ephemeral near the channel mouth. For the most 

part, the streams have cut bedrock channels that are 

covered with a thin layer of generally coarse-grained or 

sandy alluvium. Except in the lower Tonto Creek Basin 

and along middle reaches of Cherry Creek, flood plains 

generally are narrow or non-existent, and some reaches 

are confined within deep canyons. 

The USGS has operated continuous-recording 

streamflow-gaging stations on all of the major streams 

in the study area (fig. 1 and table 2); however, the 

period of record is brief on Canyon Creek, and the gage 

at Fossil Creek measures only flow diverted for power 

plant use at the Arizona Power Service hydroelectric 

plant near Childs (fig. 1). Monroe (2002) modeled annual 

flows for Fossil Creek. He estimated that in years having 

a flood with a 2-year recurrence interval, annual flow 

would be about 35,230 acre-ft. Years in which a 5-year 

flood occurred would result in annual flow of about 

68,510 acre-ft. Flow records on tributaries of the East 

Verde River and Tonto Creek are available, but the 

period of record is short. 

During most flow conditions, the major streams 

are gaining in their downstream reaches. In the 

uppermost reaches, above major springs, flow typically 

occurs only during periods of runoff, but below such 

springs, baseflow is maintained year round. In some 

tributary streams, flow from source springs percolates 

through deep alluvium within a few thousand feet to 

several miles below the spring outlet, leaving some 

reaches dry much of the year (Feth and Hem, 1963; 

Brown and others, 1981; Kaczmarek, 2003). Perennial 

flow generally is reestablished on the major streams, 

however, well before the stream comes off the lower 

slopes of the Mogollon Rim. 

Peak discharges of the largest perennial streams 

occur most often in winter or spring as a result of 

regional, frontal storms. Runoff during such storms is 

sometimes augmented by snowmelt. Winter storms 

account for most of the annual floods above the median 

peak discharge on all the gaged perennial streams 

draining the Mogollon Rim, although the flood of record 

on the East Verde River was caused by a monsoonal 

storm on September 5, 1970 (fig. 8). Summer storms 

account for the highest number of peak discharges on 

Rye Creek, which is a lowland, ephemeral stream. 

The 1970 flood was by far the largest recorded flood on 

Rye Creek (fig. 8). 
Hydrology 17 

Table 2. Streamflow-gaging stations in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona, referred to in this report 

[Data from Pope and others, 1998, and the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database. Stations showing period of record to “present” were in 

service as of October 1, 2004] 

Station name Station number Period of record Latitude Longitude 

Cibecue Creek near Chrysotile 09497800 1959–present 335035 1103325 

Canyon Creek near Globe 09497850 1975–81 334947 1103950 

Cherry Creek near Globe 09497980 1965–present 334940 1105120 

Rye Creek near Gisela 09498870 1965–85 340157 1111726 

Tonto Creek above Gun Creek 09499000 1940–present 335848 1111810 

West Clear Creek near Camp Verde 09505800 1964–present 343219 1114136 

Fossil Creek Diversions near Camp Verde 09507500 1952–present 342206 1113956 

East Verde River Diversions from East Clear Creek 09507580 1965–present 342504 1111547 

East Verde River near Pine 09507600 1961–71 342330 1111605 

East Verde River near Childs 09507980 1961–65, 341635 1113817 

1967–present 

Wet Bottom Creek near Childs 09508300 1967–present 340939 1114132 

Sycamore Creek near Sunflower 09510150 1961–76 335105 1112709 
ANNUAL PEAK DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

09507980 

East Verde River

near Childs 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

09505800 

West Clear Creek 

near Camp Verde 

25,000 

30,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

09497980 

Cherry Creek 

near Globe 

10,000 

14,000 

10,000 

6,000 

2,000 

0 

09498870 

Rye Creek 

near Gisela 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

09499000 

Tonto Creek 

above Gun Creek 

80,000 

0 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

40,000 

0 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

09497800 

Cibecue Creek 

near Chrysotile 

1940 19451950195519601965 

1970

19751980198519901995

20002005 

NOTE: Oblique number is U.S. Geological Survey WATER YEAR
 

streamflow-gaging station identifier
 

EXPLANATION 

SUMMER WINTER/SPRING FALL 

18 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 8. Seasonal distribution of annual peak discharges of selected streams in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
Although the distribution of precipitation does not 

vary greatly throughout the year, all the streams for which 

continuous-flow records are available show that more 

than 70 percent of streamflow volume occurs during the 

winter and spring (fig. 9). The disproportionately high 

flow volumes from December through March reflect the 

difference in the nature of the runoff sources. Summer 

storms deliver short, intense bursts of precipitation over 

limited areas, and even exceptionally large storms of this 

nature may generate runoff over only a part of the 

watershed. Widespread frontal storms, especially 

when coupled with snowmelt, typically involve the entire 

watershed and are more likely to involve all the 

watersheds in the study area. 

Daily mean discharges for the largest streams 

commonly fluctuate over three to four orders of 

magnitude in a single year and four to seven orders of 

magnitude over the period of record (fig. 10 and table 3). 

Among the five perennial streams that have active 

continuous-record gaging stations, the level of variability 

is about the same; Tonto Creek and Cherry Creek are 

somewhat more variable than West Clear Creek and the 

East Verde River, and Cibecue Creek shows the least 

variability. The two gaged streams that drain the western 

side of the Mazatzal Mountains, Wet Bottom Creek, 

which is ephemeral, and Sycamore Creek, which is 

intermittent (fig. 1), show the highest levels of variability 

(table 3). Rye Creek, an intermittent stream that drains 

the northeastern side of the Mazatzal Mountains (fig. 1), 

shows about the same degree of variability as the 

perennial streams; however, the period of record ended in 

1985. 

The most apparent trend in daily flows is a large 

increase in the frequency of the lowest flows in the early 

21st century with the exception of Cibecue Creek, which 

is striking in the degree to which it varies from the other 

streams in the study area (fig. 11). From 2000 through 

2003, the frequency of flows in the 2.5 percentile ranges 

from 2 to 30 times greater than in any previous decade or 

partial decade of record. Even if no further flows were to 

occur within the 2.5 percentile by the end of the decade, 

the period 2000–2009 would easily record the highest 

frequency of low flows at four of the five gages. Not only 

does Cibecue Creek record only one extreme low flow 

after 1999, the station shows a much greater frequency 

of low flows in the 1960s and 1970s than other stations, a 

trend that appears to have started at least as early as 1959 

when 30 such flows occurred during only 7 months 

of record. 

The singularity of Cibecue Creek’s record perhaps 

indicates a greater lag between climatic conditions 

and flow conditions than at other stations. Another 

distinction among the various streams is the amount of 

discharge at the 2.5 percentile level. Tonto Creek and the 

East Verde River are at nearly zero flow at that level; 

Cherry Creek has a flow of 3.2 ft3/s; Cibecue Creek has a 

flow of 6.2 ft3/s; and West Clear Creek has a flow of 

14 ft3/s at that level and never records daily flows below 

11 ft3/s (table 3). 

Hydrology 19 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

09497800 

Cibecue Creek 

near Chrysotile 

09497980 

Cherry Creek 

near Globe 

TOTAL DISCHARGE, IN PERCENT 

09498870 

Rye Creek 

near Gisela 

09499000 

Tonto Creek 

above Gun Creek 

09505800 

West Clear Creek 

near Camp Verde 

NOTE: Oblique number is U.S. Geological Survey 

streamflow-gaging station identifier

WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL 

09507980 

East Verde River

near Childs 

Figure 9. Seasonal distribution of discharge of selected streams 

in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
104 

103 

102 

101 

0 

105 

DAILY DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

10–1 

10–2 

1940 19451950195519601965 

1970

19751980198519901995

2000

Figure 10. Daily discharge of Tonto Creek above Gun Creek 

showing typical range of daily discharge for Mogollon Highlands 

streams, central Arizona. 

Table 3. Summary statistics of average daily streamflow 

values for active streamflow-gaging stations in the Mogollon 

Highlands, central Arizona 

[Streamflow values are in cubic feet per second. Sycamore and Wet Bottom 

Creeks drain the Mazatzal Mountains, all others drain the Mogollon Rim] 

Station 

ean

dard deviation

Station name number M

StanCoefficient of variation

aximum

nimum i

MM

Sycamore Creek 09510150 27.1 184 6.79 8,300 0 

near Sunflower 

Wet Bottom Creek 09508300 14.3 93 6.51 3,410 0 

near Childs 

East Verde River 09507980 62.2 276 4.44 11,000 0 

near Childs 

West Clear Creek near 09505800 63.6 276 4.35 13,100 11 

Campe Verde 

Tonto Creek above 09499000 157.9 864 5.47 36,700 0 

Gun Creek 

Cherry Creek 09497980 35.5 199 5.60 13,000 2 

near Globe 

Cibecue Creek near 09497800 45.5 139 3.07 4,930 4.1 

Chrysotile 

20 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

200 

150 

NUMBER OF FLOWS BELOW NUMBER OF FLOWS BELOW NUMBER OF FLOWS BELOW NUMBER OF FLOWS BELOW NUMBER OF FLOWS BELOW 

2.5 PERCENTILE, IN PERCENT 2.5 PERCENTILE, IN PERCENT 2.5 PERCENTILE, IN PERCENT 2.5 PERCENTILE, IN PERCENT 2.5 PERCENTILE, IN PERCENT 

100 

50 

0 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

09497800 

Cibecue Creek 

near Chrysotile 

1959 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–02 

09497980 

Cherry Creek 

near Globe 

1965–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–02 

250

09499000 

Tonto Creek 

above Gun Creek 

1943–49 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–02 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

250 

0 

1966–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–02 

09505800 

West Clear Creek 

near Camp Verde 

200 

150 

100 

50 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1961–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–02 

09507980 

East Verde River

near Childs 

NOTE: Oblique number is U.S. Geological Survey 

streamflow-gaging station identifier

Figure 11. Lowest flows on selected perennial streams in the 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
Hydrology 21 

Runoff was separated from base flow by 

constructing flow-duration curves (fig. 12) and choosing 

the value at the break in the upper slope of the curve as 

the boundary between base flow and runoff. That point 

is close to the 80th percentile of flows for all streams 

in the study area. The total stream volume was then 

calculated for base flow by truncating the daily values 

at the 80th percentile. For most major streams, base flow 

is about 30 percent of the total flow volume (fig. 13). 

Only Canyon Creek, for which records were extended by 

regression, and Cibecue Creek show significant deviation 

from that relation. Indeed, Cibecue Creek shows more 

than half of its total stream volume resulting from base 

flow. The degree to which Cibecue Creek is distinguished 

from other streams in its low-flow history (fig. 11), the 

relative high discharge at the 2.5 percentile (table 3), and 

the large contribution of base flow to total flow (fig. 13) 

indicate that its hydrologic regimen is affected by unique 

watershed characteristics, most likely geologic structure. 

Ground Water	 

The Mogollon Highlands has a complex and 

incompletely integrated ground-water flow system, 

which is the product of its diverse topography and 

geologic history and heterogeneity. It is characterized 

by multiple and divergent ground-water flow paths, 

disconnected recharge areas, and multiple water-bearing 

zones beneath sedimentary and igneous rocks. Analysis 

of spring and well data and their relation to geology and 

climate are the primary methods used here to better 

understand the ground-water system of the area. 

Springs 

Springs are intersections of the ground-water flow 

system with the land surface and thus provide a glimpse 

of that system. USGS databases contain information for 

about 73 springs within the study area; there are many 

other springs shown on USGS topographic maps and 

USDA Forest Service maps for which no information is 

available in USGS databases (fig. 14). Most springs in the 

study area issue from sedimentary rocks along the face of 

the Mogollon Rim, but because of pervasive fractureinduced secondary permeability, springs occur in almost 

all rock types within the study area. In this report, springs 

are referred to either by their spring name as it appears in 

the USGS database or on topographic maps; or, when a 

spring is unnamed, by its station name, which uses the 

same coding as the well-station code system. 

1.0 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

East Verde

 River

Cherry Creek 

Canyon Creek 

Tonto Creek 

1,000 10,000 100,000 

FLOW FREQUENCY 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 

DAILY AVERAGE DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER DAY 

Figure 12. Flow duration curve for selected streams in the 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 

80

70 

Runoff 

Base flow 

ANNUAL FLOW VOLUME, IN PERCENT

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Cibecue Canyon Cherry Tonto East Verde West 

Creek Creek Creek Creek River Clear Creek 

Figure 13. Runoff and base-flow components of selected 

streams in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
Ri e r

Ri

Ve

e

C

C

Verde

S

C

k

c

e

y a mor

E

River

ast

lea

reek

r

est W

rd

ver

Salt

Cr k ee

Cr k

noyna C

ee

To nto

Cree

Ch ry er

C

Creek

ibec eu

ree

v

111o30’ 111o 

87

34o30’ 

Overgaard Strawberry 

Childs Kohls 

Ranch 260

Tonto Village 

Payson 110o30’ 

Gisela 

Young 

34o 

188

0 10 MILES 

0 10 KILOMETERS 

87

Theodore

Roosevelt
 

Lake
 

EXPLANATION 

SPRING WELL 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 NOTE: Tail on symbol is not intended to 

Universal Transverse Mercator indicate direction of discharge 

projection, Zone 12 

22 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 14. Distribution of springs and wells in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
Springs of the Mogollon Highlands have been 

little studied since Feth and Hem (1963). Of the 

46 discharge values recorded in the USGS databases, 

more than half are estimates or anecdotal reports. Most of 

the values were recorded before 1960, and until this 

study no values had been added to the database since 

1981. Furthermore, at only a few springs has flow 

been measured, estimated, or reported more than once 

in the nearly 60 years of record. Consequently, there 

exists almost no record of flow variability. 

That spring flow can be highly variable is illustrated 

by the differences between discharges measured in 

this study and the historic values (table 4). There are 

several causes for such variability. Measurement of 

spring flow is subject to large error if it cannot be 

measured directly at the spring outlet or if all the flow 

cannot be forced through a flume or into containers 

for volumetric measurements. During attempts in this 

study at measuring flow volumetrically from See Spring 

(table 4 and fig. 15, no. 61) that discharged from 

numerous points in a bouldery stream terrace, as 

much as 25 percent of the flow could not be channeled 

into the containers being used. If terrain difficulties 

prevent measurement directly from the spring’s discharge 

point, the discharge is typically measured by using a 

current meter in the stream at some point downstream 

from the spring, the distance of which depends on the 

location of a satisfactory control reach for making the 

measurement. The farther down-stream the measurement is made, the greater the opportunity for the 

measurement to be affected by losses or gains in the 

channel reach. Such measurements may also include 

a significant runoff component in the measured flow. 

Flow from many springs is also affected by recent 

precipitation or snowmelt, so single measurements 

are not likely to provide an accurate characterization 

of long-term spring conditions. 

Table 4. Discharge values for springs in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona 

[gal/min, gallons per minute; ac-ft/yr, acre-feet per year. Method codes: V, volumetric; O, observation; E, estimated; F, flume; R, reported; C, current meter; 

G, gaged. Other data available codes: I, isotope; C, chemical. ***, unknown] 

Annual 

Map code1 Discharge discharge Other data 

(see fig. 15) Spring or station name (gal/min) Discharge year Method (ac-ft/yr) available8,9 

36 Lee Johnson 0.21 2001 V2 0.34 I 

36 Lee Johnson .00 2002 O .00 

17 Cottonwood .25 1946 E .40 

23 A-12-09 30DDC1 .25 1946 E .40 

24 A-12-09 30DDC2 .25 1946 E .40 

16 A-07-08 12CDA .50 1976 V .81 

21 A-07-09 19AAB .93 1976 V 1.50 

49 Winters NO 1 1.00 1952 E 1.61 

20 A-12-08 26DAB 1.00 1946 E 1.61 

18 Fuller 1.00 1946 E 1.61 

33 Fortyfour 1.00 1953 E 1.61 

7 A-14-06 29DAD 1.00 1981 E 1.61 

9 Hackberry 2.00 1977 V 3.23 

19 A-11H09 30DCB 3.00 1946 E 4.84 

28 Red Rock 3.00 1946 E 4.84 

28 Red Rock .50 2001 V2 .81 I 

28 Red Rock .32 2002 V2 .51 

See footnotes at end of table. 

Hydrology 23 
Table 4. Discharge values for springs in Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Annual 

Map code1 Discharge discharge Other data 

(see fig. 15) Spring or station name (gal/min) Discharge year Method (ac-ft/yr) available8,9 

40 Blue Spring south 4.00 1952 E 6.46 

54 Bear Flat 4.00 1975 V 6.46 C 

41 Turkey (south) 5.00 1952 E 8.07 

12 A-12-07 22C UNSURV 5.00 1978 E 8.07 C 

8 Bull Pen 7.00 1959 E 11.3 

63 Allenbaugh 8.00 2001 V2 12.9 I 

63 Allenbaugh .00 2002 O .00 

53 Bootleg 8.00 2001 V2 12.9 I 

53 Bootleg 5.00 2002 V2 8.07 

26 A-12-09 08CCD 10.0 1946 E 16.1 

3 A-13-05 16BBD2 13.0 1980 E 21.0 

35 Geronimo 14.0 2001 F2 22.6 C,I 

60 A-11-13 18AA 15.0 1966 E 24.2 

34 Clover 20.0 1952 E 32.3 

2 Catfish 22.0 1981 V 35.5 

47 Wildcat 58.5 1952 R3 94 

51 Henturkey 60.0 1952 C 97 

59 Nappa 70.0 1966 C 113 I 

42 A-11H10 24BCA 75.0 1952 E 121 C 

4 A-13-05 16BBD1 90.0 1980 E 145 

50 Indian Gardens 100 1952 R3 102 

50 Indian Gardens 57.5 2001 V/F2,4 93 C,I 

50 Indian Gardens 26.5 2002 F2 43 

27 Bear 100 1959 E 161 C 

45 Pieper Hatchery 125 1952 E 202 

37 Big 175 1952 C 282 C 

37 Big 100 1952 R3 161 

65 A-11-14 35DBA1 310 *** C 500 

38 The Grotto 340 1952 C 549 

38 The Grotto 10 1952 R3 16 

66 A-11-14 35DBA2 410 *** C 662 

64 A-11-14 35DBB 480 *** C 775 

58 R-C 800 1952 E 1,291 C 

22 Tonto Natural Bridge 841 2002 G5 1,357 C,I 

61 See 900 1966 E 1,453 

61 See 104 2001 V2 168 

61 See 84 2002 V2 136 C,I 

See footnotes at end of table. 

24 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Table 4. Discharge values for springs in Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Annual 

Map code1 Discharge discharge Other data 

(see fig. 15) Spring or station name (gal/min) Discharge year Method (ac-ft/yr) available8,9 

15 Buckhorn 1,000 1959 E 1,614 C 

56 Horton 1,100 2002 C2 1,776 C,I 

52 Tonto 1,291 2001 F6 2,084 C,I 

39 Webber 1,300 1952 F 2,082 

39 Webber 1,570 2001 C2 2,534 C,I 

39 Webber 996 2002 F2 1,608 

67 Canyon 2,224 2001 F6 3,590 

44 Cold 4,200 1952 C 6,779 

44 Cold 1,060 1952 R3 1,711 

44 Cold 830 1952 R3 1,340 

14 Fossil 21,647 2001 C7 34,941 C,I 

1Map code “1” not used. 

2Measured during this study. 

3Published in Feth and Hem (1963). Method not known. 

4At higher flows, discharge emanates from two outlets that require different measurement methods. 5Mean of once-daily stage measurements from May 2001 through September 2002, Arizona State Parks. 6Mean of once-monthly flume measurements in fish hatcheries from January 1980 through May 2001, Arizona Game and Fish Department. 7Mean of various measurements made from 1946 through 2001. Sources include Feth and Hem (1963); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(Tonto National Forest); U.S. Geological Survey. 8See table 7 for chemical data. 

9See tables 10 and 11 for isotope data. 

Hydrology 25 
e 

 

 

River 

Ri e r 

V rde 

45 

Tv 

Ts 

Ts 

Tv 

v 

Tv 

P 

111o30’ 111o 

P 

Tv Mzu P Ts Ts 

7 P 

Q Ts Tv Tv 3 4

8 

15

27 P 

2 Tv 34o30’ 34 

Q Ts P 33

PP P 36 

9 14 26 

12 Tv 18 24Tv 52 20 MC Ts PP 56 Q 17 23 42 49 

28 44 59 P 61 19 

22 38 Tv PP 60 Mzu PC PP 50 58 64 37 47 66 MC 39 53 Ts 54 PP MC 65 63 67 MC PC PP 

41 Ts P Ts
 

PC Ts
 

Tv Tv MC Payson MC 

PC Ts P 

110o30’ 

Tv Tv Ts 40 PP Mzu

Ts PP Tv Ts Q Ts PC Q 

Tv P Ts Ts Q Tv Ts 

Ts Q Tv Ts 

34o Q PC Ts Ts 

PP 16 Ts
 

21
 Ts Ts Ts Ts PP 

PC Tv PC PC Tv Q PC MC Tv 

Ts Tv Tv PC Q Q Ts PC Tv Ts 

TvTs MC Ts Ts PC 

MC 

Q Ts Ts Ts 0 10 MILES PC Ts Tv Ts Ts Ts PC 0 10 KILOMETERS Q Ts Tv 
 MC 


Ts Q MC Tv PC 


Ts Theodore Geology modified from Reynolds, 1988 PC PC Ts Roosevelt PC Tv Q Lake Ts Tv Q Tv Tv Ts PC 

Ts NOTE: See table 4 for correspondence Q Tv Q of numbers to springs Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 12 

26 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 15. Geology, geologic structure, and locations of springs for which discharge records are available, Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona. 
EXPLANATION 

Ts 

Tv 

PP 

MC 

Mzu

PC 

Q 

P 

SURFICIAL DEPOSITS, MOSTLY ALLUVIUM—Holocene to Middle Pleistocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

VOLCANIC ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIFFERENTIATED—Cretaceous 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian (Kaibab Formation and Coconino Sandstone) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian and Pennsylvanian (Schnebly Hill Formation, 

Supai Formation, and Naco Formation) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Mississippian to Cambrian (Redwall Limestone, Martin Formation,

 and Tapeats Sandstone) 

PROTEROZOIC ROCKS

FAULT 

RANGE OF DISCHARGE, IN GALLONS PER MINUTE: 

9 Less than 10 22 100–1,000 

61 10–100 Greater than 1,000 

67 

NOTE: Tail on symbol is not intended to 

indicate direction of discharge 

Hydrology 27 

Figure 15. Continued. 

For the most part, spring discharge measurements 

have been too few to allow meaningful statistical 

comparisons. Multiple discharge measurements are 

available, however, for four major springs. The Arizona 

Game and Fish Department operates hatcheries in the 

headwaters of Tonto and Canyon Creeks and has 

measured spring discharges monthly since 1980 

(fig. 16A). Arizona State Parks has monitored flow in 

Pine Creek in Tonto Natural Bridge State Park once a 

day since May 2001. During base-flow conditions, most 

flow comes from Tonto Natural Bridge Spring (fig. 16B; 

Robert Sejkora, water program manager, Arizona State 

Parks, oral commun., 2003). Tonto National Forest 

collected 16 discharge measurements of flow in Fossil 

Creek below the springs between November 1999 and 

April 2001; measurements made above the springs 

showed that almost all flow was accounted for by 

discharge from the springs (fig. 16C). All these springs 

show fairly consistent minimum flows during the period 

of record and some spikes during periods of runoff. 

Canyon Spring is the only monitored spring to show a 

significant change in base flow over time—a decline of 

about 1,000 gal/min in average flow between 1992 and 

1994 that has continued to the end of the period of record. 

Statistical summaries of discharge from the four springs 

shows them to be characterized by low variability and a 

generally narrow range of values (table 5). 

Nearly half of all spring discharges recorded are 

below 10 gal/min (figs. 15 and 17). On the basis of 

inspection of several springs in the area, most that have 

never been measured probably do not exceed 10 gal/min, 

and during drought conditions, many are dry. A few 

springs account for almost all of the spring discharge 

in the Mogollon Highlands; indeed, the average 

discharge of 20,345 gal/min at Fossil Springs is greater 

than the total average discharge of all other springs in 

the study area (figs. 16 and 17). Despite their relative 

insignificance in the total water budget of the Mogollon 

Highlands, low-discharge springs do provide evidence 

of the hydrologic characteristics of the various waterbearing zones from which they discharge, and they 

also are of local environmental significance, providing 

moisture for meadowlands, riparian vegetation, and 

aquatic and wildlife habitat. 
A. Tonto Spring and Canyon Spring fish hatcheries— Data from Arizona Game and Fish Department 

2,000 

DISCHARGE, IN GALLONS PER MINUTE 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

Tonto Fish Hatchery 

Canyon Fish Hatchery 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Gap in record 

Mean spring 

discharge 

1981 1983 1985 1987 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTE: Data are smoothed using a 

6-month running average 

NOTE: Data are smoothed using a 

6-month running average 

Mean spring 

discharge 

B. Pine Creek below Tonto Natural Bridge Spring— Data from Arizona State Parks DISCHARGE, IN 

GALLONS PER MINUTE 

1,200 


1,100 


1,000
 

900
 

800
 

700
 

600
 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 

2001 2002 

C. Fossil Springs in Fossil Creek— Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Tonto National Forest 

45,000 

DISCHARGE, IN 

GALLONS PER MINUTE

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 July 

1999 2000 2001

Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

Flow below spring 

Flow above spring 

Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 

Figure 16. Discharge of springs for which repeated measurements are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona: A, Spring discharge 

measured at fish hatcheries once a month; B, Discharge measured once daily in Pine Creek below Tonto Natural Bridge Spring; C, Discharge 

from intermittent current-meter measurements in Fossil Creek above and below springs. 

28 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Table 5. Statistical summary of discharge values for monitored springs, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona 

[Discharge values are in gallons per minute. Coefficient of variation is the standard deviation divided by the mean] 

Standard Coefficient of Spring name Mean Maximum Minimum deviation variation 

Tonto 1,296 287 0.221 2,042 696 

Canyon 2,224 597 .269 5,009 902 

Tonto Natural Bridge 841 124 .148 1,157 641 

Fossil 20,345 1,448 .071 23,743 18,407

Hydrology 29 

A. Percentage of total springs by range of discharge PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

60
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0 

1–10 10 –100 100 –1,000 1,000–10,000 Greater

than 

10,000 

RANGE OF DISCHARGE, IN GALLONS PER MINUTE 

B. Percentage of total spring discharge by range of discharge MEA SURED SPRINGS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISCHARGE 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1–10 10 –100 100 –1,000 1,000–10,000 Greater

than 

10,000 

RANGE OF DISCHARGE, IN GALLONS PER MINUTE 

Figure 17. A, Percentage of total springs by range of discharge; 

B, Percentage of total spring discharge by range of discharge, 

Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 

With the exception of Buckhorn Spring (table 4 

and fig. 15, no. 15), springs having a discharge greater 

than 100 gal/min issue from carbonate rocks or just 

below carbonate rocks. Buckhorn Spring, which has a 

recorded discharge of 1,000 gal/min, issues from 

Coconino Sandstone beneath a layer of volcanic rocks 

in West Clear Creek on the Colorado Plateau. A cluster 

of springs, from Pieper Hatchery Spring (table 4 and 

fig. 15, no. 45) on the west in the East Verde River 

drainage to Canyon Spring (table 4 and fig. 15, no. 67) 

above Canyon Creek on the east, discharge from the 

Fort Apache Member of the Schnebly Hill Formation. 

These are the stratigraphically and topographically 

highest springs on the face of the Mogollon Rim. Most 

other large carbonate springs are in the East Verde River 

drainage where they discharge from the lower Paleozoic 

rocks of the Redwall Limestone or the Martin Formation, 

or at Tonto Natural Bridge Spring, from the base of the 

Paleozoic rocks where the Tapeats Sandstone overlies 

Proterozoic rocks. Fossil Springs discharges from near 

the contact between the Naco Formation and the Redwall 

Limestone. High-discharge carbonate springs tend to be 

where linear features mapped by Gettings and Bultman 

(geologists, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2003) converge, suggesting that such springs occur at the 

intersection of large scale structural features indicated by 

geophysical properties, maps, and remotely sensed data. 

Wells 

About 750 wells within the study area are registered 

with the State of Arizona (fig. 14). Many of these wells 

are clustered around the communities of Payson and 

Pine-Strawberry, as well as in the northwestern corner of 

the study area on the outskirts of Camp Verde. There is 

also a high density of wells along the valley of lower 

Tonto Creek, and another string of wells parallels an 

aqueduct above the Mogollon Rim. The remainder of 

the 750 wells are sparsely scattered throughout the 

study area (fig. 14). 

Although well data are important for analysis of a 

ground-water system, there is no information in USGS 

databases for most wells in the study area. Furthermore, 

the usefulness of the well data are limited by their patchy 

geographic distribution, few repeated water-level 

measurements, and the small percentage of wells for 

which discharge, aquifer characteristics, and hydrogeologic information were recorded. In 1979, the ADWR 

assumed the ground-water monitoring program from the 

USGS in Arizona; and in 1982, it merged its database 
with the USGS database (W.H. Remick, hydrologist, 

Arizona Department of Water Resources, written 

commun., 2003). 

From the 1950s to 2003, nearly 2,600 water-level 

altitudes were recorded for 522 wells; however, 

several anecdotal reports, especially before 1975, 

are problematic (table 6). Water-level reporting has 

been sporadic with most measurements recorded during 

the 1970s and 1980s, and a decline in the number of 

measurements after 1990. The ADWR measures water 

levels quarterly in 16 index wells in the Payson and 

Pine-Strawberry areas (table 6 and fig. 18, insets B 

and C). The town of Payson has conducted extensive 

monitoring of water levels in its production wells since at 

least the mid-1990s (fig. 18, inset C). 

Most water levels reflect depths to water of less 

than 100 ft and all but about 40 values are less than 

300 ft. All but six wells in the USGS database having 

water-level depths of more than 300 ft are on the 

Colorado Plateau. Although water levels typically are 

given for production levels, well logs, especially for 

deeper wells, frequently describe multiple water-bearing 

zones, and dry wells are not uncommon (Southwest 

Ground-water Consultants, Inc., 1998; AGRA Earth 

and Environmental, Inc., 1999; Weitzman, 2002). 

Table 6. Selected wells for which water-level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona 

[In “Notes” column, 1 indicates water-chemistry data are available in table 8, and 2 indicates an Arizona Department of Water Resources index well] 

Date of most Land surface Water depth Water-table 

Map code recent water-level altitude below land surface altitude 

(see fig. 18) Station name measurement (feet) (feet) (feet) Notes 

1 A-01-08 19DAA3 12–17–1984 1,678 612 1,066 

2 A-03-08 33DBC UNSURV 12–03–1991 1,419 27.9 1,391 

3 A-04-01 31DAD 12–18–1984 1,214 383.8 830 

4 A-04-07 26CBA 03–24–1981 1,560 45.1 1,515 

5 A-04-08 19DD UNSURV 03–31–1981 1,660 62 1,598 

6 A-05-11 05DCC2 03–25–1981 2,190 37.8 2,152 

7 A-05-11 08BBC1 03–01–1969 2,161 5 2,156 1 

8 A-05-11 08BBC2 03–01–1969 2,161 5 2,156 1 

9 A-05-11 18AAA 10–13–1997 2,145 11.04 2,134 

10 A-06-03 03CCB2 08–18–1982 2,240 171.8 2,068 

11 A-06-10 10DAD1 08–01–1970 2,335 40 2,295 1 

14 A-06-10 14ABA1 03–25–1981 2,321 29.5 2,292 

15 A-06-10 14ABA2 10–18–1978 2,320 32.7 2,287 1 

16 A-06-10 14ABD1 08–01–1970 2,335 32 2,303 1 

17 A-06-10 14ACA1 08–01–1970 2,315 11 2,304 1 

18 A-06-10 14BBC 10–11–1978 2,380 14.4 2,366 

19 A-06-10 14BBD 04–01–1969 2,320 11 2,309 1 

20 A-06-10 23ACC2 04–01–1976 2,290 20 2,270 

21 A-06-10 23DAC 06–27–1976 2,290 26 2,264 

22 A-06-10 26ABA2 08–01–1970 2,315 25 2,290 1 

24 A-06-10 36DDA 11–03–1978 2,210 20 2,190 

25 A-06-11 05CAD 10–13–1997 2,720 43.7 2,676 

26 A-06-11 07BDC 11–02–1978 2,570 81.5 2,489 

28 A-06-11 31DDA 12–15–1976 2,200 18 2,182 

30 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Hydrology 31 

Table 6. Selected wells for which water level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Date of most Land surface Water depth Water-table 

Map code recent water-level altitude below land surface altitude 

(see fig. 19) Station name measurement (feet) (feet) (feet) Notes 

29 A-07-09 19ABD2 04–23–1976 3,920 19 3,901 

30 A-07-10 10BAA 11–09–1979 2,590 66 2,524 1 

33 A-07-10 22AAC 03–08–1977 2,450 9 2,441 

34 A-07-10 23CAB 09–02–1978 2,440 18.1 2,422 

37 A-08-10 13CBD 09–17–1977 2,720 12 2,708 

38 A-08-10 20ABA 03–17–1982 3,040 72.82 2,967 

39 A-08-10 27ACB2 02–02–1978 2,820 18 2,802 

41 A-09-10 05AAA 10–17–1997 4,200 97 4,103 

42 A-09-10 20BAA 10–13–1997 3,155 66.45 3,089 

44 A-09-10 24AAC1 02–21–1976 2,990 110 2,880 

46 A-09-10 25BDA3 11–10–1977 2,880 19 2,861 

48 A-09-10 29BAA 11–05–1976 3,080 20 3,060 

49 A-09-10 32ABB 09–03–1978 3,048 33.5 3,015 

50 A-09-10 32BDB 10–24–2002 3,030 40.3 2,990 2 

51 A-09-12 23DBB 10–03–1979 5,120 23.61 5,096 

55 A-09-13 21BAB 10–04–1979 5,000 10.58 4,989 1 

56 A-09-13 21BCB 10–03–1979 4,960 26.85 4,933 1 

58 A-09-14 20ACA 10–21–2002 5,165 21.7 5,143 2 

59 A-10-10 02DDB1 05–11–1993 4,960 43 4,917 

60 A-10-10 03ABA 03–27–1980 5,040 33.3 5,007 

61 A-10-10 03BAD 02–13–2003 4,985 213.2 4,772 2 

62 A-10-10 03CBC 07–02–1975 4,950 49.3 4,901 

63 A-10-10 03CCD 02–14–2003 4,920 122.4 4,798 2 

64 A-10-10 03DAC1 04–14–1981 4,980 87.57 4,892 

65 A-10-10 04ABD 02–17–1994 4,940 122 4,818 

66 A-10-10 04DBA 02–13–2003 4,960 210.7 4,749 2 

67 A-10-10 05CCA 02–13–2003 4,820 45 4,775 1,2 

68 A-10-10 05CCB 10–16–1975 4,800 20 4,780 1 

71 A-10-10 08ABD 08–24–1987 4,820 27.3 4,793 

72 A-10-10 09ADB 02–13–2003 4,970 87.8 4,882 2 

73 A-10-10 11ACB 02–13–2003 4,828 11.27 4,817 2 

74 A-10-10 11BBA 06–11–1981 4,960 33.83 4,926 

75 A-10-10 22CAB 10–30–1992 4,860 57.2 4,803 

76 A-10-10 22CBB 05–16–1978 4,870 57 4,813 

77 A-10-10 22DBD1 11–03–1975 4,800 19.1 4,781 1 
Table 6. Selected wells for which water level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Date of most Land surface Water depth Water-table 

Map code recent water-level altitude below land surface altitude 

(see fig. 19) Station name measurement (feet) (feet) (feet) Notes 

78 A-10-10 22DCA2 10–30–1984 4,840 44.01 4,796 

79 A-10-10 23DDB 08–19–1992 4,700 26.4 4,674 

80 A-10-10 25BBA 10–30–1992 4,650 20.7 4,629 

81 A-10-10 27CAA 11–19–1993 4,760 19.2 4,741 

82 A-10-10 28BCA1 10–25–1979 4,630 18 4,612 1 

83 A-10-10 28BCA2 10–25–1979 4,650 25 4,625 1 

84 A-10-10 28BCC2 06–02–1988 4,690 112.5 4,578 

85 A-10-10 28BCD1 10–25–1979 4,640 28.9 4,611 1 

87 A-10-10 29ADD 03–01–1976 4,700 22 4,678 

88 A-10-11 05BAD 07–17–1975 4,600 7.8 4,592 1 

90 A-10H12 19DAD 07–17–1975 5,270 10 5,260 1 

92 A-10H14 20BAC 09–24–1979 6,180 14.44 6,166 1 

93 A-10H14 27CBD 09–25–1979 6,200 45 6,155 1 

94 A-10H14 27CCB 09–25–1979 6,550 41.45 6,509 

95 A-11-10 11AAA1 08–05–1975 4,920 212.6 4,707 

97 A-11-10 23AAD1 07–01–1975 5,180 236 4,944 

99 A-11-10 23ACA 07–01–1975 5,150 134 5,016 1 

101 A-11-10 27CCB 02–13–2003 5,000 159.2 4,841 1,2 

102 A-11-10 27DDB 02–17–1994 5,052 84.7 4,967 

103 A-11-10 28DBD 07–02–1975 5,040 190 4,850 

104 A-11-10 31DAC 11–05–2002 5,060 176.3 4,884 2 

105 A-11-10 32ACD 02–13–2003 5,140 342 4,798 1, 2 

106 A-11-10 34ABA 11–20–1998 5,070 91 4,979 2 

107 A-11-10 35CCC 02–13–2003 5,060 129.3 4,931 2 

108 A-11-10 36AAA 07–14–1975 4,750 20.3 4,730 

109 A-11-10 36ADD4 08–25–1975 4,725 15 4,710 

110 A-11-11 27BBB 08–21–1975 5,050 162 4,888 

111 A-11-11 27BBD 08–22–1975 5,080 130.7 4,949 

112 A-11-11 27BCB1 07–16–1975 5,040 140 4,900 1 

113 A-11-11 27CBC 07–16–1975 4,920 81 4,839 

115 A-11-11 31ADC1 07–15–1975 4,650 94.5 4,556 1 

116 A-11-11 31CAA 07–14–1975 4,680 25.3 4,655 

117 A-11-11 31DBC 07–14–1975 4,680 20 4,660 

118 A-11-11 32BBC1 07–16–1975 4,670 42.2 4,628 

119 A-11-11 32CBB 07–15–1975 4,670 35 4,635 1 

32 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Hydrology 33 

Table 6. Selected wells for which water level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Date of most Land surface Water depth Water-table 

Map code recent water-level altitude below land surface altitude 

(see fig. 19) Station name measurement (feet) (feet) (feet) Notes 

120 A-11-11H05DBC 12–23–1973 5,800 194 5,606 

121 A-11-11H05DCD 08–21–1975 5,770 181.5 5,589 1 

122 A-11-11H08AAA 08–21–1975 5,750 162 5,588 1 

124 A-11-12 04CDC 07–17–1975 5,800 151 5,649 

125 A-11-12 32BBA 08–21–1975 5,720 91.5 5,629 1 

126 A-11-12 34ADD2 10–14–1979 5,000 8.2 4,992 

127 A-11-13 20CCB1 10–11–1979 5,860 18.7 5,841 

128 A-11-13 29CCD 05–14–1952 5,800 14.96 5,785 1 

129 A-11-13 30AAB 05–18–1974 5,820 58 5,762 1 

130 A-11-13 34CBA 08–23–1975 6,165 18.6 6,146 1 

131 A-11-13 34CBA2 10–21–2002 6,145 148.8 5,996 2 

132 A-11-13 35DAD1 09–24–1979 6,240 60.63 6,179 1 

133 A-11-13 36CAC 09–24–1979 6,300 50 6,250 1 

135 A-11-14 13ACA 06–14–1966 7,555 403 7,152 

136 A-11-14 14BAB 08–01–1959 7,500 435 7,065 1 

137 A-11-14 22CBD 08–09–1966 7,575 680 6,895 1 

139 A-11-15 20BDC 06–14–1966 7,550 696.6 6,853 

140 A-11-16 20ADB2 06–01–1973 6,865 410 6,455 

143 A-11H11 35BBB 07–17–1975 5,510 123.4 5,387 1 

144 A-11H11H32ABC 01–01–1958 5,980 700 5,280 

145 A-12-07 32B UNSURV 07–01–1975 3,585 92 3,493 

146 A-12-08 20DAD 05–05–1987 5,880 168.8 5,711 

147 A-12-08 21CCA2 05–04–1987 5,839 98 5,741 

148 A-12-08 21CCC1 11–07–1974 5,770 69 5,701 1 

149 A-12-08 21CDC2 11–19–1993 5,790 68.8 5,721 

151 A-12-08 22CAC 11–08–1974 5,920 258 5,662 

152 A-12-08 22CCC1 02–13–1998 5,840 126.1 5,714 

153 A-12-08 22CDA 11–08–1974 5,900 79 5,821 

154 A-12-08 22DCB 05–06–1987 5,880 89.2 5,791 

155 A-12-08 24DAD 05–05–1987 5,760 218.9 5,541 

156 A-12-08 25AAC 11–19–1993 5,562 164.8 5,397 

157 A-12-08 25ABB 05–05–1987 5,820 274.1 5,546 

158 A-12-08 25ACC 05–05–1987 5,590 151.27 5,439 

159 A-12-08 25ADC 10–17–1974 5,523 72.5 5,451 1 

160 A-12-08 25CCA 10–17–1974 5,517 87 5,430 
Table 6. Selected wells for which water level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Date of most Land surface Water depth Water-table 

Map code recent water-level altitude below land surface altitude 

(see fig. 19) Station name measurement (feet) (feet) (feet) Notes 

161 A-12-08 25CDC 05–06–1987 5,460 81.8 5,378 

162 A-12-08 25DCB 05–05–1987 5,470 188.1 5,282 

163 A-12-08 26DAB 02–13–1998 5,645 100.1 5,545 

165 A-12-08 28BAA1 05–06–1987 5,790 110.4 5,680 

166 A-12-08 29AAA2 09–09–2001 5,755 1,377.5 4,378 2 

167 A-12-08 29AAB 11–07–1974 5,740 100.5 5,640 

168 A-12-08 29BAB 05–04–1987 5,705 88.9 5,616 

169 A-12-08 30AAD 05–04–1987 5,675 137 5,538 

170 A-12-08 30ABA 11–15–2002 5,820 709.9 5,110 2 

171 A-12-08 36ADD 05–06–1987 5,420 530.9 4,889 1 

172 A-12-08 36CBB 11–07–1974 5,435 336 5,099 

173 A-12-09 19BAC 05–05–1987 5,715 114.1 5,601 

174 A-12-09 19CCC1 10–17–1974 5,620 79 5,541 1 

175 A-12-09 30BBA1 11–28–1968 5,545 28.5 5,517 1 

176 A-12-09 30BBA5 05–05–1987 5,556 23.76 5,532 

178 A-12-09 31BAC2 05–06–1987 5,580 229.8 5,350 

179 A-12-09 36CBB 01–01–1971 5,450 680 4,770 

181 A-12-12 16BDC 10–30–1997 7,503 498.99 7,004 

182 A-12-13H01BBD 07–22–1964 7,160 750 6,410 

183 A-12-15 36DDC 06–13–1972 6,960 535 6,425 1 

184 A-12-16 24BBA 05–15–1968 6,450 287.3 6,163 

185 A-12-16 25CAD 11–21–1972 6,520 426.9 6,093 

186 A-12-17 32CAD 10–02–1969 6,637 543.5 6,094 

188 A-13-05 05BDC 10–14–1997 3,110 57.1 3,053 

189 A-13-05 05DAB2 12–01–1976 3,095 45.6 3,049 

190 A-13-05 06DCB3 03–23–1982 3,062 18.27 3,044 

191 A-13-05 08AAB2 03–26–1981 3,074 25.71 3,048 

192 A-13-05 09DBA1 04–09–1981 3,190 137.48 3,053 

193 A-13-05 09DCC 03–23–1982 3,078 47.54 3,030 

194 A-13-05 11DAB 01–25–1982 3,210 94.07 3,116 

195 A-13-05 13BAC1 12–08–1976 3,195 93.3 3,102 

196 A-13-05 13BDA 03–31–1977 3,190 12.5 3,178 

197 A-13-05 15AAA 03–28–1983 3,129 40.99 3,088 

198 A-13-05 15BAC 12–02–1976 3,105 35 3,070 

199 A-13-05 16ACB2 08–26–1981 3,048 15.98 3,032 

34 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Hydrology 35 

Table 6. Selected wells for which water level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona—Continued 

Date of most Land surface Water depth Water-table 

Map code recent water-level altitude below land surface altitude 

(see fig. 19) Station name measurement (feet) (feet) (feet) Notes 

200 A-13-05 21ABD2 01–28–1982 3,015 11.54 3,003 

201 A-13-05 21BAB 08–26–1981 3,021 12.85 3,008 

202 A-13-05 26ADA 02–02–1977 3,390 389.72 3,000 

203 A-13-05 27CAD 01–28–1982 3,010 72.45 2,938 

204 A-13-05 27DCB2 11–09–1981 2,995 28.3 2,967 

205 A-13-06 11BAB 03–10–1978 3,670 35.1 3,635 

206 A-13-06 13BCD 02–15–1978 4,500 233 4,267 

207 A-13-06 23BBC 09–22–1966 4,420 347 4,073 

208 A-13-07 14BAB 10–13–1997 5,955 729.9 5,225 

209 A-13-10 06ADA 02–10–1972 6,865 472 6,393 

210 A-13-10 24DCC 10–08–1963 7,276 447 6,829 

211 A-13-10 25CAA 06–10–1964 7,334 427 6,907 

212 A-13-15 14DCA 10–01–1971 6,830 910 5,920 

213 A-14-04 13BDA 10–31–1979 3,120 30 3,090 

214 A-14-05 26DAB 05–27–1981 3,665 550.8 3,114 

215 A-14-06 26BDC 05–26–1981 4,400 240 4,160 

216 A-14-10 02ACB 07–11–1978 6,697 295 6,402 1 

217 A-14-10 07CDB 04–16–1985 6,850 517.5 6,333 

218 A-14-10 30ACA 07–13–1966 6,900 867 6,033 

219 A-14-10 32DBD 10–13–1997 6,855 332.1 6,523 

220 A-14-11 09ADC 10–17–1997 6,905 507.5 6,398 

221 A-14-11 09DCA 07–20–1966 6,885 471.5 6,414 

222 A-14-11 12BCD 07–21–1966 6,730 358.4 6,372 

224 A-14-22 13CBC 09–06–1972 5,697 394.3 5,303 

225 A-15-11 05BDC 06–22–1966 6,710 640.3 6,070 

226 A-15-11 33DCD 09–18–1972 6,760 385 6,375 

227 A-15-11 34DCD 09–20–1966 6,810 461.32 6,349 

228 A-15-12 15DDC 10–17–1997 6,503 669.3 5,834 

230 A-15-13 30A 06–30–1967 5,993 99.6 5,893 

231 A-16-09 10CCC1 12–10–1976 7,845 30 7,815 
e 

S l t 

 

 

River 

R i e r 

V rde

Tv Ts 

Ts PC 

Tv 

v 

214 Inset A PP P Inset B 

146147 151 155 173

189 Ts 170 168 149 153 157 174
 

188 231 158 176
 

169 152 154 175


190 192 194 Tv 167166 165 160

163 156 

148 159 191 197 161 Inset C 193 195 225 Tv 179 172 162 171178 

199 196 

201 198 P PC 111 110 

MC 103 101 102 200 112 111o 104 105 106 108 115 118 113

203

34o30’ 202 111o30’ 

119 

204 Q P 216 

226 

227 

228 

230 67 66

656160 

64

107

109 

116 117 88 

217 220 62 59 Tv 

P 

213

Ts v Ts Mzu 221 222 224 

68 

71 72 

6374 73

215 P 218 Ts Tv 219 76 7577 79 PC 

205 206 

208 P 82 83 78 20 80 v 212 87 85 81 34o30’ 207 210 84 

Q Ts P 211 21

P 

181 182 1

Tv 185 

145 Tv Ts MC PP 183 186 184 Q 


143 144 124 136 P 


120 

129127 139 140
 Tv PP 122 PP12912 137 135 Mzu PC 

MC MC 

97 99

PP 121 131

133

92 Ts 

126 128 130132PP 94 MC PP


93 Ts P Ts 


PC Ts MC MC 110o30’ 

PC Tv Payson PC Ts P Mzu

Tv 

Tv Tv Ts PP 

41 Ts PP Tv Ts 42 44 55 58 Q Ts PC 

48 46 51 56 Q 

Tv 50 49 P Ts Ts Q Tv Ts Q 37 Ts 38 Ts Tv 

Q 39 Ts 34o P Ts 

PP Ts 30
 

29 33 Ts Ts 34 Ts Ts PP 

PC Tv PC PC Tv Q PC MC Tv 

Ts Tv Tv PC Q 10 Q Ts PC Tv Ts 

TvTs MC Ts Ts PC 

MC 

Q PC Ts Ts Ts 0 10 MILES

Ts Tv Ts Ts Ts PC MC 0 10 KILOMETERS

Q Ts Tv
 

Ts 4 Q 5 Tv PC
 

Ts 
 Geology modified from Reynolds, 1988 PC PC Ts 3 Ts 25 PC Tv Q Ts Ts Tv

11 161415 Q Tv 

1 26 18 PC 22 Ts 19 17 

2Tv NOTE: See table 5 for correspondence Q Q 20

Q of numbers to well names and data 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 21 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 

Universal Transverse Mercator 24 28

projection, Zone 12 

Ts 7 6 

8 PC 9 Inset D 

36 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona

Figure 18. Selected wells for which water-level data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
EXPLANATION 

Ts 

Tv 

PP 

MC 

Mzu

PC 

Q 

P 

SURFICIAL DEPOSITS, MOSTLY ALLUVIUM—Holocene to Middle Pleistocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

VOLCANIC ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIFFERENTIATED—Cretaceous 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian (Kaibab Formation and Coconino Sandstone) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian and Pennsylvanian (Schnebly Hill Formation, 

Supai Formation, and Naco Formation) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Mississippian to Cambrian (Redwall Limestone, Martin Formation,

 and Tapeats Sandstone) 


PROTEROZOIC ROCKS

FAULT 


213 WELL AND WELL IDENTIFIER
 

104 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES INDEX WELL AND WELL IDENTIFIER
 

Hydrogeology 37 

Figure 18. Continued. 

The shallowest water levels tend to be in the wells of 

lower Tonto Creek Basin where median depth to water in 

109 wells is 20 ft, and the maximum recorded depth to 

water is 123 ft. In the Payson area, 125 wells have a 

median depth to water of 55 ft and a maximum depth to 

water of 342 ft; 82 wells in the Pine-Strawberry area have 

a median depth to water of 100 ft and a maximum depth 

to water of 1,379 ft; and on the Colorado Plateau, 

49 wells show a median depth to water of 438 ft and a 

maximum depth to water of 910 ft. Finally, wells in the 

tablelands from the East Verde River eastward have a 

median depth to water of 47.5 ft and a maximum depth to 

water of 700 ft (table 6 and fig. 18). 

Although water levels have been repeatedly 

measured in some wells, gaps of 5 to 10 years are 

common for wells in and around Payson and in the PineStrawberry area (fig. 19 and table 6). On the basis of data 

from the few wells which have been measured repeatedly 

since the 1970s or 1980s, water levels at depths below 

300 ft generally were stable into the late 1980s, fluctuated 

after the 1980s, and showed a general but not universal 

declining trend since the mid-1990s (fig. 19). Wells 

deeper than 300 ft for which repeat measurements are 

available show little water-level fluctuation (fig. 19). 

Pumping discharge values are recorded for 131 wells 

in the USGS database, and there are no repeated 

measurements available. About 70 percent of wells 

for which there is a record show discharges of less 

than 50 gal/min. The highest density of recorded welldischarge values is near Payson, Pine-Strawberry, and 

near the mouth of West Clear Creek. The mean discharge 

of 19 wells in the Payson area is 35 gal/min, but only 

4 wells have discharges above the mean. Pine-Strawberry 

wells also yield about 35 gal/min. Almost all wells having 

discharges of 50 gal/min or more are on the Colorado 

Plateau where they are drilled mainly into the Coconino 

Sandstone. The few discharge values that are available 

for wells on the tablelands east of the East Verde River 

ranged from 13 to 50 gal/min. 

Hydrogeology 

Almost all the rock units within the study area 

contain some water-bearing zones, although the 

hydrogeology of some units have been studied little 

or not at all. Working in the Flagstaff area, Bills and 

others (2000) characterize the hydrologic properties of 

the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and regard all of the 

units from the Kaibab Formation to the Middle Supai 

Formation as part of the regional C aquifer; they 

describe the Lower Supai Formation as a confining 

unit and regard the Redwall Limestone and Martin 

Formation as a limestone aquifer. The characterization 

appears appropriate for the Mogollon Highlands as well. 

In addition, the Naco Formation, which does not occur 

in the Flagstaff area, has many of the properties of 

underlying carbonate units, including dissolution features 

that are conducive to flow, and it is considered here to 

be a component of the limestone aquifer. In some parts 

of the study area, rocks that are water bearing elsewhere 

in Arizona have been uplifted along high-angle faults 

and drained. 
300 

310 

320 

330 

340 

80 

100 

120 

140 

90 

110 

130 

150 

Colorado Plateau wells 

650
 

DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET

Well (A-14-10)32dbd, 219 

DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET

Well (A-15-12)15ddc, 228 

350
 

660
 

670
 

680
 

690
 

700
 

1975 

Well (A-12-08)26dab, 163

1975 

Well (A-09-10)20baa, 42 

1975 

1980 1980 1980 

2005 2005 

198519901995 

2000 2000 2000

2005 

1975 1980 

Well (A-12-08)22ccc1, 152 

1975 1980 

Well (A-06-11)05cad, 25 

19751980 198519901995 

2000 2000 2000 

2005 2005 2005 

Lower Tonto Basin wells 

52
 

54
 

56
 

58
 

60
 

62
 

64
 

66
 

68
 

70
 

72
 

74
 

76
 

60
 

70
 

160
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET 

198519901995198519901995 

Pine well Strawberry well 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

100
 

110
 

120
 

130


198519901995198519901995 

38 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 19. Time series of water depths in selected wells, Mogollon Highlands, Arizona. 
10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Payson wells 

120 20 

Well (A-10-10)03bad, 61 Well (A-10-10)03ccd, 63

140 40 

160	 60 

180	 80 

200	 100 

220	 120 

240 140 

0 50 

10 Well (A-10-10)04abd, 65 Well (A-10-10)04dba, 66 

20 

30 100
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

0 

Well (A-10-10)09abd, 72 

DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET

150 

200 

250 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

Well (A-10-10)27caa, 81 

20 

60	 22 

70	 24
 

26
 80 28 

90 30 

140 210 

Well (A-11-10)31dac, 104 Well (A-11-10)32acd, 105 

230 

150 250 

270 

160 

290 

310 170 

330 

19751980198519901995

20002005

350 

NOTE: See fig. 18 for well location 1975

1980198519901995

20002005 

180 

Hydrogeology 39 

Figure 19. Continued. 
40 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Hydrogeologic Units 

Tertiary-Quaternary Alluvium and Basin Fill 

The basin fill of the Tonto Creek Basin generally is 

of low permeability, and well productivity is low (Denis, 

1981). Water resources in the basin are lightly developed 

and the alluvial aquifer has not been well studied. Wells 

in the alluvium of the lower Tonto Creek Basin typically 

are shallow and of low productivity. 

Tertiary Volcanic Rocks 

The mainly basaltic Tertiary volcanic rocks in the 

northwestern part of the study area are the only such 

rocks in the study area known to be of any hydrogeologic 

significance. Two low-discharge springs in Fossil Creek 

Canyon, (A-12-07)22C (table 4 and fig. 15, no. 12) and 

(A-12-07)21D (not shown), most likely flow from a 

locally recharged aquifer. Few wells are completed in 

volcanic rocks, and those for which production 

information is available show discharges generally 

below 20 gal/min. 

Upper Paleozoic Rocks 

The Coconino Sandstone is the primary waterbearing unit of the C aquifer elsewhere in Arizona, 

particularly in the Little Colorado River Basin to the 

north of the study area (Hart and others, 2002). Within 

the study area, the Coconino Sandstone is the most 

important aquifer for well production on the Colorado 

Plateau. The Coconino Sandstone and the Kaibab 

Formation, where it exists, are also the transport zones 

for recharge of underlying aquifers. Although a mound of 

ground water, centered north of the Tonto Creek drainage 

basin, is believed to exist along the edge of the Mogollon 

Rim (Hart and others, 2002), no significant springs issue 

from cliffs formed by the Coconino Sandstone within the 

study area except for Buckhorn Spring, which discharges 

from the unit into West Clear Creek. Both the Kaibab 

Formation and the Coconino Sandstone show extensive 

secondary permeability in the form of solution features in 

limestone and pervasive fracturing that contribute to 

rapid vertical flow. 

Middle Paleozoic Rocks 

The base of the C aquifer is in the middle Paleozoic 

rocks of either the Schnebly Hill Formation or the Supai 

Formation in the eastern part of the study area (Hart and 

others, 2002). The C aquifer does not seem to discharge 

from the face of the Mogollon Rim in the western part 

of the study area. The stratigraphically highest discharge 

of any significance comes from the perennial springs 

of the upper East Verde River, Tonto Creek, Christopher 

Creek, and Canyon Creek that issue from the Fort 

Apache Member of the Schnebly Hill Formation 

(fig. 15). These springs are found within prominent 

recesses in the wall of the Mogollon Rim that are 

probably formed from sapping erosion related to the 

spring position (Higgins, 1990). The consistent north 

to northeast trend of the recesses suggests that spring 

location is related to large-scale structural features. 

The existence of such features seems to be consistent 

with the occurrence of springs at the convergence of 

lineations deduced by Gettings and Bultman (geologists, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2003). East of 

Pieper Hatchery Spring, springs along the upper face of 

the Mogollon Rim have low discharges and issue mainly 

from the clastic sedimentary rocks of the Schnebly Hill 

Formation or from the underlying Supai Formation 

(fig. 15). 

The only wells below the crest of the Mogollon Rim 

that produce water from the Schnebly Hill Formation 

are in the Strawberry area. In neighboring Pine, most 

wells are completed in the Supai Formation, and the 

few well-discharge data available show yields of about 

10–30 gal/min in the Pine area and 20–80 gal/min in 

Strawberry. Kaczmarek (2003) suggests that this is 

because well production in both areas is dependent on 

the proximity of fractures within the host rocks, but the 

somewhat greater primary porosity of the Schnebly Hill 

Formation allows for some ground-water storage that 

permits more rapid and dependable flow into fractured 

areas as water is pumped from them. The importance of 

fractures and other secondary permeability features in 

conductance of ground-water flow is illustrated by the 

ranges of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity 

values, more than three to four orders of magnitude, that 

have been published for wells completed in the C aquifer 

(Mann and Nemecek, 1983; Bills and others, 2000; Hart 

and others, 2002). The absence of spring discharge from 

the Fort Apache Member of the Schnebly Hill Formation 

above Pine and Strawberry, the low discharge from 

springs in the clastic rocks, and the generally poor 

production of wells in the Pine-Strawberry area suggest 

that the regional C aquifer does not intersect the face of 

the Mogollon Rim in this area; rather, the ground-water 

system within the upper Paleozoic rocks of this area 

appears to be a local aquifer. 
The Naco Formation has several characteristics, 

including fractures, open bedding planes, and solution 

features that would favor rapid transmission of a large 

volume of ground water, but the unit generally stands 

above the saturated zone in the study area. Wells 

penetrating the Naco Formation in the Pine area 

commonly intersect voids, and there is little production 

from the unit (Kaczmarek, 2003). During drilling of 

the Strawberry exploratory well, (A-12-08)29AAA2 

(table 6 and fig. 18, insert B; no. 166), no cuttings were 

obtained below a depth of 970 ft because of loss of fluid 

circulation associated with large voids or fractures at that 

level. Voids were repeatedly encountered and drilling 

was finally suspended at a depth of 1,460 ft because of 

unacceptable fluid losses. On the basis of well logs, 

geophysical data, and regional stratigraphy, Corkhill 

(2000) placed the Naco Formation between 1,040 and 

1,295 feet deep in this area, about 85 ft above the 

saturated zone. At Fossil Creek, springs discharge from 

rocks at the base of the Naco Formation or the top of 

the Redwall Limestone—the only location where 

saturation of the Naco is evident. Because of its physical 

characteristics, however, the Naco Formation may be 

considered to be part of the limestone aquifer that 

generally is associated with the lower Paleozoic rocks 

of the Redwall Limestone and Martin Formation. 

The limestone aquifer must be supplied at least in part 

from the leakage through the overlying PermianPennsylvanian rocks from the C aquifer and thus ground 

water must travel through the Naco Formation at some 

locations beneath the Plateau. 

Lower Paleozoic Rocks 

The limestone aquifer is composed mainly of 

rocks of the Redwall Limestone and Martin Formation. 

Within the study area, the main discharge points from the 

limestone aquifer are the large-volume springs in the 

middle reaches of the East Verde River and its tributaries 

and in Fossil Creek. Discharge from the limestone aquifer 

also is likely into all the major streams draining the study 

area, except perhaps West Clear Creek. Wells drilled into 

the limestone aquifer are few, are mainly concentrated 

in the Tonto Village-Kohls Ranch area (fig. 1), and are 

not highly productive. The limestone aquifer has not been 

extensively studied. Farrar (1980) investigated the 

hydrological properties of the Redwall Limestone and 

the Jerome Member of the Martin Formation and found 

that primary porosity was of little importance in both 

formations. In the Mooney Falls Member of the Redwall 

Limestone, the only member of the formation that is 

present in the study area, Farrar found that virtually 

all secondary porosity was the result of karst formation 

that resulted in a highly variable distribution of solution 

conduits. Fractures and solute-widened bedding planes 

Hydrogeology 41 

in the upper Jerome Member of the Martin Formation 

provide the secondary porosity of that unit. Caverns 

in the Martin Formation were most likely to occur at 

the intersection of large joints or faults. From eight 

wells in the Flagstaff area, Farrar (1980) reported 

specific capacity values ranging from 0.9 gal/min/ft at 

the Supai-Redwall contact to 100 gal/min/ft at the 

Redwall-Martin contact. 

Two high-discharge springs flow from below the 

Paleozoic section in the study area. Tonto Natural 

Bridge Spring discharges from the Tapeats Sandstone 

(Feth and Hem, 1963), and R-C Spring east of Tonto 

Creek discharges from the Mazatzal Group quartzite 

(fig. 15 and table 3); however, both the volume of spring 

discharge and the nature of the rocks from which the 

springs discharge suggest that the main flow paths are 

through the limestone aquifer. 

Proterozoic Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks 

The hydrogeological characteristics of the Payson 

granite and related intrusive rocks have been studied 

more extensively than any other units in the Mogollon 

Highlands because of Payson’s reliance on the fracturedrock aquifer for its water supply (Southwest Groundwater Consultants, Inc., 1998; AGRA Earth and 

Environmental, Inc., 1999; Ploughe, 2000, 2001; 

Gæorama, Inc., 2001, 2003). The Payson granite is 

extensively fractured and faulted. Proterozoic faults 

typically are mineralized and of little hydrologic 

importance, but Tertiary faulting has created significant 

secondary permeability. Although most wells are 

shallow, the town of Payson began an exploratory welldrilling program north of the town in 1999 in which 

water-bearing zones as deep as 750 ft were located 

(Ploughe, 2000). On the basis of numerous aquifer tests 

throughout the area, transmissivity ranges from 40 to 

2,270 ft2/d and is greatest where wells are associated with 

major fracture systems (Southwest Ground-water 

Consultants, Inc., 1998). In general, shallow waterbearing zones are dependent on winter recharge and 

thus are highly susceptible to drought (Ploughe, 2001); 

however, water in deeper fracture systems might be fed 

by sources flowing into the system from the Mogollon 

Rim (Gæorama, Inc., 2003). The lowest productive level 

of the Payson granite might be as deep as 1,000 ft 

(Gæorama, Inc., 2003). The Payson granite aquifer is 

characterized by numerous local ground-water divides 

so that the effects of drawdown in one well or well 

field may be restricted to a localized area (AGRA Earth 

and Environmental, Inc., 1999). The few springs that 

discharge from Proterozoic igneous rocks show low 

discharges (table 4 and fig. 15, nos. 40 and 41). 
42 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Other Proterozoic rocks in the area are little studied. 

A handful of wells are completed in the Proterozoic 

rocks of the Mazatzal Mountains and the Sierra Ancha; 

a few springs emit discharges of less than 10 gal/min 

(table 4 and fig. 15, nos. 16 and 21). In general, such 

rocks probably are barriers to ground-water flow where 

they are in contact with water-bearing rocks. 

Water Chemistry 

Chemical data are available for 23 springs (table 7 

and figs. 20–23), 81 wells (table 8 and figs. 24 and 25), 

and 4 streams (table 9). Surface and ground waters in the 

study area are largely dilute waters that have specific 

conductance values below 1,000 μS/cm. A specific 

conductance value typically reflects the amount of 

material dissolved in water and enables an estimate of the 

total solute concentration. The total solute concentration, 

in mg/L, typically is on the order of two-thirds of the 

specific conductance value. Stream and spring 

temperatures can vary greatly as a function of season, 

time of collection, discharge rate, and physical setting. 

Stream chemistry reflects that of the ground water that 

supports the base flow of the stream and the volume 

and composition of varying seasonal runoff. During the 

lowest flows in smaller streams, the total solute concentration can be significantly increased by evaporation. 

Concentrations of sodium, chloride, and sulfate tend 

to be higher in ground waters that have longer residence 

times in their respective aquifers. Both major and minor 

dissolved constituents reflect the rocks through which the 

waters have flowed. 

Chemistry of Spring Waters 

Thirty-two analyses of varying completeness are 

available for the 23 springs for which data were identified or developed (table 7 and figs. 20–22). In addition 

to the these chemical analyses, 22 samples were 

collected from 19 springs for stable hydrogen- and 

oxygen-isotope data (δ2H and δ18O) in this study, and 

10 samples of water and rock were taken for strontium 

isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analyses (tables 10 and 11 and 

figs. 20 and 23). Three of the hydrogen- and oxygenisotope samples were collected from separate outlets in 

Fossil Springs. The δ2H and δ18O data plot in a tight 

group slightly above and left of the meteoric water line 

(fig. 23), indicating that the recharge is dominated by 

precipitation that falls during the coldest part of the 

year (Craig, 1961). When compared to stable-isotope 

values for precipitation collected at Flagstaff from 1961 

through 1971, values for the spring samples from this 

study fall within the range of values for cold-season 

precipitation samples, those having δ18O values smaller 

than -9 per mil (fig. 23). Data from one spring sample, 

Pig Spring in mafic granitic rocks south of Payson, were 

discarded because the δ18O value of about -2 per mil 

reflects a sample that underwent substantial evaporation 

prior to collection and is not representative of spring 

discharge at that site. The range of the spring isotopic 

data, although narrow relative to recent precipitation 

data, indicates that most of the springs discharging at or 

near the Mogollon Rim, particularly those having the 

highest discharge, isotopically resemble the discharge of 

Fossil Springs (table 10, no. 14 and fig. 23). In general, 

those springs having lower discharge and those farther 

from the Mogollon Rim reflect either a warm-season 

component or evaporative enrichment. Strontiumisotope data generally show a close relation between 

isotope composition of water and that of the host rocks 

from which the springs discharge (table 11). 

The specific-conductance values for the 23 springs 

range from 25 to 753 μS/cm. These are dilute, fresh 

waters. Three of the springs—(A-12-07)21D UNSURV 

(table 7, no. 11), (A-12-10)01BDA (table 7, no. 46 and 

figs. 20 and 21), and (A-12-13H)01BBD (table 7, no. 62 

and figs. 20 and 21)— are calcium sodium bicarbonate 

types; the remainder are calcium magnesium bicarbonate 

types (fig. 21), following the hydrochemical facies 

scheme described by Back (1961). The springs 

discharging the most dilute waters (specific conductance < 250 μS/cm) are four of the seven on the 

Colorado Plateau—Pivot Rock, (A-12-10)01BDA, 

(A-12-12)11BAB, and (A-12-13H)01BBD (table 7, 

nos. 30, 46, 57, and 62 and figs. 20 and 22A)—three 

near the Mogollon Rim in the headwaters area of Tonto 

Creek—Horton, Tonto, and See Springs (table 7, nos. 56, 

52, and 61 and figs. 20 and 22A)—and Bear Flat Spring, 

5 to 6 mi downstream from the near-rim group (table 7, 

no. 54 and figs. 20 and 22A). The reported value for 

Dripping Springs of 74 μS/cm probably is in error as it 

does not agree with the analytical data (table 7, no. 25 

and figs. 20 and 22A). Spring (A-12-10)01BDA (table 7, 

no. 46, figs 20 and 22A) is the most dilute and owes its 

composition to recharge into and flow through the 

Coconino Sandstone. The Coconino is a clean, indurated 

quartz (98 percent)sandstone, containing about 2 percent 

feldspar and chert, that is cemented by silica, calcite, and 

iron oxides. Feldspar grains in the Coconino are the 

primary source of solutes in waters derived from that 

formation. The reported calcium, magnesium, and 

sodium concentrations and low bicarbonate concentration rule out a limestone or calcite contribution, as 

does the low pH, which also indicates relatively brief 

interaction with the feldspars. This spring is indicative of 

the starting chemistry of water discharged by most of the 

springs in the study area. Departures from this model are 

the result of water-rock interactions along respective 

flow paths. 
Table 7. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of spring waters in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona 

[μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L; milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; FET, fixed end point titration; IT, incremental titration; ANC, 

acid neutralizing capacity; <, less than. Dashes indicate no data] 

Water 

Map code Specific temperature Oxygen, 

(see conductance (degrees dissolved 

fig. 20) Station name Spring name Date Time (μS/cm) pH, field Celsius) (mg/L) 

54 A-10H12 24AAB Bear Flat 07–16–1975 1100 250 7.5 --- ---

54 A-10H12 24AAB Bear Flat 10–20–1952 --- 348 --- 16.5 ---

58 A-11-12 26BDB R-C 07–31–1997 1130 330 7.44 15.5 6.0 

58 A-11-12 26BDB R-C 05–14–1952 --- 275 --- 9 ---

37 A-11-10 08AAD Big 08–21–1997 900 480 7.3 16 47.8 

22 A-11-09 05DCA Tonto Natural Bridge 08–19–1997 830 620 7.4 20 5.6 

50 A-11-12 20DAB Indian Gardens 07–15–1975 1300 700 7.1 --- ---

50 A-11-12 20DAB Indian Gardens 07–30–1997 1430 645 7.13 14.5 6.2 

50 A-11-12 20DAB Indian Gardens 05–17–1952 --- 497 --- 14.5 ---

42 A-11H10 24BCA1 08–04–1998 1400 290 7.3 11 5.5 

52 A-12-12 33BAC Tonto 07–31–1997 900 145 7.09 9 11.5 

52 A-12-12 33BAC Tonto 10–17–1952 --- 174 --- 9 ---

10 A-12-07 21DCD1 05–24–1978 945 560 7.3 16 ---

11 A-12-07 21DCD2 08–18–1997 1100 470 7.6 25 5.7 

35 A-12-09 24CCC Geronimo 08–20–1997 900 530 7.4 14.5 43.6 

12 A-12-07 22C UNSURV 05–24–1978 1530 510 8.2 19 ---

14 A-12-07 14D UNSURV Fossil 05–24–1978 1100 700 6.7 22 ---

14 A-12-07 14D UNSURV Fossil 08–07–1998 1030 720 7 21 5.1 

14 A-12-07 14D UNSURV Fossil 07–15–1959 --- 745 7.3 21 ---

14 A-12-07 14D UNSURV Fossil 02–16–1952 --- 753 --- 21.5 ---

48 A-12-11 12AAC 08–22–1995 1430 305 7.38 13 7.0 

57 A-12-12 11BAB 08–23–1995 1130 110 7.36 22 5.0 

46 A-12-10 01BDA 08–22–1995 1200 25 6.34 16 3.5 

62 A-12-13H01BBD 08–21–1995 1500 75 6.77 14 5.9 

30 A-13-09 28ABB Pivot Rock 08–01–1994 1200 210 7.26 10 8.3 

27 A-14-09 31DDC Bear 05–27–1959 --- 418 7.8 11 ---

15 A-14-08 32A UNSURV Buckhorn 05–28–1959 --- 401 8 --- ---

39 A-11-10 04CAD Webber 10–22–2002 830 459 7.3 14.4 3.3 

61 A-11-13 08CBB See 10–22–2002 1500 250 7.7 9.5 8.2 

25 A-12-09 30DDD2 Dripping 10–24–2002 1015 74 6.9 13.3 6.6 

56 A-11-12 02BDB Horton 10–23–2002 1042 186 7.3 10.2 8.3 

43 A-12-10 11CCD Washington 10–22–2002 1205 301 7.50 10.1 7.3 

Water Chemistry 43 
Table 7. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of spring waters in the Mogollon Highlands, central 

Arizona—Continued 

Alkalinity, Alkalinity, Alkalinity, ANC, Dissolved 

Carbon Hardness, dissolved, dissolved, total, FET, total, FET, solids, 

Map code dioxide, total FET, field IT, field field lab sum of Calcium, Magnesium, 

(see dissolved (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as constituents dissolved dissolved Ca/Mg 

fig. 20) (mg/L) CaCO3) HCO3) CaCO3) CaCO3) CaCO3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (molar) 

54 10 170 207 --- 170 --- 185 48 12 2.43 

54 --- 190 227 --- 186 --- 202 54 13 2.52 

58 9.8 160 170 --- 139 142 180 49 9.6 3.09 

58 --- 140 163 --- 134 --- 158 43 9.0 2.90 

37 25 260 314 --- 257 260 269 73 18 2.44 

22 26 330 409 --- 336 337 350 79 32 1.50 

50 33 370 260 --- 213 --- 275 95 32 1.80 

50 52 360 442 --- 362 332 362 92 30 1.83 

50 --- 280 333 --- 273 --- 278 68 27 1.53 

42 15 150 188 --- 154 156 158 41 12 1.98 

52 10 66 80 --- 66 66 75 19 4.5 2.53 

52 --- 96 111 --- 91 --- 104 26 7.6 2.07 

10 30 310 370 --- 300 --- 402 64 37 1.05 

11 11 220 285 --- 233 229 309 40 30 .81 

35 21 270 332 --- 272 268 307 69 24 1.76 

12 3.3 270 330 --- 270 --- 326 54 33 .99 

14 153 410 480 --- 390 --- 437 98 39 1.52 

14 75 390 470 --- 385 390 418 96 35 1.67 

14 38 410 480 --- 394 --- 437 110 35 1.84 

14 --- 420 485 --- 398 --- 440 100 40 1.58 

48 13 170 196 --- 161 162 161 35 19 1.12 

57 4.6 44 66 --- 54 39 59 11 4.0 1.67 

46 7.8 7 11 --- 9 9 14 1.8 .54 2.02 

62 11 33 42 --- 34 35 48 9.2 2.4 2.32 

30 9.6 90 110 --- 90 96 119 20 9.7 1.25 

27 7.1 230 284 --- 233 --- 248 55 22 1.52 

15 4.3 220 268 --- 220 --- 239 51 22 1.41 

39 26 250 301 247 --- 260 256 62 22 1.71 

61 3.7 130 118 96 --- 103 143 37 8.2 2.74 

25 58 230 285 234 --- 243 266 56 21 1.62 

56 9.0 98 111 91 --- 102 105 29 6.1 2.88 

43 9.4 170 195 160 --- 169 167 43 14 1.86 

44 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 45 

Table 7. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of spring waters in the Mogollon Highlands, central 

Arizona—Continued 

Map Sodium, Potassium, Sulfate, Chloride, Fluoride, Silica, Arsenic, Boron, 

code (see dissolved Ca/Na dissolved HCO3 dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved 

fig. 20) (mg/L) (molar) (mg/L) (molar) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 

54 3.4 8.1 0.70 3.39 1.7 4.2 0.1 13 --- <20 

54 --- --- --- 3.72 2.3 3.0 .2 15 --- --­

58 3.1 9.07 .71 2.79 23 2.0 <.1 7.7 --- 12 

58 --- --- --- 2.67 13 1.0 .1 8.9 --- --­

37 3.3 12.63 .54 5.14 4.6 2.2 <.1 13 <1 19 

22 6.4 7.09 .94 6.71 3.2 6.1 .16 19 --- 20 

50 3.8 14.34 .80 4.26 1.1 3.4 .1 10 --- <20 

50 3.2 16.4 .72 7.24 2.7 3.5 .11 10 --- 15 

50 --- --- --- 5.46 4.1 2.0 .2 8.9 --- --­

42 1.4 16.93 .63 3.08 3.0 1.1 <.1 5.8 <1 <16 

52 1.3 8.17 .83 1.31 1.7 1.0 <.1 7.1 --- 6.8 

52 --- --- --- 1.82 3.1 2.0 .2 8.7 --- --­

10 18 2.04 1.8 6.06 8.5 13 .2 75 --- <20 

11 11 2.10 2.1 4.67 5.1 8.4 .15 68 --- 31 

35 9.2 4.26 .63 5.45 20 2.8 .12 18 --- 17 

12 11 2.82 3.2 5.41 4.8 7.1 .1 50 --- <20 

14 12 4.68 1.8 7.87 27 8.3 .1 13 --- 60 

14 11 5.20 1.8 7.7 23 7.1 .19 12 <1 69 

14 --- --- --- 7.87 23 9.0 .3 17 --- --­

14 --- --- --- 7.95 27 9.0 .1 14 --­

48 1 20.08 .50 3.22 2.4 1.1 <.1 4.7 --- <10 

57 1.3 4.85 .50 1.08 1 3.5 <.1 5 --- 10 

46 .70 1.47 .80 .18 1.2 1.6 <.1 1.9 --- <10 

62 1.9 2.78 .60 .69 1.4 .90 .2 9.4 --- <10 

30 3.1 3.70 .50 1.81 2.1 2.0 <.1 27 <1 10 

27 --- --- --- 4.65 .60 4.0 .1 21 --- --­

15 --- --- --- 4.39 1.6 6 <.1 20 --- --­

39 4.2 8.47 .70 4.93 5.2 3.6 .2 10 --- --­

61 2.2 9.65 .60 1.93 27 1.4 .1 8.3 --- --­

25 8.2 3.92 .70 4.67 2.2 6.3 .1 31 --- --­

56 1.4 11.88 .90 1.82 2.8 1.7 <.1 8.2 --- --­

43 1.9 12.98 .50 3.20 1.3 2.3 <.1 7.7 --- --­
e 

 

 

River 

Ri e r 

V rde 

43

Tv Ts 

Tv 

v 

Tv 

P 

111o30’ 111o 

P 

Tv Mzu P Ts Ts
 

P
 

Q Ts Tv 15 Tv
 

27 P
 5 Tv 30 34o30’ 

Q Ts P 46 62 

48 57 PP P 36 

14
 12 Tv
 25
 Tv 52 Ts
 

Q 11 PP 56


28 

42 

61 59
 P 

Tv 22 PP 50 Mzu PC 37 PP MC 39 58 53 Ts MC 54 

PP63

MC PC PP
 

Ts P Ts
 

PC Ts
 

Tv Tv MC 29 Payson PC Ts P 

110o30’ 

Ts 31 PP Mzu Tv Tv 

Ts PP Tv Ts Q Ts PC Q 

Tv P Ts Ts Q Tv Ts 

Ts Q Tv Ts 

34o Q PC Ts Ts 

PP Ts 

Ts Ts Ts Ts PP 

PC Tv PC PC Tv Q PC MC Tv 

Ts Tv Tv PC Q Q Ts PC Tv Ts 

TvTs MC Ts Ts PC 

MC 

Q PC Ts Ts Ts 0 10 MILES

Ts Tv Ts Ts Q 

Ts 0 10 KILOMETERS Q Ts Tv
 

Q MC Q MC PC
 Ts Tv
 Ts Ts
 Theodore Geology modified from Reynolds, 1988 PC PC Ts Roosevelt PC Tv Q Lake Ts Tv Q Tv Tv Ts PC 

Q Tv Q

Ts 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 12 

46 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 20. Springs for which chemical data are available and sampling sites for isotope analysis of spring water, Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona. 
EXPLANATION 

SURFICIAL DEPOSITS, MOSTLY ALLUVIUM—Holocene to Middle Pleistocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

VOLCANIC ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIFFERENTIATED—Cretaceous 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian (Kaibab Formation and Coconino Sandstone) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian and Pennsylvanian (Schnebly Hill Formation, 

Supai Formation, and Naco Formation) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Mississippian to Cambrian (Redwall Limestone, Martin Formation,

 and Tapeats Sandstone) 

PROTEROZOIC ROCKS

FAULT 

SPRING FOR WHICH CHEMICAL DATA ARE AVAILABLE 

SPRING SAMPLED FOR ISOTOPE ANALYSIS

NOTE: See table 7 for chemical-data correspondence of 

numbers to springs and table 10 for isotope-analysis 

correspondence of numbers to springs. Tail on symbol 

Ts 

Tv 

PP 

MC 

Mzu

P C 

Q 

P 

is not intended to indicate direction of discharge 

42 

62 

Water Chemistry 47 

Figure 20. Continued. 
100 

100 100 

80 

80

CALCIUM

60 

+ M

60 

A

HLORIDE 

NE

C

G

S

E + 

40 

IUM

TA FL

40

SU 

20 

20 

0 

0

0 

100 100
 

20 

20

Calcium sodium
 

80 bicarbonate 80
 

chemistry
 S

TE

ODIUM

60 60
 IUM 

+ P 

ARBONA 

ULF

S

C

O

 BI 

S

A

GNE

T 

T

A

 + 

E

SS

TE 

40 40
 

MA 

IUM 

CARBONA 

80 

80 

20 20
 

100 100 

40 

20 

0 

0 

20 

40

100 

80 

60 

60 

80 

CALCIUM CHLORIDE 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER 

0 0 

48 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 21. Relative compositions of water from springs in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION, SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

Pivot Rock Spring 

Bear Spring 

Buckhorn Spring 

(A–12–07)21dcd1 (A–12–07)21dcd2

(A–12–07)22c

Fossil Springs Fossil Springs Fossil Springs 

Fossil Springs

(A–12–11)12aac(A–12–12)11bab(A–12–10)01bda

(A–12–13)H01bbd

Big Spring

Tonto Natural 

Bridge Spring 

(A–11–10)24bca1 

Geronimo Spring 

Dripping Spring 

Washington Spring 

Bear Flat Spring Bear Flat Spring 

R-C Spring R-C Spring 

NOTE: Sodium analyses unavailable

 for some springs 

Calcium Magnesium Sodium 

Pivot Rock Spring 

Bear Spring 

Buckhorn Spring 

(A–12–07)21dcd1 (A–12–07)21dcd2

(A–12–07)22c

Fossil Springs Fossil Springs Fossil Springs 

Fossil Springs

(A–12–11)12aac(A–12–12)11bab(A–12–10)01bda

(A–12–13)H01bbd

Big Spring

Tonto Natural 

Bridge Spring 

(A–11–10)24bca1 

Geronimo Spring 

Dripping Spring 

Washington Spring 

Bear Flat Spring Bear Flat Spring 

R-C Spring R-C Spring 

Indian Gardens Spring 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 30 27 15 10 11 12 14 14 14 14 48 57 46 62 37 22 42 35 25 43 54 54 58 58 50 50 50 52 52 61 56 Indian Gardens Spring Indian Gardens Spring Indian Gardens Spring Indian Gardens Spring Indian Gardens Spring Tonto Spring Tonto Spring 

See Spring 

Horton Spring 

Tonto Spring Tonto Spring 

See Spring 

Horton Spring 

WEST CLEAR FOSSIL CREEK CANYON TOP OF EAST VERDE RIVER TONTO CREEK DRAINAGE 

CREEK DRAINAGE COLORADO PLATEAU DRAINAGE 

B. Concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and sodium 

200 

0 

30 27 15 10 11 12 14 14 14 14 48 57 46 62 37 22 42 35 25 43 54 54 58 58 50 50 50 52 52 61 56 

WEST CLEAR FOSSIL CREEK CANYON TOP OF EAST VERDE RIVER TONTO CREEK DRAINAGE 

CREEK DRAINAGE COLORADO PLATEAU DRAINAGE 

A. Specific conductance 

800 

Figure 22. Chemical composition of spring waters within different drainages, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. A, Specific conductance; 

B, Calcium, magnesium, and sodium; C, Chloride and sulfate; D, Silica. 

Water Chemistry 49 
40 

SILICA CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

WEST CLEAR FOSSIL CREEK CANYON TOP OF EAST VERDE RIVER TONTO CREEK DRAINAGE 

CREEK DRAINAGE COLORADO PLATEAU DRAINAGE 

D. Concentration of silica 

80 

70 

CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Pivot Rock Spring 

Bear Spring 

Buckhorn Spring 

(A–12–07)21dcd1 (A–12–07)21dcd2

(A–12–07)22c

Fossil Spring Fossil Spring Fossil Spring Fossil Spring

(A–12–11)12aac(A–12–12)11bab(A–12–10)01bda

(A–12–13)H01bbd

Big Springs

Tonto Natural Bridge Spring 

(A–11–10)24bca1 

Geronimo Spring 

Dripping Spring 

Washington Spring 

Bear Flat Spring Bear Flat Spring 

R-C Spring R-C Spring 

Indian Gardens Spring 

Pivot Rock Spring 

Bear Spring 

Buckhorn Spring 

(A–12–07)21dcd1 (A–12–07)21dcd2

(A–12–07)22c

Fossil Spring Fossil Spring Fossil Spring Fossil Spring

(A–12–11)12aac(A–12–12)11bab(A–12–10)01bda

(A–12–13)H01bbd

Big Springs

Tonto Natural Bridge Spring 

(A–11–10)24bca1 

Geronimo Spring 

Dripping Spring 

Washington Spring 

Bear Flat Spring Bear Flat Spring 

R-C Spring R-C Spring 

Indian Gardens Spring 

Indian Gardens Spring 

Chloride Sulfate 

Indian Gardens Spring 

Indian Gardens Spring Indian Gardens Spring 

Tonto Spring Tonto Spring 

See Spring 

Horton Spring 

Tonto Spring Tonto Spring 

See Spring 

Horton Spring 

0 

30 27 15 10 11 12 14 14 14 14 48 57 46 62 37 22 42 35 25 43 54 54 58 58 50 50 50 52 52 61 56 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

30 27 15 10 11 12 14 14 14 14 48 57 46 62 37 22 42 35 25 43 54 54 58 58 50 50 50 52 52 61 56 

WEST CLEAR 

CREEK DRAINAGE 

FOSSIL CREEK CANYON TOP OF 

COLORADO PLATEAU 

EAST VERDE RIVER 

DRAINAGE 

TONTO CREEK DRAINAGE 

NOTE: See table 7 for chemical composition values. Repeated

 locations represent multiple sampling and analyses. 

See fig. 20 for correspondence of numbers and well

 names to location 

C. Concentrations of chloride and sulfate 

Figure 22. Continued. 

50 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 51 

–60 

–65 

–70 

–75 

–80 

–85 

–90 

–12 –11 –10 –9 

GLOBAL METEORIC

WATER LINE (Craig, 1961)

FLAGSTAFF METEORIC

WATER LINE 

29 

36 39 

43 22 5 56 

63

59 

32 

50 

35 

14 

14 

53

28 

14 

25 

61 

52 11 31 

δOXYGEN–18, IN PER MIL 

δHYDROGEN–2, IN PER MIL 

Figure 23. Isotope values for water from springs in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona 

[μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralizing capacity; FET, fixed endpoint titration; <, less than. Bold face numbers 

indicate water-depth data are available in table 6. Dashes indicate no data] 

Water 

Specific temperature Oxygen, 

Map code conductance (degrees dissolved 

(see fig. 24) Station name Date Time (μS/cm) pH, field Celsius) (mg/L) 

7 A-05-11 08BBC1 05–25–1970 --- 530 --- 22 ---

8 A-05-11 08BBC2 05–25–1970 --- 560 --- 21 ---

11 A-06-10 10DAD1 08–27–1970 --- 550 7.90 19.5 ---

12 A-06-10 10DAD2 08–27–1970 --- --- --- --- ---

13 A-06-10 11CCD 07–29–1998 1455 --- 7.50 19 3.6 

15 A-06-10 14ABA2 08–27–1970 --- 459 7.40 --- ---

16 A-06-10 14ABD1 08–27–1970 --- 525 7.80 18.5 ---

17 A-06-10 14ACA1 08–27–1970 --- 459 7.40 --- ---

19 A-06-10 14BBD 08–27–1970 --- 698 --- --- ---

22 A-06-10 26ABA2 05–25–1970 --- 510 --- --- ---

22 A-06-10 26ABA2 08–11–1997 1000 690 7.10 21 3.3 

23 A-06-10 36DBA 07–30–1998 1500 --- 6.90 19 1.6 

27 A-06-11 31DCB4 07–28–1998 1230 541 7.70 18 2.8 

30 A-07-10 10BAA 09–05–1979 --- 460 --- --- ---

31 A-07-10 11BCD 05–25–1970 --- 605 7.70 --- ---

32 A-07-10 13BBA 05–25–1970 --- 680 --- --- ---

35 A-07-10 23CDC 07–28–1998 1600 411 7.40 20.5 3.1 

36 A-08-10 05CDC 08–11–1997 1400 430 6.84 20 1.9 

40 A-08-10 27ACB3 07–30–1998 1200 --- 7.90 21 4.2 

43 A-09-10 20CDC 07–23–1998 1115 653 7.60 19 6.5 

45 A-09-10 24DCC 07–23–1998 1345 805 7.10 19 3.9 

47 A-09-10 25CCD 07–23–1998 1645 695 7.30 20 3.4 

52 A-09-12 23DBC 08–13–1997 1030 790 7.39 19 5.0 

53 A-09-13 15CDD 10–04–1979 --- 375 --- --- ---

55 A-09-13 21BAB 10–04–1979 --- 459 --- 17 ---

56 A-09-13 21BCB 10–03–1979 --- 395 --- 22 ---

57 A-09-13 25ABB 05–23–1994 1330 300 7.90 17 6.6 

57 A-09-13 25ABB 05–02–1995 1230 305 7.90 17 6.9 

57 A-09-13 25ABB 04–06–1998 1200 275 8.10 16.5 3.8 

57 A-09-13 25ABB 04–14–1997 1000 290 7.95 17 2.4 

57 A-09-13 25ABB 05–06–1996 1540 297 8.42 17 7.0 

67 A-10-10 05CCA 07–08–1975 1200 310 7.50 --- ---

68 A-10-10 05CCB 07–30–1986 1100 358 6.80 --- 2.6 

69 A-10-10 05DBC1 09-09-1959 --- 263 6.80 15.5 ---

70 A-10-10 08ABA 07–14–1975 1100 590 7.90 --- ---

77 A-10-10 22DBD1 07–28–1997 1300 970 7.28 17.5 4.6 

77 A-10-10 22DBD1 07–03–1975 1015 660 7.70 --- ---

52 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 53 

Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

Water 

Specific temperature Oxygen, 

Map code conductance (degrees dissolved 

(see fig. 24) Station name Date Time (μS/cm) pH, field Celsius) (mg/L) 

82 A-10-10 28BCA1 10–25–1979 --- 1050 --- 22 --­

83 A-10-10 28BCA2 10–25–1979 --- 1240 --- 22 --­

83 A-10-10 28BCA2 08–14–1997 900 1420 7.30 18 2.9 

85 A-10-10 28BCD1 10–25–1979 --- 859 --- 18 --­

86 A-10-10 29ACA2 07–27–1998 1420 1510 7.50 17 4.0 

88 A-10-11 05BAD 07-17-1975 1200 275 7.10 --- --­

89 A-10-13 13CAC UNSURV 07–22–1998 1410 490 7.40 14 3.2 

90 A-10H12 19DAD 10–04–1979 --- 175 --- 22 --­

90 A-10H12 19DAD 08–12–1997 930 305 7.10 21 5.6 

91 A-10H12 24AAB 07–16–1975 --- 250 7.50 --- --­

92 A-10H14 20BAC 09–24–1979 --- 890 --- 16 --­

93 A-10H14 27CBD 09–25–1979 --- 668 --- 22 --­

96 A-11-10 23AAB 08–06–1998 1330 690 7.40 18 1.5 

98 A-11-10 23AAD3 08–11–1998 1000 600 7.40 18 1.3 

99 A-11-10 23ACA 07–01–1975 1030 700 7.60 --- --­

100 A-11-10 23ADC 08–25–1997 1400 535 7.40 21.5 12.6 

101 A-11-10 27CCB 07–07–1975 1100 290 7.90 --- --­

101 A-11-10 27CCB 07–30–1986 1415 350 6.85 18.5 5.6 

105 A-11-10 32ACD 08–07–1986 1045 635 7.40 17 .7 

112 A-11-11 27BCB1 07-16-1975 1000 450 7.90 --- --­

112 A-11-11 27BCB1 07-29-1997 1400 455 7.29 17.5 8.2 

114 A-11-11 29DAD 08–14–1997 1500 550 7.08 16.5 5.4 

115 A-11-11 31ADC1 07–15–1975 1130 330 7.70 --- --­

115 A-11-11 31ADC1 07–29–1997 1000 330 7.30 17.5 9.3 

119 A-11-11 32CBB 07–15–1975 1100 540 7.70 --- --­

121 A-11-11H05DCD 08–27–1975 1300 735 --- --- --­

121 A-11-11H05DCD 07–30–1997 900 760 7.14 14 7.4 

122 A-11-11H08AAA 08–28–1975 900 655 --- --- --­

122 A-11-11H08AAA 07–30–1997 1100 775 7.21 15.5 5.1 

123 A-11-11H20CBC 09–24–1979 --- 145 --- 13 --­

123 A-11-11H20CBC 08–12–1997 1100 285 6.87 17 1.0 

125 A-11-12 32BBA 08–27–1975 1200 605 --- --- --­

125 A-11-12 32BBA 08–01–1997 930 515 7.67 15.5 4.5 

128 A-11-13 29CCD 08–27–1975 1200 680 --- --- --­

129 A-11-13 30AAB 10–11–1979 --- 485 --- --- --­

130 A-11-13 34CBA 08–28–1975 1200 950 --- --- --­

130 A-11-13 34CBA 07–31–1997 1400 920 7.11 13.5 1.0 

132 A-11-13 35DAD1 09–24–1979 --- 649 --- 15 --­

133 A-11-13 36CAC 09–24–1979 --- 1080 --- 26 --­
Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

Water 

Specific temperature Oxygen, 

Map code conductance (degrees dissolved 

(see fig. 24) Station name Date Time (μS/cm) pH, field Celsius) (mg/L) 

133 A-11-13 36CAC 08–12–1997 1400 1220 7.17 12.5 2.4 

134 A-11-13 36CCD 07–22–1998 1020 741 7.10 13 2.3 

136 A-11-14 14BAB 00–00–1959 --- --- --- --- ---

137 A-11-14 22CBD 08–09–1966 --- 107 7.30 21.8 ---

138 A-11-15 07CBB 08–21–1995 1100 460 7.54 11.5 7.2 

141 A-11H10 24BDC2 08–11–1998 1330 590 7.20 16 1.3 

142 A-11H11 24CCC 08–13–1998 1030 570 7.30 12 0.66 

143 A-11H11 35BBB 07–17–1975 1200 550 7.40 --- ---

148 A-12-08 21CCC1 11–07–1974 1200 515 8.10 10 ---

150 A-12-08 21CDD 08–19–1997 1430 520 7.50 15 ---

159 A-12-08 25ADC 10–17–1974 1000 555 8.10 24 ---

164 A-12-08 27BBC 08–25–1997 1200 570 7.50 14.5 ---

171 A-12-08 36ADD 11–07–1974 1400 335 8.10 8 ---

174 A-12-09 19CCC1 10–17–1974 900 540 7.60 19 ---

175 A-12-09 30BBA1 10–13–1974 --- 470 7.80 16 ---

177 A-12-09 30BBC1 08–12–1998 1430 290 7.50 18 3.3 

180 A-12-10 26CBB 08–13–1998 1400 440 7.6 15 4.46 

183 A-12-15 36DDC 06–22–1972 --- 471 7.40 12 ---

187 A-12-17 32DDC 06–22–1972 --- 417 7.9 --- ---

187 A-12-17 32DDC 10–02–1967 --- 333 --- --- ---

216 A-14-10 02ACB 07–13–1978 --- 640 7.40 --- ---

223 A-14-11 30DDD 10–26–1965 --- 532 7.70 13 ---

229 A-15-12 31DDC 08–25–1995 1100 620 7.37 13 7.2 

ANC, FET, ANC, FET, Dissolved 

Hardness, total field field solids, sum of Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, 

Map code (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as constituents dissolved dissolved Ca/Mg dissolved 

(see fig. 24) CaCO3) CaCO3) HCO3) (mg/L) (as mg/L) (mg/L) (molar) (mg/L) 

7 230 187 228 137 36 33 .66 ---

8 230 212 258 143 71 14 3.08 ---

11 220 208 254 511 71 11 3.91 24 

12 600 --- --- 485 160 50 1.89 ---

13 200 177 216 400 55 14 2.38 36 

15 170 151 184 309 47 13 2.19 ---

16 210 189 230 296 57 17 2.03 24 

17 170 185 226 244 47 13 2.19 22 

19 240 207 252 248 61 21 1.76 50 

22 250 185 226 206 68 19 2.20 42 

22 210 188 229 239 60 15 2.43 ---

54 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 55 

Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

ANC, FET, ANC, FET, Dissolved 

Hardness, total field field solids, sum of Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, 

Map code (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as constituents dissolved dissolved Ca/Mg dissolved 

(see fig. 24) CaCO3) CaCO3) HCO3) (mg/L) (as mg/L) (mg/L) (molar) (mg/L) 

23 460 --- --- 185 120 37 2.02 91 

27 260 200 244 178 76 18 2.56 35 

30 --- --- --- 517 --- --- --- --­

31 860 226 276 515 65 170 .23 --­

32 280 41 50 514 64 28 1.39 --­

35 170 163 198 513 51 11 2.84 23 

36 200 217 265 565 55 15 2.29 13 

40 100 227 277 562 26 7.9 2.03 110 

43 280 278 339 576 91 13 4.17 28 

45 270 270 --- 442 79 17 2.79 59 

47 230 245 298 568 69 14 2.92 64 

52 300 281 343 593 67 31 1.30 38 

53 --- --- --- 719 --- --- --- --­

55 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

56 --- --- --- 603 --- --- --- --­

57 140 123 150 573 48 4.4 6.62 6.4 

57 130 121 148 575 45 4.6 5.81 6.5 

57 140 106 129 571 48 4.6 6.33 6.9 

57 130 118 144 572 44 4.1 6.51 7.0 

57 130 135 150 573 45 4.5 5.99 6.2 

67 120 121 148 --- 31 10 1.88 16 

68 150 127 155 --- 38 13 1.77 13 

69 110 --- --- 168 26 10 1.58 --­

70 250 161 196 --- 57 25 1.38 20 

77 440 327 399 --- 110 39 1.73 43 

77 280 286 349 --- 71 26 1.66 34 

82 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

83 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

83 520 562 685 --- 120 50 1.51 120 

85 --- --- --- 730 --- --- --- --­

86 640 441 538 --- 160 61 1.56 85 

88 110 128 156 171 30 9.4 1.94 13 

89 240 253 309 --- 61 22 1.68 5.9 

90 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

90 120 127 154 --- 27 13 1.31 20 

91 170 170 207 --- 48 12 2.43 3.4 

92 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

93 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

96 320 288 351 --- 92 22 2.52 18 
Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

ANC, FET, ANC, FET, Dissolved 

Hardness, total field field solids, sum of Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, 

Map code (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as constituents dissolved dissolved Ca/Mg dissolved 

(see fig. 24) CaCO3) CaCO3) HCO3) (mg/L) (as mg/L) (mg/L) (molar) (mg/L) 

98 290 285 347 --- 80 21 2.33 17 

99 180 154 188 --- 40 19 1.28 20 

100 240 263 320 --- 71 14 3.02 17 

101 130 115 140 --- 29 15 1.17 20 

101 110 112 136 --- 24 12 1.21 18 

105 280 293 357 --- 69 27 1.55 16 

112 220 224 273 253 52 21 1.50 6.4 

112 230 228 --- 268 63 18 2.13 5.5 

114 250 277 337 --- 78 14 3.48 14 

115 140 159 194 --- 34 13 1.59 14 

115 140 161 196 --- 36 13 1.72 14 

119 230 261 318 --- 65 17 2.32 16 

121 410 189 230 --- --- 29 2.41 2.6 

121 400 422 515 --- 120 24 3.03 3.4 

122 370 147 179 --- 120 16 4.55 3.0 

122 390 373 455 --- 130 16 4.77 5.4 

123 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

123 62 44 54 --- 19 3.8 2.98 12 

125 290 215 262 --- 67 29 1.41 16 

125 290 316 385 --- 69 29 1.44 16 

128 360 212 258 --- 110 20 3.34 8.0 

129 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

130 470 157 192 --- 130 35 2.25 22 

130 460 380 463 --- 130 31 2.62 19 

132 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

133 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

133 570 254 309 --- 190 23 5.06 48 

134 400 370 451 --- 100 33 1.91 17 

136 35 28 34 --- 9.0 3.0 1.82 1.0 

137 52 54 66 --- 14 4.1 2.07 ---

138 250 260 316 --- 54 28 1.17 1.6 

141 330 334 --- 408 78 33 1.44 2.6 

142 310 307 --- 329 100 15 3.99 4.8 

143 290 270 329 286 83 20 2.52 2.2 

148 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

150 260 253 309 --- 66 23 1.76 8.4 

159 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

164 290 312 380 --- 67 29 1.42 11 

171 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

56 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

ANC, FET, ANC, FET, Dissolved 

Hardness, total field field solids, sum of Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, 

Map code (mg/L as (mg/L as (mg/L as constituents dissolved dissolved Ca/Mg dissolved 

(see fig. 24) CaCO3) CaCO3) HCO3) (mg/L) (as mg/L) (mg/L) (molar) (mg/L) 

174 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

175 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

177 150 148 181 --- 36 13 1.66 2.8 

180 240 235 --- 242 63 19 2.03 2.0 

183 250 256 312 --- 52 29 1.09 2.3 

187 240 176 214 --- 60 22 1.65 --­

187 170 141 172 --- 32 23 .84 3.0 

216 330 290 350 --- 85 29 1.78 4.1 

223 290 294 358 --- 74 26 1.73 --­

229 340 314 383 --- 80 33 1.47 5.0 

Map code Ca/Na Potassium, dissolved Sulfate, dissolved Chloride, dissolved Fluoride, dissolved Silica, dissolved 

(see fig. 24) (molar) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 

7 --- --- 40 34 .50 18 

8 --- --- 30 22 .40 18 

11 1.70 1.2 24 32 .40 18 

12 --- --- 2,700 24 3.0 --­

13 .87 1.4 33 31 .51 21 

15 --- --- 11 40 .30 9.1 

16 1.36 1.8 11 41 .30 11 

17 1.23 1.6 11 40 .30 9.1 

19 .70 1.2 79 36 .30 30 

22 .93 1.6 87 57 .48 20 

22 --- --- 34 32 .40 17 

23 .77 1.5 240 94 .66 26 

27 1.25 1.5 59 39 .37 19 

30 --- --- --- --- .50 --­

31 --- --- 15 48 .30 16 

32 --- --- 16 72 .20 29 

35 1.27 1.5 9.6 24 .38 16 

36 2.41 1.9 11 10 .13 21 

40 .13 3.0 14 59 .56 26 

43 1.86 .36 16 33 .21 22 

45 .77 2.0 15 81 .60 21 

47 .62 2.5 14 83 .71 20 

52 1.02 2.3 19 43 .75 20 

53 --- --- --- --- .40 --­

55 --- --- --- --- .40 --­

56 --- --- --- --- .40 --­

Water Chemistry 57 
Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

Map code Ca/Na Potassium, dissolved Sulfate, dissolved Chloride, dissolved Fluoride, dissolved Silica, dissolved 

(see fig. 24) (molar) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 

57 4.30 .70 2.6 7.3 .20 25 

57 3.95 .76 2.1 9.3 .19 24 

57 3.99 .80 1.9 9.4 .20 23 

57 3.61 .90 1.9 9.2 .20 24 

57 4.13 .90 1.9 9.4 .27 24 

67 1.11 .40 10 8.5 1.0 36 

68 1.68 .7 21 9.4 .80 30 

69 --- --- 1.9 8 1.4 34 

70 1.63 .70 7.7 17 .20 28 

77 1.47 1.3 81 64 .24 28 

77 1.20 1 32 17 .30 26 

82 --- --- --- --- .50 ---

83 --- --- --- --- 1.0 ---

83 .61 .26 70 90 .74 34 

85 --- --- --- --- .30 ---

86 1.05 0.3 61 180 .37 30 

88 .36 .30 3.1 5.2 1.3 31 

89 5.92 1.2 11 3.4 .16 13 

90 --- --- --- --- .50 ---

90 .77 .35 8.2 10 2.2 35 

91 8.10 .7 1.7 4.2 .10 13 

92 --- --- --- --- .30 ---

93 --- --- --- --- .30 ---

96 2.86 2.0 7.8 41 .19 28 

98 2.63 1.9 4.9 15 .33 30 

99 1.15 1.5 5.5 35 .20 27 

100 2.38 1.4 .71 14 .32 28 

101 .83 .6 25 12 .60 32 

101 .76 .4 12 6.8 .60 29 

105 2.47 1 6.0 15 .40 29 

112 4.66 .9 2.2 7.6 .2 24 

112 1.37 .94 .89 9.1 .19 29 

114 3.23 .65 2.6 9.4 .44 26 

115 1.39 .5 5.4 5.0 .70 23 

115 1.46 .39 6.5 5.4 .63 24 

119 2.33 .7 11 8.2 .30 23 

121 25.21 .9 4.1 3.3 .10 8.6 

121 20.24 .7 3.8 2.9 .10 9.5 

122 22.94 .9 3.7 4.4 .10 8.1 

122 13.90 .68 7.7 14 <.10 8.9 

58 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 59 

Table 8. Physical and chemical properties and chemical composition of ground water at wells in the Mogollon Highlands, 

central Arizona—Continued 

Map code Ca/Na Potassium, dissolved Sulfate, dissolved Chloride, dissolved Fluoride, dissolved Silica, dissolved 

(see fig. 24) (molar) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 

123 --- --- --- --- .40 --­

123 .91 28 13 25 .14 29 

125 2.44 .93 .95 8.8 .58 31 

125 2.47 1.2 1.3 5.0 .40 29 

128 7.89 1 15 6.5 .20 7.9 

129 --- --- --- --- .20 --­

130 3.39 2 160 16 .10 9.3 

130 3.97 1.5 56 45 .16 11 

132 --- --- --- --- .40 --­

133 --- --- --- --- .70 --­

133 2.26 4.0 380 14 .19 15 

134 3.44 1.4 44 13 .14 9.6 

136 5.16 --- 10 10 .50 --­

137 --- --- 1.0 2.0 --- 10 

138 19.36 .4 .40 1.7 .10 7.3 

141 17.2 1.1 4.9 2.4 .12 7.8 

142 11.92 .65 7.0 3.9 <.1 13 

143 21.64 .9 5.5 3.9 .1 8.6 

148 --- --- --- --- --- --­

150 4.54 .64 6.6 8.1 .12 22 

159 --- --- --- --- .40 --­

164 3.39 .97 5.2 .81 .28 23 

171 --- --- --- --- --- --­

174 --- --- --- --- .24 --­

175 --- --- --- --- .23 --­

177 7.51 .59 1.2 1.9 .16 13 

180 17.76 .88 4.6 1.9 <.1 8.74 

183 12.97 .7 3.7 3.1 .10 8.3 

187 --- --- 9 4 --- --­

187 6.12 --- 8.0 4.0 .10 --­

216 11.89 .8 7.2 12 .10 9.4 

223 --- --- 1.0 6.5 .10 --­

229 9.18 .8 11 6.9 .10 8.9 
e 

 

 

River 

R i e r 

V rde

Tv Ts 

Tv 

v 

Ts 

96 MC 99 98 

100 

105 114 112 

101 115 119 

67 69 88 

68 70 

Tv 

PC P 77


148 150 164 174
 175 P 82 

83 PP 159 177 111o30’ 111o 86 

85
 171
 

Tv MC P 216 229


Tv 

P Ts Tv Ts Mzu PP P 

Ts Tv P 223 129 

128 132 P 130 133 Tv 134 34o30’ 92 

Q Ts P PP 

PC MC PP 

Tv 

P 

Tv Ts MC 180 PP Q 142 

136 138 P 

14 3 PP Tv PC PP 122 137 Mzu

MC 121 125 Ts MC 90 91
 

MC 123 PP
 

Ts P Ts
 

PC Ts MC Payson 110o30’ Tv Tv PC Ts P 89 PP Mzu PC 

Tv Tv Ts 

Ts PP Tv Ts Q Ts 55 53

PC 43 45 56 57

47 52 Tv P Ts Ts Q 

Ts Tv Ts 36 Q Tv Ts 

Q 40 Ts 34o P Ts 

PP Ts 30 

31 32 Ts Ts 35 Ts Ts PP 

PC Tv PC PC Tv Q PC MC Tv 

Ts Tv Tv PC Q Q Ts PC Tv Ts 

TvTs MC Ts Ts PC 

MC 

Q Ts Ts 0 10 MILES PC Ts Tv Ts Ts Ts PC MC 0 10 KILOMETERS

Q Ts Tv
 

Ts Q Tv PC
 

Ts Geology modified from Reynolds, 1988 PC PC Ts 12 PC Tv 11 15 Ts Q Ts PC 

Q Tv Tv 13

19 17

16 PC Tv 

Ts Q NOTE: See table 8 for correspondence of Q Tv Q 22 numbers to well names and data 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 23 digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 27

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 12 Ts 8 7 

93

60 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 24. Wells for which chemical data are available, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 
EXPLANATION 

229 

Ts 

Tv 

Mzu

PP 

MC 

P

Q SURFICIAL DEPOSITS, MOSTLY ALLUVIUM—Holocene to Middle Pleistocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

VOLCANIC ROCKS—Pliocene to Middle Miocene 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIFFERENTIATED—Cretaceous 

P SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian (Kaibab Formation and Coconino Sandstone) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Permian and Pennsylvanian (Schnebly Hill Formation, 

Supai Formation, and Naco Formation) 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS—Mississippian to Cambrian (Redwall Limestone, Martin Formation,

 and Tapeats Sandstone) 


C PROTEROZOIC ROCKS

FAULT 


WELL AND WELL IDENTIFIER 


Water Chemistry 61 

Figure 24. Continued. 
62 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

A. Specific conductance 

8 16 22 35 45 90 91 121 125 128 133 68 70 77 83 98 115 141 150 164 177 180 137 138 183 216 

LOWER TONTO UPPER TONTO PAYSON SHELF PINE-STRAWBERRY COLORADO 

CREEK BASIN CREEK BASIN AREA PLATEAU 

B. Concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and sodium 

8 16 22 35 45 90 91 121 125 128 133 68 70 77 83 98 115 141 150 164 177 180 137 138 183 216 

LOWER TONTO UPPER TONTO PAYSON SHELF PINE-STRAWBERRY COLORADO 

CREEK BASIN CREEK BASIN AREA PLATEAU 

(A–05–11)08bbc2(A–06–10)14abd1(A–06–10)26aba2

(A–07–10)23cdc(A–09–10)24dcc

(A–10H12)19dad(A–10H12)24aab

(A–11–11)H05dcd

(A–11–12)32bba(A–11–13)29ccd (A–11–13)36cac(A–10–10)05ccb(A–10–10)08aba

(A–10–10)22dbd1(A–10–10)28bca2(A–11–10)23aad3(A–11–11)31adc1 

(A–11H10)24bdc2 

(A–12–08)21cdd(A–12–08)27bbc

(A–12–09)30bbc1 

(A–12–10)26cbb (A–11–14)22cbd (A–11–15)07cbb(A–12–15)36ddc(A–14–10)02acb 

CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

600 

0 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

Calcium Magnesium Sodium 

NOTE: Sodium analyses unavailable

 for some wells 

(A–05–11)08bbc2(A–06–10)14abd1(A–06–10)26aba2

(A–07–10)23cdc(A–09–10)24dcc

(A–10H12)19dad(A–10H12)24aab

(A–11–11)H05dcd

(A–11–12)32bba(A–11–13)29ccd (A–11–13)36cac(A–10–10)05ccb(A–10–10)08aba

(A–10–10)22dbd1(A–10–10)28bca2(A–11–10)23aad3(A–11–11)31adc1 

(A–11H10)24bdc2 

(A–12–08)21cdd(A–12–08)27bbc

(A–12–09)30bbc1 

(A–12–10)26cbb (A–11–14)22cbd (A–11–15)07cbb(A–12–15)36ddc(A–14–10)02acb 

1,500 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN 

MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

1,000 

500 

0 

Figure 25. Chemical composition of waters from wells in various locations, Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. A, Specific conductance; 

B, Calcium, magnesium, and sodium; C, Chloride and sulfate; D, Silica. 
Water Chemistry 63 

C. Concentrations of chloride and sulfate 

LOWER TONTO UPPER TONTO PAYSON SHELF PINE-STRAWBERRY COLORADO 

CREEK BASIN CREEK BASIN AREA PLATEAU 

D. Concentration of silica 

8 16 22 35 45 90 91 121 125 128 133 68 70 77 83 98 115 141 150 164 177 180 137 138 183 216 

LOWER TONTO UPPER TONTO PAYSON SHELF PINE-STRAWBERRY COLORADO 

CREEK BASIN CREEK BASIN AREA PLATEAU 

NOTE: See fig. 24 for correspondence of numbers and well names

 to location and table 8 for chemical composition values. 

Repeated locations represent multiple sampling and analyses 

(A–05–11)08bbc2(A–06–10)14abd1(A–06–10)26aba2

(A–07–10)23cdc(A–09–10)24dcc

(A–10H12)19dad(A–10H12)24aab

(A–11–11)H05dcd

(A–11–12)32bba(A–11–13)29ccd (A–11–13)36cac(A–10–10)05ccb(A–10–10)08aba

(A–10–10)22dbd1(A–10–10)28bca2(A–11–10)23aad3(A–11–11)31adc1 

(A–11H10)24bdc2 

(A–12–08)21cdd(A–12–08)27bbc

(A–12–09)30bbc1 

(A–12–10)26cbb (A–11–14)22cbd (A–11–15)07cbb(A–12–15)36ddc(A–14–10)02acb 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

90
 

80
 

SILICA CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

(A–05–11)08bbc2(A–06–10)14abd1(A–06–10)26aba2

(A–07–10)23cdc(A–09–10)24dcc

(A–10H12)19dad(A–10H12)24aab

(A–11–11)H05dcd

(A–11–12)32bba(A–11–13)29ccd (A–11–13)36cac(A–10–10)05ccb(A–10–10)08aba

(A–10–10)22dbd1(A–10–10)28bca2(A–11–10)23aad3(A–11–11)31adc1 

(A–11H10)24bdc2 

(A–12–08)21cdd(A–12–08)27bbc

(A–12–09)30bbc1 

(A–12–10)26cbb (A–11–14)22cbd (A–11–15)07cbb(A–12–15)36ddc(A–14–10)02acb 

400 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

350 Chloride Sulfate 

8 16 22 35 45 90 91 121 125 128 133 68 70 77 83 98 115 141 150 164 177 180 137 138 183 216

CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

Figure 25. Continued. 
Table 9. Summary statistics of water-chemistry data for Mogollon Highlands streams 

[μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per liter] 

Water 

Specific temper­ Dissolved Magne­ Potasconduct­ ature Oxygen, Hardness solids Calcium, sium, Sodium, sium, 

ance (degrees dissolved (mg/L as (tons per dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved 

Statistic (μS/cm) pH, field Celsius) (mg/L) CaCO3) day) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 

Tonto Creek above Gun Creek (09499000). Samples collected 01–28–1976 to 05–28–1992 

Maximum 660 8.90 31.0 17.2 220 620 59 17 52 2.6 

Minimum 142 7.20 2.0 5.8 64 .23 18 4.7 4.5 .80 

Mean 419 8.17 18.6 9.5 150 58 42 11 29 1.8 

Median 424 8.20 19.5 9.2 150 19 42 12 31 1.8 

Standard deviation 127 .35 8.0 2.2 29 110 7.6 2.7 14 .51 

Coefficient of variation .30 .04 .4 .2 .19 1.8 .18 .23 .49 .28 

Number of samples 60 59 59 44 58 56 58 58 58 57 

West Clear Creek near Camp Verde (09505800). Samples collected 09–15–1967 to 03–24–2000 

Maximum 380 8.75 27.1 11.3 200 490 42 24 7.5 1.9 

Minimum 65 5.58 5.5 7.3 35 6.5 8.6 3.3 1.1 .68 

Mean 320 8.38 15.5 9.2 150 41 31 18 4.9 1.2 

Median 353 8.55 15.1 9.3 170 9.6 34 21 5.6 1.2 

Standard deviation 88 .46 5.8 1.0 53 88 10 6.7 1.6 .24 

Coefficient of variation .28 .05 .4 .1 .35 2.2 .33 .37 .33 .19 

Number of samples 99 99 98 90 65 62 65 65 63 63 

East Verde River near Childs (09507980). Samples collected 12–04–1990 to 05–30–2000 

Maximum 800 8.59 30.6 11.6 250 250 61 24 94 4.9 

Minimum 195 7.76 6.0 5.6 87 .05 23 7.1 4.0 .74 

Mean 413 8.35 17.8 8.9 180 23 41 18 20 1.9 

Median 402 8.40 17.0 8.8 180 11 40 18 14 1.6 

Standard deviation 104 .19 7.6 1.5 28 44 7.3 3.2 19 .93 

Coefficient of variation .25 .02 .4 .2 .16 2.0 .18 .17 .94 .49 

Number of samples 56 55 56 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 

Wet Bottom Creek near Childs (09508300). Samples collected 01–29–1968 to 01–29–1996 

Maximum 580 12.00 32.0 12.2 240 35 62 20 40 3.4 

Minimum 17 6.00 .2 5.4 18 .02 4.8 1.1 2.5 .50 

Mean 258 7.81 16.0 8.8 94 2.5 25 7.4 19 1.2 

Median 282 7.90 15.0 8.4 100 .45 27 7.8 20 1.2 

Standard deviation 129 .70 7.1 1.5 47 5.6 13 3.8 10 .44 

Coefficient of variation .50 .09 .4 .2 .50 2.3 .50 .51 .54 .36 

Number of samples 190 183 223 119 176 171 176 176 176 176 

64 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 65 

Table 9. Summary statistics for water chemistry in Mogollon Highland streams—Continued 

 Sulfate, dissolved Chloride, Fluoride, dissolved Silica, dissolved Suspended sediment 

Statistic (mg/L) dissolved (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 

Tonto Creek above Gun Creek (09499000). Samples collected 01–28–1976 to 05–28–1992 

Maximum 21 92 0.70 18 2,200 

Minimum 5.9 3.2 .20 9.0 .00 

Mean 14 44.6 .38 13 99 

Median 15 46.5 .40 12 8.5 

Standard deviation 2.8 25 .12 2.4 430 

Coefficient of variation .19 .57 .32 .19 4.3 

Number of samples 56 58 57 58 26 

West Clear Creek near Camp Verde (09505800). Samples collected 09–15–1967 to 03–24–2000 

Maximum 9.7 6.2 0.20 19 2,700 

Minimum 1.0 .69 .00 9.1 1.0 

Mean 2.4 3.1 .11 15 66 

Median 2.1 3.4 .10 15 4.0 

Standard deviation 1.5 1.1 .03 2.0 370 

Coefficient of variation .62 .35 .29 .13 5.6 

Number of samples 65 63 34 65 54 

East Verde River near Childs (09507980). Samples collected 12–04–1990 to 05–30–2000 

Maximum 20 54 1.3 16 180 

Minimum 3.6 2.8 .10 8.6 .10 

Mean 8.2 11 .34 12 13 

Median 7.2 7.9 .30 11 4.0 

Standard deviation 3.9 9.5 .26 2.8 29 

Coefficient of variation .47 .84 .74 .23 2.2 

Number of samples 56 56 55 11 50 

Wet Bottom Creek near Childs (09508300). Samples collected 01–29–1968 to 01–29–1996 

Maximum 28 30 3.3 52 110 

Minimum .00 1.5 .00 7.9 .00 

Mean 8.0 8.5 1.4 29 4.8 

Median 7.6 8.2 1.5 30 2.0 

Standard deviation 3.8 4.9 .74 9.2 13 

Coefficient of variation .47 .58 .52 .32 2.7 

Number of samples 172 176 176 176 167 
Table 10. Oxygen and hydrogen isotope values for Mogollon Highlands springs 

Map code δ18O δ2H 

(see figs. 20 and 23) Spring or station name Date (per mil) (per mil) 

5 Blue north1 04–09–1981 -10.40 -78.00 

11 A-12-07 21DCD 08–22–2000 -10.10 -72.60 

14 Fossil2 08–22–2000 -11.60 -79.50

14 Fossil2 08–22–2000 -11.58 -81.20

14 Fossil2 08–22–2000 -11.55 -80.00 

22 Tonto Natural Bridge 08–24–2000 -10.88 -78.00 

25 Dripping 08–24–2000 -11.29 -76.70

28 Red Rock 08–25–2000 -11.11 -77.30 

29 Grapevine 04–20–2001 -9.67 -70.20

31 Grimes 09–10–2000 -9.76 -73.30

32 Turkey north 08–25–2000 -11.03 -74.90 

35 Geronimo 09–09–2000 -11.64 -80.00

36 Lee Johnson 08–23–2000 -10.44 -71.80 

39 Webber 09–09–2000 -10.14 -71.50

43 Washington 09–06–2002 -11.55 -78.00

50 Indian Gardens 09–11–2000 -11.18 -76.00 

52 Tonto 09–11–2000 -10.34 -72.20

53 Bootleg 06–15–2001 -10.87 -75.10

56 Horton 09–11–2000 -11.43 -77.60

59 Nappa 09–11–2000 -10.84 -73.60

61 See 09–11–2000 -11.44 -77.80

63 Allenbaugh 04–19–2001 -10.60 -73.00

1Obtained from U.S. Geological Survey water-quality database. All other samples collected in this study. 2Samples collected from three different outlets. 

Table 11. Strontium isotope values for spring waters and host rocks 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; N, normal; NA, not applicable] 

87Sr/86Sr for 

Map code Strontium 87Sr/86Sr for source rocks 

(see fig. 20) Spring or station name (μg/L) spring water (0.1N HCl leach) Source rocks 

NA NA NA NA 0.71225 Coconino Sandstone1 

25 Dripping 160 0.70719 .70894 Schnebly Hill Formation (siltstone) 

31 Grimes 1,140 .70577 .70539 Payson granite 

61 See 115 .70900 .70928 Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) 

28 Red Rock 125 .70782 .70894 Supai Formation (siltstone) 

52 Tonto 40 .71076 .71036 Schnebly Hill Formation (limestone) 

39 Webber 100 .71132 .71018 Martin Formation (limestone)

32 Turkey (north) 102 .70724 .70894 Supai Formation (siltstone) 

22 Tonto Natural Bridge 165 .70912 .71233 Tapeats Sandstone 

14 Fossil 275 .70899 .70905 Naco Formation (limestone) 

.70865 Redwall Limestone 

11 A-12-07 21DCD 445 .70594 .70617 Tertiary volcanics 

1None of springs sampled for strontium analysis discharge from Coconino Sandstone, but recharge occurs through these rocks for most springs. 

66 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Chemistry 67 

Of the Colorado Plateau springs with the most 

dilute waters, (A-12-13H)01BBD has a significantly 

higher silica concentration than (A-12-12)11BAB and 

(A-12-10)01BDA (fig. 22D), suggesting a longer groundwater residence time. This is consistent with the northerly 

ground-water flow in the vicinity of this spring based on 

the potentiometric-surface map by Hart and others (2002) 

and the flow gradient in this area being lower than in the 

vicinity of the Mogollon Rim. Colorado Plateau springs 

in the West Clear Creek drainage—Pivot Rock, Bear, 

and Buckhorn Springs—have higher solute and silica 

concentrations than those mentioned above (fig. 22A, D). 

These springs discharge in an area of basaltic rocks, 

the glassy matrix of which is much more soluble than 

sandstone components. Spring (A-12-11)12AAC 

(table 7, no. 48 and fig. 20), though discharging on the 

Colorado Plateau above the Mogollon Rim, generally has 

higher solute concentrations than the most dilute springs 

(fig. 22A). Its lower calcium-magnesium ratio (fig. 22B) 

and much higher bicarbonate concentration (table 7) and 

calcium-sodium ratio suggest contact with the Kaibab 

Formation during recharge, and its low sodium and silica 

concentrations suggest a residence time on the order of 

that of spring (A-12-12)11BAB (fig. 22B, D). 

As noted earlier, the chemistries of all springs below 

the Mogollon Rim derive from the rock and water 

chemistries of those geologic units on the Colorado 

Plateau. Their calcium-sodium ratios are compatible with 

the expected reaction of waters with arenaceous rocks, 

such as the Coconino Sandstone and the upper sandstone 

unit of the Schnebly Hill Formation. Variations from this 

initial signature result from flow through other rock 

types. Large calcium-sodium ratios and high silica 

concentrations of springs (A-12-07)21DCD and 

(A-12-07)22C UNSURV (table 7, nos. 11 and 12 and 

figs. 20 and 22B, D) in Fossil Creek Canyon reflect flow 

through and discharge from the basaltic rocks that cap 

Hardscrabble Mesa. In addition, the aqueous strontiumisotope ratio (87Sr/86Sr) of spring 

(A-12-07)21DCD is in close agreement with that of 

a basalt sample from this locale collected during this 

study (table 11), confirming the basaltic signature. 

The principal direction of regional ground-water flow 

in the vicinity of these two springs is to the southwest; 

however, springs (A-12-07)21D UNSURV and 

(A-12-07)22C UNSURV are on north-facing slopes 

below Hardscrabble Mesa (fig. 1) and are supplied by 

ground-water flow to the northwest. These springs, 

therefore, almost certainly are not connected to the 

regional flow system and only drain the Hardscrabble 

Mesa basalts. The δ2H and δ18O data for spring 

(A-12-07)21DCD indicate that the water has a significant 

component of precipitation thatreflect conditions warmer 

than those which controlled the isotopic signature of 

paleorecharge in Fossil Springs (fig. 23). 

The δ2H and δ18O data for Fossil Springs, from 

samples collected at three different spring outlets, are 

at the light end of the data range, indicating colder 

recharge conditions than present-day conditions 

(table 10, no. 14 and fig. 23). The spring chemistry is 

indicative of recharge through the Coconino Sandstone 

and flow through limestone because it is a calcium 

magnesium bicarbonate water that has, except for silica 

and some minor solutes, the highest solute concentrations 

of all the springs (fig. 22A–D). The spring discharges 

essentially at the contact of the Redwall Limestone and 

the overlying Naco Formation, which have strontium 

isotope ratios of 0.70865 and 0.70905, respectively 

(table 11). The corresponding value for Fossil Springs 

water is 0.70899. This close correspondence suggests the 

strontium-isotope imprint of the Redwall and Naco rocks 

has been superimposed on Fossil Springs water over 

the initial strontium-isotope signatures the water would 

have obtained from reaction with feldspar grains and 

secondary calcite cement in the Coconino Sandstone that 

has a 87Sr/86Sr value of 0.71225. 

Tonto Natural Bridge Spring, southeast of Fossil 

Creek, has similar chemical characteristics as Fossil 

Springs, but is slightly more dilute (table 7, no. 22 and 

figs. 20 and 22A). A relatively high silica concentration, 

however, reflects the influence of basaltic rocks that cap 

the Paleozoic rocks that flank the spring (fig. 22D). 

The δ2H and δ18O values indicate a small degree of 

enrichment over the waters of Fossil Springs (table 10, 

no. 14 and fig. 23). Big Spring and Webber Spring are 

both in the East Verde River drainage basin and they 

have similar concentrations of dissolved solids (table 7, 

nos. 37 and 39 and figs. 20 and 22A) and are more dilute 

than Tonto Natural Bridge Spring. Isotope values for 

Webber Spring are at the heavier end of the data range, 

suggesting warmer recharge conditions than for Tonto 

Natural Bridge or Fossil Springs (fig. 23). On the other 

hand, both Geronimo and Washington Springs, which are 

in the headwaters of the East Verde River drainage, have 

δ2H and δ18O values near the light end of the data range 

(table 10, nos. 35 and 43 and figs. 20 and 23), and Turkey 

Spring in the headwaters of Webber Creek, a tributary of 

the East Verde River, has δ2H and δ18O values in the 

middle of the range (table 10, no. 32 and figs. 20 and 23). 

Dripping Springs discharges on the western side of 

Milk Ranch Point, a south-jutting promontory of the 

Mogollon Rim (figs. 1 and 20). This spring differs from 
68 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

others at or adjacent to the Mogollon Rim in that its silica 

concentration is higher (table 7, no. 25 and fig. 22D), 

suggesting that it is influenced by the volcanic rocks 

that cap the promontory. Its δ2H and δ18O values are 

similar to those of other springs discharging from the 

face of the Mogollon Rim and suggest a slightly larger 

component of warmer recharge, which could be expected 

with recharge of local, recent cold-season precipitation 

through the capping volcanic rocks (fig. 23). This seems 

more likely than enrichment of a Colorado Plateau 

source, as the spring discharges at a low rate from within 

the Schnebly Hill Formation. Its stratigraphic position 

and relatively high bicarbonate and calcium concentrations, together with its 87Sr/86Sr value, suggest that 

most of the dissolved strontium contribution is due to 

basalt-water interaction, and that the spring discharge 

does not include a significant component of water 

recharged through the Colorado Plateau (table 11). 

Springs near or below the base of the Mogollon Rim 

for which chemical analyses are available—Tonto 

Natural Bridge, Webber, (A-11H10)24BCA1, Indian 

Gardens, Bear Flat, and R-C Springs—tend to have 

higher calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations 

than springs discharging from the rim face because of 

longer travel and water-rock interaction times (table 7, 

nos. 22, 39, 42, 50, 54, and 58 and fig. 22B). The ranges 

in concentrations of individual solutes also are a function 

of the rock types traversed by the individual flow paths. 

Indian Gardens and R-C Springs and Spring 

(A-11H10)24BCA1 are nearest the face of the Mogollon 

Rim within this group and about equidistant from it 

(table 7, nos. 50, 58, 42). On the basis of the most recent 

analytical data, the chemistry of Indian Gardens 

resembles that of Spring (A-11H10)24BCA1 in relative 

solute concentrations (table 7 and fig. 22B), but Indian 

Gardens has the highest specific conductance value in the 

group of seven, and individual concentrations are about 

double those of Spring (A-11H10)24BCA1 (table 7, 

no. 42 and fig. 22A). Both issue from lower Paleozoic 

rocks, and their chemistries are dominated by interaction 

with limestone (calcium magnesium bicarbonate) waters. 

The Indian Gardens water, however, is chemically more 

evolved, suggesting a longer flow path and residence 

time (table 7, no. 50 and fig. 22B). Bear Flat Spring 

chemically resembles R-C Spring in its relative chemical 

abundance (table 7, nos. 54 and 58; fig. 22B). 

The isotopic signature of Grimes and Grapevine 

Springs, discharging from mafic granitic rocks east of 

Payson (table 10, nos. 29 and 31 and figs. 20 and 23), 

show enrichment indicative of warm-water recharge or 

evaporation. The springs are in fractured rocks in an 

area of rugged topography but low relief and are likely 

recharged by recent warm-water precipitation falling on 

relatively low altitudes. They are isotopically closest to 

Lee Johnson Spring on the southern edge of the Colorado 

Plateau (table 10, no. 36 and figs. 20 and 23), another 

spring that appears to discharge from a shallow groundwater system and is probably recharged locally as well 

as spring (A-12-07)21DCD that is discussed above 

(table 10, no. 11). Grimes and Grapevine are also similar 

isotopically to Webber Spring and Tonto Spring, both of 

which appear to indicate mixing of more recent warmer 

recharge waters with the older waters of the C aquifer, 

perhaps as a result of rapid infiltration through a 

fractured rock system. 

Chemistry of Well Waters

 The chemical composition of Mogollon Highlands 

well waters show little spatial correlation, and generalizations of constituent concentrations and geographic 

location are difficult to make. For the most part, well 

waters are dilute and have the most consistently low 

values of specific conductance in the Pine-Strawberry 

area and the lower Tonto Creek Basin (table 8 and 

figs. 24 and 25A); however, in the case of PineStrawberry, well chemistry data are few. Specific 

conductance values generally are less than 600 μs/cm in 

well waters throughout the study area, but values of more 

than 1,000 μs/cm are found in water in wells scattered 

mainly across the Payson shelf and in the carbonate rocks 

of the upper Tonto Creek Basin. The highest silica 

concentrations tend to be in the waters of wells along 

the Payson shelf, reflecting the influence of igneous 

and metamorphic rocks in which the wells are drilled. 

The high variability in ionic constituents (figs. 25B, C) 

reflect the complexity of flow paths throughout the 

study area. 

Chemistry of Surface Waters 

Water-chemistry samples have been collected from 

four streams in the Mogollon Highlands during varying 

time periods (table 9). Because samples usually are 

collected during base-flow conditions, the chemical 

make up of the waters may reflect ground-water 

chemistry to some extent. The samples found to be the 

most dilute were collected in the waters of West Clear 

Creek, which primarily drains the Coconino Sandstone 

of the C aquifer, and Wet Bottom Creek, which drains the 

metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Mazatzal 

Mountains. Maximum and average values of specific 
conductance are lowest for the samples from these two 

streams; however, the relative constituent concentrations 

do not vary significantly from those of the samples from 

the waters of East Verde River and Tonto Creek, which 

drain the carbonate rocks of the limestone aquifer before 

flowing into the igneous and metamorphic terranes of 

their lower reaches. Surface-water chemistry seems to 

reflect the generally low degree of chemical evolution in 

Mogollon Highlands waters. 

Hydrogeologic Framework and 

Conceptual Model 

Data on water levels, spring discharge, and spring 

altitudes are primarily for the upper part of the stream 

basins that drain the study area; long-term streamflow 

records are all for locations near the southern and 

eastern boundaries of the study area. A reasonable 

approximation of the ground-water system and its 

geologic controls can, therefore, be constructed for the 

upper basins. Between the base of the Mogollon Rim 

and the drainage outlets, however, few data are available, 

except in the Payson granitic aquifer and in the shallow 

alluvial aquifer of lower Tonto Creek. Delineation of 

ground-water flow paths in much of the study area is 

problematic because of the presence of multiple waterbearing zones and because many published water levels 

in wells are based upon anecdotal reports as much as 

50 years old. Consequently, attempts to define such flow 

paths, especially in deeper water-bearing zones, must be 

considered tentative. Some characteristics of the groundwater system can be derived from analysis of surfacewater records, particularly the relative contribution of 

base flow and runoff to the total water budget and the 

relative unit-values of water yield. Nonetheless, chemical 

characteristics, distribution and flow characteristics of 

springs and wells, and their relation to geologic and 

topographic features suggests that the C aquifer is the 

origin of virtually all the regional ground-water flow 

within the study area, including that which discharges 

from the underlying limestone aquifer (figs. 26 and 27). 

Recharge Zone 

Feth and Hem (1963) provided a descriptive view of 

recharge processes along the Mogollon Rim. Water from 

precipitation and snowmelt percolates through the 

permeable volcanic, limestone, or sandstone units to the 

rocks below. The Mogollon Rim within the study area is 

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model 69 

capped primarily by volcanic rocks in the west and by 

as much as 1,200 ft of Coconino Sandstone in the east. 

The Coconino Sandstone generally underlies the 

volcanic rocks as well. The ground-water system of the 

study area originates primarily from a narrow recharge 

zone of about 225 mi2 along the crest of the Mogollon 

Rim. On the basis of PRISM (Parameter-elevation 

Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) data, an 

average of 31.2 in/yr of precipitation, about 375,000 acreft, falls on the this area between the top edge of the 

Mogollon Rim and the C aquifer ground-water divide, 

from Cibecue Creek on the east and West Clear Creek on 

the west (figs. 5 and 26). Beneath that recharge zone, Hart 

and others (2002) describe a mound of ground water, the 

top of which is within the Coconino Sandstone at an 

altitude of 6,800 ft, about 700 ft below the land surface 

(fig. 26). The spatial distribution of high-discharge 

springs in regional carbonate aquifers and chemical 

characteristics of waters from those springs point to a 

source in the Coconino Sandstone. Little evidence exists 

of significant discharge from the Coconino Sandstone, 

except for that issuing from Buckhorn Spring and in base 

flow of West Clear Creek in the northwestern part of the 

study area (fig. 15, no. 15). Wells on the Colorado Plateau 

north of the Mogollon Rim, however, generally are 

producing from the Coconino Sandstone, indicating 

that the highest potentiometric surface is within the 

formation. The Coconino Sandstone forms a sheer cliff 

face along the top of the Mogollon Rim, but seeps and 

springs are not abundant. The highest altitude springs that 

produce significant discharge are those flowing from the 

Fort Apache Member of the Schnebly Hill Formation in 

the headwaters of Tonto and Canyon Creeks. 

Other major springs in the study area discharge 

from the limestone aquifer that includes all the Paleozoic 

sedimentary units from the Naco Formation to the 

basement rocks, which can be either Tapeats Sandstone 

or Proterozoic crystalline rocks (fig. 15). Chemical 

evidence, distribution of springs, and known flow paths 

suggest that the limestone aquifer is recharged primarily 

from vertical flow originating in the overlying C aquifer. 

The maximum possible extent of the limestone aquifer 

is controlled by the boundaries of the carbonate rocks 

as suggested in isopach maps that show the Redwall 

Limestone pinching out in the northeastern corner of the 

study area (McKee and Gutschick,1969) and the Martin 

Formation pinching out to the northeast beneath the Little 

Colorado River (Teichert, 1965). 
Ri e r 

Ri 

Ve 

e 

F 

ine 

t 

C 

C 

C 

Verde 

S 

C 

k 

c 

e 

y a mor 

E 

River 

ast 

reek 

lear 

West 

e re

k 

C ek

re 

o ss il 

rd 

ver 

Salt 

Cr k ee 

Cr k 

noyna C 

ee 

To nt o 

Cr 

k ee 

Ch ry er 

C 

Creek 

ibec eu 

ree 

2,100

2,800

2,200

6,

6,

6,700

6,000

6,

6,800

6 0 0

40 0

6,200

Ground-water divide

5,800

4 0 0

5,0

0 0

8 4,

00

6 4,

00

4,200

4,400

3,000

2,600

2,400

2,300

3,200

v 

aquifer

Limestone 

aquifer

Canyon Spring 67 

111o30’ 111o 

87 

C aquifer 34o30’ 

260 

Tonto Spring 52 

P 

Payson 110o30’ 

Alluvial 188 34o 

0 10 MILES

0 10 KILOMETERS

87 Modified from Hart and others, 2002; Theodore Owen-Joyce and Bell, 1983; and 

Roosevelt Freethey and Anderson, 1986 

Lake 

EXPLANATION 

6,200 POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows altitude at which

 water level would stand in a tightly cased well on the

 basis of average values to 2002. Contour interval 100 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1982 

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 12 and 200 feet. Datum is NGVD of 1929 

NOTE: Tail on symbol is not intended to indicate direction of discharge 

70 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

Figure 26. Potentiometric surfaces of the C aquifer, limestone aquifer, and alluvial aquifer in the lower Tonto Creek Basin, 

Mogollon Highlands, Arizona. 
COLORADO LATEAU 

ot noT

Creek 

yrrehC

Creek 

Canyon

Creek 

Cibecue

Creek 

keer C

rael C tse W 

V tsa E 

erde

River 

LIMESTONE AQUIFER 

P 

Canyon Springs 

Tonto Spring Pieper 

Hatchery Horton Spring Spring C AQUIFER 

See Spring 

SUPAI FORMATION 

Fossil
 

Spring
 

Local 

springs 

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model 71 

Figure 27. Schematic diagram of the ground-water system in the Mogollon Highlands, central Arizona. 

No attempt has been made to delineate a ground-water 

divide for the limestone aquifer, although it presumably 

trends roughly parallel to the ground-water divide of the 

C aquifer on the Colorado Plateau (fig. 26). Additional 

recharge of the limestone aquifer can occur by infiltration 

of streamflow originating on the upper slopes of the 

Mogollon Rim as a result of runoff or discharge from the 

C aquifer springs, or from precipitation on the face of the 

Mogollon Rim and the tablelands near the base of the rim 

where limestone rocks are exposed. For most of the study 

area, recharge from precipitation or runoff is not likely to 

be a major component of the total water budget for the 

limestone aquifer because the Mogollon Rim face is 

quite steep with slopes of 10 to nearly 100 percent, 

and the tablelands are primarily a discharge area where 

much of the limestone aquifer is drained. For recharge 

to take place below the top of the Mogollon Rim, rapid 

vertical flow through large, open-joint or cavern systems 

would have to occur if the water were to reach the 

aquifer upstream from the principal discharge points. 

Some mixing of recent recharge with spring flow is 

suggested by the hydrogen and oxygen isotopic signature 

of Tonto Natural Bridge and Webber Springs (table 10, 

nos. 22 and 39 and fig. 23). 

One area where local recharge of the limestone 

aquifer might be significant is along the eastern edge of 

the study area near Cibecue Creek where a southeasttrending plateau is capped by middle Paleozoic rocks. 

The more subdued slopes of this area and the presence of 

major structures along the western boundary of the 

plateau could facilitate local recharge (figs. 1 and 4). 

Numerous springs appear along the canyon walls 

flanking Cibecue Creek; however, they have not been 

inventoried by any State or Federal agency, and there are 

no data available on their flow characteristics that would 

help evaluate the likelihood of local recharge in this area. 
72 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

The study area includes several local aquifers that 

have little or no hydraulic connection to the regional 

aquifers and, therefore, must be recharged locally. 

These aquifers include the water-bearing zones of the 

Schnebly Hill Formation in the Strawberry area and the 

Supai Formation in the Pine area and in the western 

headwaters of the East Verde River. Several lines of 

evidence suggest that these aquifers share a common, 

restricted recharge zone on the crest of the Mogollon 

Rim. Such evidence includes, the absence of highdischarge carbonate springs within the Schnebly Hill 

Formation, the similarity in δ2H and δ18O values among 

low-discharge springs—Dripping, Red Rock, and 

Turkey Springs (table 10, nos. 25, 28 and 32 and 

fig. 23)—emanating from siltstones and very fine 

sandstones below Milk Ranch Point (figs. 1 and 20), and 

the high silica concentrations of Dripping Springs waters 

(table 10, no. 25 and fig. 22D) indicative of flow through 

basaltic rocks that cap Milk Ranch Point. 

Other local recharge zones within the study area 

include the basalt-covered mesas of Fossil Creek 

Canyon, the Payson granite and related granitic rocks 

that form the Payson Shelf, and the upper slopes of the 

Mazatzal Mountains and Sierra Ancha. Virtually all the 

water-bearing zones in the Payson granite are locally 

recharged by percolation of meteoric waters through 

fractures and weathered rock. Ploughe (2001) suggests, 

however, that deeper water-bearing zones may occur in 

fractures that capture ground-water flow from the 

Mogollon Rim. 

Within the Proterozoic rocks of the Mazatzal 

Mountains and Sierra Ancha, the occurrence of some 

low-discharge springs and base flow in the streams 

draining those mountains, especially Cherry Creek, 

suggest that these areas are at least minor recharge zones. 

Upper Discharge Zone 

The sedimentary rocks that compose the C aquifer 

are drained by at least 36 springs along the face of the 

Mogollon Rim. The most important discharge points are 

West Clear Creek, including Buckhorn Spring, on the 

western edge of the study area, and the high-volume 

springs in upper Tonto and Canyon Creeks to the east 

(figs. 15 and 27). Except for Buckhorn Spring, which is 

on the Colorado Plateau, all the springs having reported 

discharges of more than 100 gal/min discharge from 

carbonate rocks (fig. 15 and table 4). From Pieper 

Hatchery Spring in the uppermost headwaters of East 

Verde River east to Tonto and Canyon Creeks, highdischarge springs flow from the Schnebly Hill 

Formation, mainly from the Fort Apache Member. 

Spring altitudes in this area range from about 6,200 to 

6,800 ft, which is about 800 to 1,300 ft below the crest of 

the Mogollon Rim. 

 The absence of significant spring discharge above 

the Fort Apache Member indicates that the movement of 

water within the highly fractured Coconino Sandstone 

and in the Schnebly Hill Formation is primarily vertical 

until it reaches the limestone of the Fort Apache Member 

(fig. 27). Chemical data for Horton and Tonto Springs 

in the headwaters of Tonto Creek and for See Spring in 

the headwaters of Christopher Creek, show similar 

calcium-magnesium ratios that are indicative of water 

that has flowed through clastic rocks (table 7, nos. 56, 52, 

and 61 and fig. 22B). Low silica concentrations in these 

waters suggest little chemical evolution, an indication 

of rapid ground-water flow from the recharge site to 

the springs. 

Flow characteristics vary from one spring to 

another. Long-term records of flow from Tonto Spring 

show little fluctuation in base flow over a 20-year period 

(fig. 16A). Stability of flow in Tonto Spring results from 

its location about 300 ft below the crest of the groundwater mound (fig. 26). In the headwaters of Christopher 

Creek, See and Nappa Springs appear to be considerably 

less stable, but few discharge measurements have been 

published (table 4, nos. 61 and 59). Both springs 

discharge from bouldery alluvium, so it is not clear 

whether they issue originally from the Fort Apache 

Member or from other rocks in the Schnebly Hill or 

Supai Formations. Fluctuation of discharge most likely 

reflects their location near the top of the ground-water 

mound (fig. 26) where they are affected by changes in 

its altitude. 

Discharge at Canyon Springs was stable until the 

mid 1990s when its average discharge declined from 

about 2,500 to 1,500 gal/min (fig. 16A). Canyon Springs 

are situated at an altitude of 6,800 ft, which is also near 

the top of the ground-water mound (fig. 15, no. 67). 

Consequently, the springs are susceptible to the effects of 

short-term climatic fluctuations that result in changes to 

the water table at the top of the C aquifer. The reduction 

in discharge from Canyon Springs might reflect drought 

conditions of recent years. Although there are a few wells 

on the Colorado Plateau above the spring outlets, there 

has been no recent large increase in well development 

that would be likely to produce such an abrupt change in 

spring discharge by a lowering of the regional groundwater table. 
Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model 73 

In the East Verde River drainage, Pieper Hatchery 

Spring discharges from the Fort Apache Member of the 

Schnebly Hill Formation (table 4, no. 45 and fig. 15). 

The only published discharge is an estimated value of 

125 gal/min. Discharges from other springs in the 

headwaters of the East Verde River typically are less than 

10 gal/min. The paucity of flow from springs discharging 

from the sand and siltstones of the Supai Formation 

parallels the generally poor productivity of wells in that 

unit in the Pine area (Kaczmarek, 2003). West of Pieper 

Hatchery Spring there is little or no discharge directly 

from the C aquifer along the face of the Mogollon Rim. 

Indeed, the only major discharge point from the C aquifer 

in the western part of the study area appears to be within 

the persistent base flow of West Clear Creek (table 3), 

part of which is supplied by discharge from Buckhorn 

Spring. The absence of significant discharge from the 

Mogollon Rim face west of the East Verde River implies 

some structural control that blocks lateral ground-water 

flow. Such structural control could be a feature that 

diverts flow vertically into the limestone aquifer. 

Except for West Clear Creek, base flow in excess 

of spring flow in the upper reaches of streams draining 

the face of the Mogollon Rim does not seem to be a 

significant source of discharge from the C aquifer. 

Most flow in the upper channel reaches in excess of 

spring flow is almost certainly runoff rather than groundwater discharge. 

Lower Discharge Zone 

The lower discharge zone is that area on the lower 

slopes of the Mogollon Rim face and the tablelands 

formed by the Naco Formation at the base of the 

Supai Formation, and the Redwall Limestone, Martin 

Formation, and Tapeats Sandstone, where present. 

The underlying Proterozoic rocks are the base of the 

ground-water flow system, but deep fractures may permit 

flow into those rocks. With a few exceptions, spring 

discharge is highly variable from the limestone aquifer 

of this zone. Heterogeneities in geologic structure, 

lithology, or both result in variable travel lengths, 

residence times, flow stability, flow volume, and 

chemical composition of spring waters. The dilute nature 

of spring waters draining the limestone aquifer indicates 

such waters are little evolved and probably share a 

common source. 

The main discharge areas are Fossil Springs, which 

account for about 60 percent of recorded spring flow in 

the study area, and Cibecue Creek, where base flow 

accounts for about 50 percent of total annual streamflow, 

suggesting a strong ground-water component of streamflow (figs. 13 and 27). Cibecue Creek also flows for most 

of its length through a canyon, cut into Paleozoic rocks, 

where numerous springs discharge from the cliffs above 

the stream. Between Fossil and Cibecue Creeks, most 

discharge from the limestone aquifer is at springs in the 

East Verde River and Tonto Creek Basins. All springs 

with discharges greater than 100 gal/min flow from 

carbonate rocks except Tonto Natural Bridge and R-C 

Springs, which discharge just below the base of carbonate 

lower Paleozoic rocks. 

Fossil Springs discharges from the base of the 

Naco Formation or the top of the Redwall Limestone 

(table 4, no. 14). Various measurements during the 

past 50 years indicate that these springs maintain a flow 

of about 20,000 gal/min that has varied little (table 4 

and fig. 16C). The volume and stability of spring flow, 

as well as the depleted δ2H and δ18O values, indicate 

that Fossil Springs has a large contributing area and is 

connected with the limestone aquifer by large, open 

structures. The precise location of this connection can 

only be surmised. It is bound by ground-water divides 

to the northwest where flow is toward West Clear Creek 

and to the southeast where flow is toward Pine Creek. 

Gila County drilled exploratory well (A-12-08)29AAA2 

(table 6, no. 166) in the Strawberry area in 2000. The 

water level in the well, 1,380 ft below land surface, may 

indicate the potentiometric surface of the limestone 

aquifer (Corkhill, 2000). Water in the well stands at an 

altitude of 4,376 ft. The well is about 4 mi east of Fossil 

Springs, which has an altitude of about 4,290 ft. If those 

two points are on a flow path at the potentiometric 

surface of the limestone aquifer, the gradient of the water 

table is less than 0.5 percent. 

No long-term records are available for spring 

discharge in the East Verde River drainage, but scattered 

measurements made during the past 50 years indicate 

that discharge is highly variable in some of the springs. 

A 2-year record of flow in Pine Creek below Tonto 

Natural Bridge Spring, however, shows little change 

in base flow, most of which is supplied by the spring 

(fig.16B; Robert Sejkora, water program manager, 

Arizona State Parks, oral commun., 2003). Feth and Hem 

(1963) suggest that the variability of flow in springs of 

the East Verde River and its tributaries indicates that 

the springs are draining an area of low storage. High 

variability would also indicate the possibility of local 

recharge resulting in a rapid response of springs to 

climatic fluctuations. All the springs cited by Feth and 

Hem (1963), The Grotto, Big Spring, and Cold Spring, 

were measured in May and July 1952, and Cold Spring 
74 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

was measured again in November 1952 (table 4 and 

figure 15, nos. 38, 37, and 44). The wide range of 

discharges recorded in that brief period strongly suggests 

that the spring discharge is affected by variations in local 

recharge. With the exception of Pieper Hatchery Spring, 

all high-discharge carbonate springs in the East Verde 

River drainage flow from lower Paleozoic rocks, and of 

those, only Cold Spring discharges on the upthrown 

side of the Diamond Rim Fault (fig. 15, nos. 45 and 44). 

The presence of relatively high-discharge springs in 

Webber Creek and along the East Verde River below the 

Diamond Rim Fault suggests that faulting is influencing 

ground-water discharge in this area. Uplift of the lower 

Paleozoic rocks north of the fault increased the subaerial 

exposure of lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks, enabling 

drainage of a thicker section of the Colorado Plateau 

sediments into the graben below the fault (fig. 15). 

Another fault to the south, running subparallel to the 

Diamond Rim Fault, apparently impedes ground-water 

flow, producing a local bulge in the potentiometric 

surface between the two faults and causing spring 

discharge in Webber Creek and along the East Verde 

River. Tonto Natural Bridge Spring on Pine Creek is 

situated within the same graben to the northwest, 

however, it appears to have more stable discharges than 

the nearby springs. Also, its isotopic signature is more 

similar to that of Fossil Springs, showing relatively cold 

recharge conditions, than that of Webber Springs that 

showed warmer recharge conditions. 

Within the Tonto Creek Basin, springs issuing from 

the limestone aquifer have relatively lower discharge 

and greater variability in flow than Tonto and Horton 

Springs in the upper reaches, which account for more 

flow than all other springs in the basin combined (table 4, 

nos. 52 and 56). Nonetheless, chemical characteristics of 

all springs in the Tonto Creek Basin for which data are 

available show that spring waters are more similar than 

different, indicating their common origin (table 7 and 

fig. 22A–D). Indian Gardens Spring has higher specificconductance values and higher concentrations of 

chemical constituents than neighboring springs, which 

reflects the local variation in hydrogeologic properties 

that affects ground-water flow in the limestone aquifer. 

Tonto Natural Bridge Spring on Pine Creek has 

isotopic and specific-conductance values similar to those 

of Fossil Springs (figs. 22 and 23). Furthermore, flow 

from both springs is apparently stable, although the 

period of time during which flow in Tonto Natural 

Bridge Spring has been measured is considerably less 

than that for Fossil Springs (fig. 16B,C). This suggests 

that the contributing area for Tonto Natural Bridge 

Spring is large enough to assure a constant supply of 

water, presumably from the same aquifer as that which 

supplies Fossil Springs. The slightly greater enrichment 

of δ2H and δ18O values, the chemical evidence of flow 

through basaltic rocks, and the much lower discharge 

indicate that the Tonto Natural Bridge Spring is not as 

well connected to the limestone aquifer and that some 

local recharge is contributing to the flow. In Pine, a well 

that was completed in November 2002 hit water at a 

depth of 894 ft below land surface (altitude of 4,608 ft) in 

the Redwall Limestone (Michael Ploughe, hydrologist, 

Arizona Hydrologic Source, oral commun., 2003). 

The well is within the Pine Creek watershed, but whether 

it is on the Pine Creek or Fossil Creek side of the groundwater divide for the limestone aquifer is uncertain.

 Although the springs in the Diamond Rim Fault 

area are no doubt connected to the limestone aquifer 

and their waters share a common origin with those in 

Tonto Natural Bridge and Fossil Springs, they apparently 

are not as tightly connected to the limestone aquifer. 

A greater amount of mixing of younger meteoric waters 

falling on local recharge zones seems to take place along 

the flow paths leading to the Diamond Rim Fault springs 

as evidenced by the oxygen isotope signature of Webber 

Spring waters (fig. 23, no. 39). 

Local Water-Bearing Zones on the 

Mogollon Rim 

On the upper slopes of the Mogollon Rim area, 

the highest well density is in the Pine and Strawberry 

areas where ground-water flow in the shallow, local 

aquifers follows topography, flowing west toward the 

Verde River in the Strawberry area and south along 

Pine Creek in the Pine area (table 6 and figs.14 and 18). 

In Strawberry, the water-level altitude as reported in 

wells declines from about 5,820 to 5,600 ft over a 

distance of about 2.3 mi. Depth to water generally is 

less than 100 ft. In Pine, the water-level altitude in wells 

declines from about 5,640 to 5,440 ft over a distance 

of about 1.8 mi (table 6 and fig. 18). According to 

Kaczmarek (2003), wells in Strawberry generally are 

more productive and less prone to effects of drought 

than wells in Pine. He suggests this is because of the 

different hydrologic properties of the Schnebly Hill 

Formation, in which most of the wells in Strawberry 

are drilled, and the Supai Formation, in which the wells 

of Pine are drilled, the former having greater primary 

permeability and storage than do the tight siltstones and 

very fine sandstones of the latter. In both places, well 

productivity is dependent on the proximity, density, and 
transmissivity of fractures, but in Pine, the absence of 

significant storage retards the recovery of wells after 

drawdown. The shallow aquifers are poorly connected to 

the regional aquifer system and likely dependent on local 

recharge over a contributing area of limited extent. 

Wells are scattered throughout the tablelands from 

the East Verde River east to Colcord Canyon (figs. 1, 14, 

and 18). Most wells are completed in the Redwall 

Limestone or in the Martin Formation. Those clustered 

along the East Verde River are little more than 10 ft deep 

and probably are in alluvium (figs. 1 and 18). To the east 

near Tonto Village and Kohls Ranch, wells likely are 

completed in the limestone aquifer and water levels 

typically are 100 to 200 ft below land surface. Waterlevel altitudes in wells cluster around 5,600 ft, which is 

similar to the range of altitudes for springs in the area that 

discharge at surface altitudes from 5,640 to 5,350 ft, 

suggesting that springs are issuing from the same aquifer 

as the wells. The only well discharge record for the area 

shows a discharge of 50 gal/min. The wide range of 

spring discharge in the area, from 4 to 800 gal/min, 

illustrates the variability of ground-water flow in the 

tablelands that is a function of geologic structure and 

climatic fluctuations that affect local recharge. 

Local Water-Bearing Zones Below the 

Mogollon Rim 

Records for major streams that flow out of the 

Mogollon Rim indicate that base-flow discharge 

increases downstream under most conditions although 

that flow may not continue without loss all the way to the 

mouth of the stream. Except for the Payson Shelf (fig. 1), 

hydrogeologic characteristics of the predominantly 

Proterozoic rocks across which the East Verde River, 

Tonto Creek, Cherry Creek, and Canyon Creek flow are 

essentially unstudied. The presence of some lowdischarge springs in the Sierra Ancha and Mazatzal 

Mountains and base flow in several streams that drain 

those strata, including Rye Creek, Sycamore Creek, and 

Cherry Creek, suggest the existence of some mountain 

recharge sites. What is not known at present is the extent 

to which ground-water flow makes its way into the lower 

basin by way of faults and fractures within the 

Proterozoic rocks. In the Payson granite, most known 

water-bearing zones are shallow and are dependent on 

winter precipitation to sustain ground-water levels. 

The shallow granite aquifer has little or no connection 

with regional flow systems. Deeper water-bearing zones 

Water Budget 75 

within the Payson granite, however, may be storing or 

transporting flow from the Mogollon Rim (Gæorama, 

Inc., 2003). 

Other Proterozoic rocks in the study area probably 

have similar hydrologic characteristics in that they have 

extremely limited primary permeability but do have 

fracture-controlled secondary permeability. As indicated 

by the few low-flow springs and by the handful of 

shallow wells in Proterozoic rocks along the southeastern 

edge of Tonto Creek below the Mogollon Rim, the waterbearing zones are mainly shallow systems that are 

probably dependent on local winter precipitation to 

sustain water levels. These rocks may also include deepseated fractures through which ground water is 

transmitted from the regional ground-water systems. 

Although many of the Proterozoic faults and fracture 

systems may be too mineralized to allow significant fluid 

movement, some of those systems were reactivated 

during Basin and Range faulting and perhaps serve as 

conduits for ground-water flow. Within the study area, 

the upper reaches of all the major streams trend northeast 

along the same trend as the apparently fracture-controlled 

tributaries of the Little Colorado River on the Colorado 

Plateau or, in the case of Canyon and Cibecue Creeks, 

northwest-trending upper reaches nearly join the headwaters of the north-flowing plateau streams. Because the 

fractures on the plateau are through Paleozoic rocks, they 

are presumably either Basin and Range extensional 

structures or reactivated Proterozoic structures, and 

their continuation on the southern side of the Mogollon 

Rim is not improbable. 

Within the basin fill and Quaternary alluvium of 

the lower Tonto Creek Basin, the shallow aquifer that is 

exploited by wells in the area is likely recharged from 

streamflow and precipitation. Generally higher dissolved 

solids concentrations in the wells of the lower Tonto 

Creek Basin, however, might be evidence of more 

evolved waters that have been transported from the 

regional ground-water system. 

Water Budget 

The water budget is a summation of all the inflows 

to and outflows from the ground-water system. In the 

Mogollon Highlands, the control volume represented 

by the C aquifer south of the ground-water divide is 

fairly well established (Hart and others, 2002) and 

inflow, almost entirely in the form of precipitation, 

can be constrained within tolerable limits. Although a 

30-percent decrease in the flow of Canyon Spring after 
76 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

1992 (fig. 16A) offers some evidence of water-table 

decline in the C aquifer near the crest of the Mogollon 

Rim, the total volume of water in the aquifer has 

probably not fluctuated significantly in historic times 

and can be considered to be in steady-state condition. 

The limestone aquifer is not as well understood, 

however. The extent of the aquifer below the C aquifer 

is not known, nor is its recharge area well constrained. 

Although it is almost certainly recharged by vertical flow 

through large regional structures from the overlying 

C aquifer, the ground-water divide of the limestone 

aquifer, separating that part of the aquifer that flows 

toward the Mogollon Rim from that which flows toward 

the Little Colorado River, has not been delineated, and 

the degree of local recharge occurring on the lower 

slopes of the rim has not been established. Nonetheless, 

the persistence and consistency of flow from Fossil 

Springs and the rather steady base flow of Cibecue 

Creek, which drains the aquifer along the eastern edge of 

the study area, suggest that the volume of water in the 

aquifer does not fluctuate significantly over time, and it 

is probably reasonable to consider the volume as steady 

in the long term. For the purposes of this study, it is 

assumed that the C aquifer and limestone aquifer are 

hydraulically connected, that they share a common 

recharge area above the Mogollon Rim, and that only the 

limestone aquifer receives secondary recharge from 

precipitation falling below the Mogollon Rim crest and 

possibly from spring flow at higher altitudes that 

percolates back into channel bottoms above the 

limestone aquifer. Local water-bearing zones are not 

considered separately in this analysis. 

Ground-Water Budget Data and Approach 

The inflow data used in this study include recharge 

values estimated from areal precipitation totals using 

the PRISM geographic coverages (fig. 5) and published 

recharge rates for the Flagstaff area (Errol L. 

Montgomery and Associates, 1993). Outflow data 

include spring-discharge and stream-discharge records. 

The PRISM coverages consist of a map of contoured 

annual precipitation values that have been generated 

using point precipitation data and digital elevation 

models to model the spatial distribution of precipitation 

(Johnson and Taylor, 2003). The data are organized 

into polygons, which enables calculation of surface area 

over which a given value of average annual precipitation 

falls and which permits calculation of area-weighted 

annual precipitation. 

Almost all the significant spring discharge is from 

the Paleozoic rocks of the Mogollon Rim, and these 

discharges were used to estimate the outflow from the 

C aquifer and limestone aquifer within those rocks 

(table 12). Values of average annual spring discharge 

were estimated from single point discharges where 

those were the only data available, or from averages 

of multiple measurements. Where there were great 

discrepancies between reported values for the same 

spring, estimated or anecdotal values were eliminated 

in favor of measured values when such were available. 

When using such scanty data, considerable error can be 

introduced into the estimates of annual spring discharge; 

however, the four springs or spring systems for which 

good, multiple measurements exist—Fossil Springs, 

Tonto Natural Bridge Spring, Tonto Spring, and Canyon 

Spring—account for about 75 percent of the total 

recorded spring discharge for the study area (table 4, 

nos. 14, 22, 52, and 67). Discharge from non-carbonate 

springs generally is below 10 gal/min, and such springs 

discharge an inconsequential portion of the total water 

budget for the aquifers within the Paleozoic sedimentary 

rocks. The precision and completeness of discharge data, 

or lack thereof, for low-discharge springs is, therefore, 

not of major concern. The most problematic records are 

for those springs that have demonstrated high but 

variable discharge during the few times they have been 

measured. These include Cold Spring, Big Spring, 

See Spring, and The Grotto (table 4, nos. 44, 37, 61, 

and 38). The difference between the extremes of range 

produce changes in the total outflow from the regional 

aquifers of 2 percent greater or 4 percent lower than the 

value obtained by using average or best values, as was 

done here. 

For purposes of calculating the budget, averages 

of multiple measurements were used, except in the case 

of See Spring for which the highest value was discarded 

because technical notes on file in the USGS Tucson 

office indicate that runoff could be included in that 

estimate. Springs having discharges below 10 gal/min 

were not used in calculations of the water budget. Most 

of the smaller springs do not appear to issue from the 

regional aquifer but from local water-bearing rock zones. 

Streamflow records for the six largest streams 

draining the study area were also used to calculate 

outflows from the C and limestone aquifers. On Cherry 

Creek and the East Verde River, records were used from 

two discontinued streamflow-gaging stations (fig. 1 and 

tables 2 and 12) that were near the base of the Mogollon 

Rim, near Young and Payson, respectively, and the short 

records there were extended by regression (table 13). 
Table 12. Stream-discharge, spring-discharge, and precipitation values used to compute water budget for regional aquifer 

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ac-ft/yr, acre-feet per year; gal/min, gallons per minute; E, estimated; C, current meter; V, volumetric; F, flume; R, reported; in., 

inches. All stream data from U.S. Geological Survey except where noted. Precipitation values are calculated from Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent 

Slopes Model coverage (see fig. 5). Dashes indicate no data] 

Average annual Average annual 

Average daily Average annual Average annual base-flow spring flow into 

discharge discharge runoff discharge drainage Net base flow 

Stream name (ft3/s) (ac-ft/yr) (ac-ft/yr) (ac-ft/yr) (ac-ft/yr) (ac-ft/yr) 

C aquifer drainage 

West Clear Creek near Camp 63.55 46,041 31,794 14,247 1,614 12,633 

Verde 

Limestone aquifer drainage 

East Verde River near Payson1 49.30 35,716 22,896 12,820 7,544 5,276 

Tonto Creek at Bear Flat2 5.50 3,961 674 3,287 5,733 50 

Cherry Creek near Young1 6.92 5,012 1,651 2,312 (

4) 2,312 

Canyon Creek near Globe1 69.56 50,390 31,052 19,339 5,527 13,812 

Cibecue Creek near Chrysotile 45.45 32,929 16,198 16,731 (

4) 16,731 

Total

3 154,800 94,200 60,600 13,300 38,100 

Altitude Annual 

(ft above Discharge Year of latest discharge 

Spring or station name NGVD 29) Drainage (gal/min) record Method (ac-ft/yr) 

C aquifer springs

Buckhorn 5,060 West Clear Creek 1,000 1959 E 1,614 

Nappa 6,620 Tonto Creek 70 1966 C 113 

A-11-14 35DBA2 6,800 Canyon Creek 410 -- C 662 

A-11-14 35DBA1 6,800 Canyon Creek 310 -- C 500 

A-11-14 35DBA2 6,780 Canyon Creek 480 -- C 775 

Pieper Hatchery 6,210 East Verde River 125 1952 E 202 

See 6,660 Tonto Creek 94 2001 Average V 152 

Horton 6,700 Tonto Creek 1,100 2002 C 1,776 

Tonto 6,480 Tonto Creek 1,291 2001 Average F 2,084 

Canyon Canyon Creek 2,224 2001 Average F 3,590 

Total

3 11,500 

See footnotes at end of table. 

Water Budget 77 
Table 12. Stream-discharge, spring-discharge, and precipitation values used to compute water budget for regional aquifer— 

Continued 

Altitude Annual 

(ft above Discharge Year of latest discharge 

Spring or station name NGVD 29) Drainage (gal/min) record Method (ac-ft/yr) 

Limestone aquifer springs

The Grotto 4,640 East Verde River 175 1952 Average C 282 

Big 4,640 East Verde River 138 1952 Average C 223 

R-C 5,550 Tonto Creek 800 1952 E 1,291 

Tonto Natural Bridge 4,600 East Verde River 841 2002 Average G 1,357 

Cold 5,190 East Verde River 2,030 1952 Average C 3,277 

Webber 4,640 East Verde River 1,290 2001 Average F/C 2,082 

Fossil 4,290 Fossil Creek 20,345 2001 Average C 32,839 

Indian Gardens 5,420 Tonto Creek 63 2002 Average F/C 102 

Wildcat 5,640 Tonto Creek 59 1952 R 94.4 

A-11-13 18AA 6,320 Tonto Creek 15 1966 E 24.2 

Henturkey 5,560 Tonto Creek 60 1952 C 96.8 

A-11H10 24BCA1 5,215 East Verde River 75 1952 E 121 

Total

3 41,800 

Area-averaged annual Size of recharge zone Total precipitation 

Recharge zone precipitation (acres) (ac-ft) 

C aquifer precipitation 

Colorado Plateau south of ground-water divide for C aquifer 31.2 in. (2.6 ft) 144,000 374,400 

(see fig. 27) 

Limestone aquifer precipitation 

Upper slopes of Mogollon Rim (limestone aquifer) 25.7 in. (2.15 ft) 344,000 739,600 

Lower slopes (tablelands) of Mogollon Rim 22.0 in. (1.83 ft) 160,200 293,200 

Cibecue Creek drainage basin 20.7 in. (1.73 ft) 188,800 326,600 

Total

3 1,359,000 

1Record extended by regression (table 13).
 

2Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Tonto National Forest.
 

3Rounded value.
 

4Spring flow unknown.
 

5Calculated value is less than zero.
 

Table 13. Results of regression to extend stream records 

Independent stream record (x) Dependent stream record (y) Dates used Equation r

2 

Cherry Creek near Globe Canyon Creek near Globe 10–1–1975 to 9–30–1981 y=2.34x.956 0.785 

Cherry Creek near Globe Cherry Creek near Young 5–4–1965 to 9–30–1977 y=0.344x-0.298 .905 

East Verde River near Childs East Verde River near Payson 9–19–1961 to 9–30–1965 y=0.737x+0.614 .972 

78 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Budget 79 

These stations were used instead of the active 

stations because of their proximity to the Paleozoic 

rocks from which the ground-water discharges from 

the regional aquifers. At Tonto Creek, monthly low-flow 

measurements conducted by the USDA Forest Service at 

Bear Flat (fig. 1) were used to estimate base flow. West 

Clear Creek, Canyon Creek, and Cibecue Creek have no 

records other than from the stations close to the mouth of 

the streams. West Clear Creek flows most of its length 

through rocks that constitute the C aquifer, and it is 

reasonable to suppose that the ground-water component 

of base flow in these streams is derived from that aquifer. 

Cibecue Creek flows most of its length through the 

limestone aquifer and most of its base flow probably 

comes from those rocks. 

Daily average streamflows were used to calculate 

a daily value of stream volume, and the average daily 

stream volume was used to calculate an average annual 

volume for the period of record (table 12). As described 

in the hydrology section, base flow was estimated to 

be the sum of all flows below the discharge level that 

occurred at the 80th percentile of total streamflow. 

For calculation of total outflow from each stream, 

estimated total annual discharge from springs upstream 

from the measurement site was subtracted from the total 

annual base flow to avoid double accounting of 

discharges (table 12). 

Inflows 

Total precipitation over the approximately 3,950 mi2 

of the study area south of the C aquifer ground-water 

divide parallel to the Mogollon Rim is more than 

4.4 million acre-ft/yr. Most of that precipitation, 

however, does not occur over probable recharge zones. 

The main recharge area for the C aquifer and the minor 

water-bearing zones in the Schnebly Hill and Supai 

Formations occurs along the crest of the Mogollon Rim 

over an area of about 225 mi2 that receives about 

9 percent of the total precipitation for the Mogollon 

Highlands. The subdued topography, geologic structures, 

high winter precipitation, and a winter snowpack all 

promote high rates of infiltration and recharge relative to 

much of the rest of the study area. Errol L. Montgomery 

and Associates (1993) estimated that 4 to 17 percent of 

precipitation was recharged into the regional aquifer near 

Flagstaff in an area of geology similar to that in the study 

area. A 17-percent recharge rate was initially used to 

calculate the total recharge on the crest of the Mogollon 

Rim (table 14A). 

The limestone aquifer is recharged by leakage from 

the overlying C aquifer and by local recharge—precipitation falling on areas below the recharge area for the 

C aquifer but above the limestone aquifer. Although 

more precipitation—18 percent of the total for the 

study area—falls on the face of the Mogollon Rim than 

on the crest, steeper slopes; thinner soils; lower, less 

dependable, less persistent snow accumulation; and less 

permeable geologic units result in a higher percentage 

of the total being lost to runoff. A recharge rate of 

4 percent to the regional aquifer was initially assumed for 

the steepest slopes of the Mogollon Rim (table 14A). 

In the tablelands forming the base of the Mogollon 

Rim, slopes are more subdued. Soils are typically thin, 

and geologic units generally are of low permeability, 

except where fractured or weathered. The tablelands are 

near the bottom of the winter snowline and snow 

accumulations are so light and of such brief duration that 

they are probably not a significant factor in recharge. 

Nonetheless, evidence cited above, including isotopic 

values and spring-flow instability, suggest some local 

recharge occurs. A recharge rate of 4 percent of total 

precipitation was assumed for the tablelands although the 

local variation over the entire area certainly is quite high. 

Because of the characteristics of the Cibecue Creek 

watershed, namely generally subdued topography and 

permeable geologic units, a recharge rate of 10 percent 

was initially used for precipitation in that basin 

(table 14A). The Mazatzal Mountains and the Sierra 

Ancha and highlands to the east receive, respectively, 

about 4.5 and 10 percent of the total precipitation in the 

study area (figs. 1 and 5). These mountainous areas 

have more subdued slopes than the face of the Mogollon 

Rim, which might promote greater recharge relative to 

runoff although the Proterozoic rocks have little 

permeability except where fractured. Mountain-front 

recharge along the eastern edge of the Mazatzal 

Mountains and the western edge of the Sierra Ancha 

likely occurs to the alluvial aquifer of the lower Tonto 

Creek Basin. Recharge probably also occurs to the 

alluvial aquifer from precipitation on the valley floor 

because of the subdued topography and permeability of 

sediments at the land surface. No attempt is made here to 

quantify a regional water budget for that part of the study 

area in the generally Proterozoic rocks below the base of 

the Mogollon Rim. Except for the Payson granite, there 

are too few data to incorporate that terrane into a regional 

budget, and for the most part, those rocks are not 

hydraulically connected to the regional aquifers beneath 

the Mogollon Rim. 
Table 14. Summation of water inflows and outflows for C aquifer and limestone aquifer 

[Values are in acre-feet per year] 

A. Initial water-budget calculations. 

Inflows to C aquifer Outflows from C aquifer Inflow + outflow 

Precipitation 374,400 Stream base flow -12,600 

Percent infiltration 17 Spring discharge -11,500 

Total inflow 63,600 Total surface discharge -24,100 139,500 

Vertical flow to limestone aquifer -39,500 0 

Inflows to limestone aquifer Ouflows from limestone aquifer Inflow + outflow 

Precipitation upper slopes Mogollon Rim 1,032,800 Stream base flow -38,100 

and tablelands 

Percent infiltration 4 Spring discharge -41,800 

Total recharge upper slopes and tablelands 41,300 

Precipitation Cibecue Creek watershed 326,600 

Percent infiltration 10 

Total recharge Cibecue Creek watershed 32,700 

Total recharge from precipitation 74,000 

Interaquifer flow from C aquifer 39,500 

Total inflow 113,500 Total surface discharge -79,900 33,600 

B. Iteration of water-budget calculations using lower estimates of infiltration of precipitation. 

Inflows to C aquifer Outflows from C aquifer Inflow + outflow 

Precipitation 374,400 

Percent infiltration 15 

Total inflow 56,200 Total surface discharge -24,100 32,100 

Inflow to limestone aquifer Outflows from limestone aquifer Inflow + outflow 

Precipitation upper slopes Mogollon Rim 1,032,800 

and tablelands 

Percent infiltration 2 

Total recharge upper slopes and tablelands 20,700 

Precipitation Cibecue Creek watershed 326,600 

Percent infiltration 8 

Total recharge Cibecue Creek watershed 26,100 

Total recharge from precipitation 46,800 

Interaquifer flow from C aquifer 32,100 

Total inflow 78,900 Total surface discharge -79,900 -1,000 

1Vertical ground-water flow to limestone aquifer. 

80 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
Water Budget 81 

Outflows 

Spring discharge and stream base flow account 

for the greatest component of outflow, except for 

evapotranspiration and runoff, which account for the 

83 to 98 percent of precipitation that does not recharge 

the ground-water system (fig. 27 and table 14). Almost all 

the spring discharge results from a handful of highvolume springs in carbonate rocks on the face of the 

Mogollon Rim or in the tablelands below the face 

(fig. 15 and table 12). Water use is not considered 

because almost all ground-water for domestic use is 

taken from shallow, local water-bearing zones rather 

than from the regional aquifers, and the total reported 

water use from the entire study area, not just the 

Mogollon Rim, is less than 2,400 acre-ft/yr, which is 

inconsequential in a regional context. 

The C aquifer discharges mainly from nine springs 

that emit from the Schnebly Hill Formation, probably 

from the Fort Apache Member, and from Buckhorn 

Spring, which discharges from the Coconino Sandstone 

in the West Clear Creek drainage (table 12). The stability 

of spring flow is known only for Tonto Spring and 

Canyon Spring; however, Christopher Creek and 

upper Tonto Creek are both perennial streams suggesting 

that additional springs in those headwaters probably 

are perennial. West Clear Creek, which is the other 

most significant source of discharge from the C aquifer 

in the study area, maintains a minimum base flow of 

11 ft3/s that indicates it derives from a ground-water 

source with a large contributing area that has not been 

affected by climatic fluctuations or well pumpage during 

the period of record. Most other streams originate well 

up on the Mogollon Rim, but are ephemeral upstream 

from springs and do not appear to have any significant 

ground-water discharge to their channels except from 

springs. Stream base flow, therefore, is not considered 

a significant source of C aquifer discharge for any 

channel except West Clear Creek. 

Discharge from the C aquifer in the study area 

calculated here is 62 percent of the estimated recharge 

(fig. 14A). Possible reasons for excess of recharge over 

discharge include an overly high estimate of the 

percentage of precipitation recharged, unmeasured spring 

discharge, drainage through base flow in streams other 

than West Clear Creek, and vertical flow from the 

C aquifer into local water-bearing zones or into the 

limestone aquifer or both. Because of the generally 

high permeability of fractured rocks on the Colorado 

Plateau and the subdued topography, a substantially 

lower estimate of recharge does not seem warranted. 

Also unlikely is the chance that sizeable springs with 

no record of discharge exist within the study area. 

Some ground-water discharge into stream channels in 

addition to spring discharge that has been accounted for 

is not unlikely, especially in Cibecue Creek and Canyon 

Creek. Because there are no data available that would 

enable partitioning of ground-water flow in those streams 

between the C and limestone aquifers, all flow here is 

assumed to come from the limestone aquifer except for 

that discharging from the springs at the head of Canyon 

Creek. The entire reach of Cherry Creek on the face of the 

Mogollon Rim is ephemeral, indicating that flow is 

almost entirely runoff with no significant ground-water 

contribution. The Forest Service has measured the flow 

of Tonto Creek below the Mogollon Rim, and the amount 

of base flow was nearly equivalent to the combined 

discharge of springs in upper Tonto Creek and its 

tributaries, indicating that there is not a significant 

ground-water contribution to the channel from either the 

C or limestone aquifer other than spring flow (table 12). 

There are no data to determine the extent to which flow 

of the East Verde River is maintained by the C aquifer 

beyond spring discharge, and all base flow in excess of 

spring discharge is assumed to come from the limestone 

aquifer. Because of the chemical and discharge data 

referred to above, the C aquifer is considered to be the 

source of most flow that discharges from the underlying 

limestone aquifer. The excess outflow over inflow of 

39,500 acre-ft/yr for the C aquifer is, therefore, believed 

to be accounted for by vertical flow from that aquifer into 

the limestone aquifer (table 14A and fig. 27).

 High-discharge springs below the Supai Formation 

drain the limestone aquifer. Almost 80 percent of spring 

discharge from the limestone aquifer is from Fossil 

Springs. The other significant drain is Cibecue Creek 

(table 12 and fig. 27). The high percentage of Cibecue 

Creek streamflow that is attributable to base flow 

indicates a ground-water component. As mentioned 

above, some of the Cibecue Creek flow may be directly 

from the C aquifer; however, data are not available to 

determine the percentage of total Cibecue Creek flow, 

if any, that comes from the C aquifer. That a sizeable 

component does come from the limestone aquifer is 

indicated by the incision of Cibecue Creek into the rocks 

of the middle and lower Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and 

the presence of numerous springs in those rocks along the 

length of the channel. 

 The regional water budget constructed from these 

data show a surplus of recharge in the C aquifer, which is 

presumed to be recharged into the limestone aquifer, and 

a surplus of discharge from the limestone aquifer, and 
82 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

therefore from the entire regional ground-water system, 

of 33,600 acre-ft/yr, about 24 percent of the combined 

recharge from precipitation that is estimated for the two 

aquifers (table 14A). If all the estimates of inflows and 

outflows used in calculation of the budget are reasonably 

accurate, the results would indicate that storage within 

the regional aquifers is increasing. There is no evidence, 

however, to suggest that this is the case. As noted above, 

a recent decrease in discharge from Canyon Spring could 

indicate that the water table at the top of the C aquifer has 

been lowered, but that would argue for a negative change 

in storage within the C aquifer rather than an increase. 

The surplus of inflow over outflow must, therefore, be 

the result of overestimates of inflow or underestimates 

of outflow. 

Several errors can account for the discrepancy, 

however, most of the likely errors would produce an even 

greater excess of inflow over outflow. The most 

question-able estimates include the amount of base flow 

and spring flow that drain the two aquifers. As noted 

above, spring-flow values are probably reasonably 

accurate for four spring systems that account for 

75 percent of the spring discharge from the Mogollon 

Rim. In the unlikely event that all other discharges are 

closer to the maximum value recorded rather than the 

mean or best values used in this report, the total increase 

in estimated spring discharge would be about 5,600 acreft/yr. No net gain in outflows would be realized, 

however, because spring discharges have been subtracted 

from base flows in the streams into which the springs 

discharge. The only exception is Fossil Springs. No baseflow estimate is available for Fossil Creek and an 

increase in the estimated annual discharge from those 

springs would increase the net outflow. Records on 

Fossil Creek are reasonably good and consistent over 

time, and low variability of discharge from those springs 

(table 5) indicates that the estimate of annual spring 

discharge cannot be significantly increased. 

An increase in base flow in the streams draining 

the Mogollon Rim would produce an increase in net 

outflow. For the East Verde River and Cherry Creek, 

a conservative value of base flow was estimated by 

using the brief discharge records at discontinued stations 

that were near the base of the Mogollon Rim (table 12). 

Tonto Creek base flow was calculated from a series of 

monthly low-flow measurements and the value achieved 

might be lower than the long-term average. Nonetheless, 

even a 75-percent increase in the value of base flow on 

Tonto Creek at the base of the Mogollon Rim would 

result in a net zero discharge once the values of annual 

spring discharge are subtracted from the base flow 

(table 12). The rationale for using those records, rather 

than the long-term records at stations near the mouth 

of the streams, is the assumption that there is little 

significant ground-water flow from the regional aquifers 

entering stream channels from the Proterozoic rocks 

below the Mogollon Rim. As noted above, there is some 

evidence of major regional joints or faults that are 

continuous from beneath the Mogollon Rim into the 

Proterozoic terranes to the south that could serve as 

conduits for ground-water flow into the lower reaches 

of stream channels. Also, base flow calculated at Tonto 

Creek at Bear Flat is nearly 2,400 acre-ft/yr lower than 

the total estimated spring discharge entering the channel 

upstream. The loss of flow could be the result of leakage 

into deep fractures within the Proterozoic rocks that 

emerges in the channel farther downstream as well as 

some combination of evapotranspiration losses from 

the channel and over-estimates of total annual spring 

discharge. Considering the dearth of evidence, the 

existence of ground-water flow into the lower reaches of 

stream channels within the study area is still speculative, 

and its inclusion in a regional water budget is not 

justified. Indeed, given the flashy nature of streamflow 

in the Mogollon Highland streams, the component of 

ground-water flow in those streams occurring as base 

flow is more likely to be overestimated here than 

underestimated. 

More likely sources of error are those that would 

produce an overestimate of inflows into the hydrologic 

system. These would include an overestimate in the 

contributing area to the regional aquifers, an 

overestimate in the total precipitation, and overestimates 

of the percentage of total recharge. Any changes in these 

estimates are somewhat arbitrary, but reasonable as long 

as such changes allow for an excess of inflow into the 

C aquifer because, on the basis of the evidence noted 

above, that aquifer is the source for much of the ground 

water that discharges from the limestone aquifer. 

Consequently, a minimal reduction in estimates of inflow 

to the C aquifer is warranted. Reducing the estimate of 

the recharge rate from 17 to 15 percent would produce a 

total recharge to the C aquifer of 53,300 acre-ft/yr and 

total excess of inflow over outflow of 29,200 acre-ft/yr, 

which would enter the limestone aquifer by vertical 

flow (table 14B). This would reduce the total excess 

of inflow over outflow for the limestone aquifer to 

23,100 acre-ft/yr. The most likely source of error 

accounting for the remaining excess is probably in the 

estimated rate of local recharge from precipitation to the 

limestone aquifer. Reducing the estimated rate of local 

recharge by 2 percent for precipitation falling on the 
face of the Mogollon Rim, the tablelands, and the 

Cibecue Creek watershed, results in a reduction in total 

discharge that produces a water budget with a deficit of 

1,000 acre-ft/yr, which is less than 1 percent of the 

combined recharge from precipitation for the C and 

limestone aquifers (table 14B). Further adjustments 

could be made to achieve a perfectly balanced budget, 

but considering the potential errors in hydrologic 

measurements, there seems to be little reason to do so. 

The adjustments that were made are not necessarily the 

correct adjustments, but they are reasonable and 

demonstrate how small changes in estimates of the 

various components of the water budget can produce 

substantial changes in the total regional budget. 

Additional Data Needs 

Among the topics that cannot be adequately 

answered with current data are (1) the short- and longterm water-level fluctuations in shallow wells, lowdischarge springs, and tributary streams that discharge 

from local aquifers; (2) the short- and long-term waterlevel fluctuations in deeper wells that tap the regional 

aquifers; (3) the characteristics of the limestone aquifer 

along Canyon and Cibecue Creeks where the creeks 

flow through the Fort Apache Indian Reservation; 

(4) the short- and long-term behavior of high-discharge 

springs discharging from regional aquifers; 

(5) delineations of ground-water flow paths and the 

potentiometric surface of the limestone aquifer; 

(6) the degree to which ground water recharged on the 

Mogollon Rim crest and slopes intrudes into the 

Proterozoic rocks and alluvium of the lower parts of the 

study area; and (7) the relative length of ground-water 

flow paths and residence time within the C and limestone 

aquifers along the face of the Mogollon Rim. 

An extensive well-monitoring program is being 

conducted by the town of Payson in water-bearing zones 

of the Payson granite and related Proterozoic rocks. 

Expansion of well monitoring in the Pine-Strawberry 

area and in other communities with relatively high well 

density would begin to provide data necessary for 

evaluating the effects of water-resources development 

and climatic variability in other local aquifers. 

Monitoring low-discharge springs and tributary streams 

is necessary if any quantitative relation among climatic 

fluctuations, water-resources development, and groundwater surface-water interactions is to be developed. Such 

Additional Data Needs 83 

springs and streams primarily drain local aquifers, which 

are also the most heavily utilized aquifers for water use in 

the Mogollon Highlands. 

Although there is a paucity of wells below the crest 

of the Mogollon Rim deeper than 300 ft, more may 

become available as water providers, especially in the 

Pine-Strawberry area, seek more dependable sources of 

ground water. If this resource, which to date has been 

little exploited and is not well described, is to be more 

fully developed, monitoring of water levels would be 

desirable to identify how the ground-water system 

responds to development and climate change. Above the 

Mogollon Rim, additional monitoring of wells that draw 

from the C aquifer could provide early warning of 

watertable declines as a result of drought or increased 

development. Because several high-discharge springs in 

the study area flow from near the top of the ground-water 

mound, short- or long-term declines in the water table in 

this area could have detrimental effects on streamflow 

below those springs. 

Monitoring of high-discharge spring flow could 

range from continuous monitoring to semiannual or 

quarterly measurement of high-discharge springs mainly 

on the East Verde River and its tributaries and on Tonto 

and Christopher Creeks. The more infrequent the 

measurements, the longer the record needed to assess the 

variability of such flows. 

Mapping the potentiometric surface of the limestone 

aquifer to subsequently develop an understanding of 

ground-water flow paths would require considerable 

new well development and confirmation that those wells 

are in fact within the limestone aquifer. Because most 

of the study area is within public lands, and because 

the most critical water needs are primarily in the PineStrawberry area where the limestone aquifer is at 

considerable depths, such information can be acquired as 

economic realities allow. An inventory of existing wells 

in the East Verde River and Tonto Creek watersheds to 

confirm water levels and to ascertain whether or not they 

are in the limestone aquifer might improve understanding 

of flow paths and extend mapping of the potentiometric 

surface in that area. The degree to which regional groundwater flows through fractures in Proterozoic rocks below 

the Mogollon Rim would also require additional well 

development. The town of Payson has conducted some 

investigations, but there is little impetus for significant 

deep-well development in the Proterozoic rocks in the 

southern part of the study area. Additional analysis of 

geophysical data might also improve understanding of 

the regional fracture and fault system at depth, which 

would help in the interpretation of probable ground-water 
84 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 

flow paths. Finally, seepage runs along Cherry and Tonto 

Creeks, and the East Verde River below the Mogollon 

Rim would identify losing and gaining reaches in those 

streams as they flow through Proterozoic terrane and 

further clarify the extent to which they are recharged, 

either locally or from the regional system in their lower 

reaches. Characterization of the limestone aquifer on 

lower Canyon and Cibecue creeks would require a 

cooperative effort with the Fort Apache tribal 

government. 

Dating of spring waters could provide some 

indication of the relative lengths of ground-water flow 

paths, residence time of water, and the degree of mixing 

with younger waters as a result of local recharge. 

Summary and Conclusions 

The Mogollon Highlands receive an average annual 

precipitation of 21.3 in., and nearly twice that amount 

at the highest altitudes where most recharge takes place. 

Nonetheless, the geologic characteristics of the region 

serve to limit the availability of water resources. 

The only area of significant ground-water storage is 

above the Mogollon Rim where the C aquifer comprises 

the Coconino Sandstone and Schnebly Hill Formation. 

The subdued topography and the highly fractured 

rocks of the Coconino Sandstone (and, where present, 

the Kaibab Formation, or Tertiary volcanic rocks, or both 

that overlie the Coconino) facilitate recharge on the 

Colorado Plateau along the crest of the Mogollon Rim. 

Most of the water that reaches the Mogollon Highlands 

ground-water system flows through the C aquifer, either 

vertically or horizontally. The C aquifer is drained by 

high-discharge springs that flow into the East Verde 

River, and Tonto, Christopher, Canyon, and West Clear 

Creeks. Flow to these springs occurs along fracture 

systems, possibly enlarged by dissolution, in the 

Schnebly Hill Formation and mainly in the Fort Apache 

Member of that formation. Springs near the base of the 

Mogollon Rim discharge from the limestone aquifer. 

Although the limestone and C aquifers are separated by 

the Supai Formation, a confining unit, the persistent high 

volume of flow discharging from Fossil Springs, and the 

chemical signatures of those springs and others that 

discharge from the limestone aquifer indicate a relation 

to waters of the C aquifer. The low specific conductances 

and isotopic signatures of spring waters suggests that 

flow paths are short and travel times rapid. 

Precipitation falling outside the main recharge 

area of the study area mainly is lost to runoff and 

evapotranspiration because of the general impermeability of the rocks that form the Mogollon Rim and 

because of the steep slopes of the rim face. Streamflow 

within the study area tends to be flashy because of 

bedrock channels, narrow or nonexistent flood plains, 

and steep slopes. Base flow in most streams is less than 

30 percent of total flow. In the Proterozoic terrane below 

the Mogollon Rim, ground-water contributions to flow 

are probably minimal. Cibecue Creek on the eastern edge 

of the study area has a base-flow component of greater 

than 50 percent, which suggests a more significant 

ground-water contribution, probably from the limestone 

aquifer that discharges into the channel or underlies it 

through most of its length. Some precipitation recharges 

local, shallow aquifers in the Paleozoic sedimentary 

rocks and in the Proterozoic rocks below the Mogollon 

Rim. These aquifers tend to be the most heavily 

developed within the study area and are also most 

susceptible to fluctuations in water level as a result of 

climatic variability and ground-water withdrawals. 

Several wells in the Payson area, where the most data on 

water levels over time are available, show sharp declines 

in water-level altitudes beginning in the mid-1990s with 

the onset of the drought that was occurring coincident 

with the study period for this project. 

The regional aquifers are more resistant to shortterm climatic fluctuations as indicated by the stability 

of flow in the high-discharge springs draining those 

aquifers. A decline in average discharge of Canyon 

Spring above Canyon Creek in the mid-1990s, however, 

could indicate a lowering of the water-table altitude 

of the C aquifer as a result of the drought. The spring 

discharges from near the top of the C aquifer and can 

be expected to be sensitive to changes in water-table 

altitude. The stability of Fossil Springs and other highdischarge springs that drain the limestone aquifer also 

points to resistance to short-term climatic fluctuations; 

however, the discharges of springs along the East Verde 

River and its tributaries have demonstrated significant 

variability. Such variability may be the result of differences in flow paths or the spatial relations between spring 

mouths and the water table in the limestone aquifer. 

Inflows to regional aquifers are approximately 

balanced by outflows. Leakage from the C aquifer is 

estimated to account for about 37 percent of the inflows 

into the limestone aquifer. Although initial calculations 

showed a surplus of inflow over outflow from the 

regional aquifers, reasonable modification of estimates 

of contributing area and recharge rates produced a 

balanced water budget for the study area. 
References Cited 

AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc., 1999, Groundwater 

resource evaluation Payson-Heber Highway (SR 260) 

upgrading project, Gila County, Arizona: Report to Arizona 

Department of Transportation, 3 vols. 

Back, William, 1961, Techniques for mapping of 

hydrogeologic facies: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 424D, p. 380–382. 

Bills, D.J., Truini, Margot, Flynn, M.E., Pierce, H.A., 

Catchings, R.D., and Rymer, M.J., 2000, Hydrogeology 

of the regional aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994–97: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00–4122, 143 p. 

Bilodeau, W.L., 1986, The Mesozoic Mogollon Highlands, 

Arizona—An early Cretaceous rift shoulder: Journal of 

Geology, v. 94, p. 724–735. 

Blakey, R.C., 1990, Stratigraphy and geologic history of 

Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks, Mogollon Rim region, 

central Arizona and vicinity: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 102, no. 9, p. 1189–1217. 

Brew, D.S., 1965, Stratigraphy of the Naco Formation 

(Pennsylvanian) in central Arizona: Ithaca, New York, 

Cornell University, Ph.D. dissertation, 230 p. 

Brown, D.E., Carmony, N.B., and Turner, R.M., 1981, 

Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and 

some important wetlands: Phoenix, Arizona Fish and Game 

Department, 1 sheet. 

Conway, C.M., 1976, Petrology, structure, and evolution of a 

Precambrian volcanic and plutonic complex, Tonto Basin, 

Gila County, Arizona: Pasadena, California Institute of 

Technology, Ph.D. dissertation, 460 p. 

Conway, C.M., and Silver, L.T., 1989, Early Proterozoic rocks 

(1710–1615 Ma) in central to southeastern Arizona in 

Geologic evolution of Arizona, J.P. Jenney and S.J. 

Reynolds, eds., Arizona Geological Society Digest v. 17, 

p. 165–186. 

Corkhill, Frank, 2000, Report on the drilling of an exploratory 

borehole near Strawberry, Arizona (May 18–June 2, 2000): 

Hydrogeologic investigation for the Northern Gila County 

Water Plan Alliance, Phoenix: Phoenix, Arizona 

Department of Water Resources, 33 p. 

Cox, Rónadh, Martin, M.W., Comstock, J.C., Dickerson, L.S., 

Eckstrom, I.L., and Sammons, J.H., 2002, Sedimentology, 

stratigraphy, and geochronology of the Proterozoic Mazatzal 

Group, central Arizona: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 114, no. 12, p. 1535–1549. 

Craig, Harmon, 1961, Isotopic variations in meteoric waters: 

Science, v. 133, p. 1702–1703. 

DeGomez, Tom, 2002, Pine bark beetle outbreak in Arizona: 

Tucson, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Forest 

Health Working Group and Arizona Bark Beetle Task Force, 

accessed October 15, 2003, at http://cals.arizona.edu/ 

coconino/assets/pdffiles/Winter2003BArkBeetles.pdf 

References Cited 85 

DeGomez, Tom, 2003, Pine bark beetle outbreak in Arizona: 

Tucson, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Forest 

Health Working Group and Arizona Bark Beetle Task Force, 

accessed October 15, 2003, at http://www.wildfire 

lessons.net/Library/Fire_Behavior_Research/April2003 

BArkBeetles.doc 

Denis, E.E., 1981, Map showing ground-water conditions in 

the Tonto Basin area, Gila County, Arizona—1979: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations OpenFile Report 82–116. 

Errol L. Montgomery and Associates, 1993, Results of a 

90-day aquifer test and ground-water flow model projections 

for long-term ground-water yield for the Coconino-Supai 

aquifer Lake Mary well field, Coconino County, Arizona: 

Tucson, Arizona, Errol L. Montgomery and Associates 

report prepared for the City of Flagstaff, 185 p. 

Farrar, C.D., 1980, Ground-water potential in the middle 

Paleozoic carbonate rocks, Flagstaff area, Coconino County, 

Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, master’s 

thesis, 91 p. 

Fenneman, N.M., 1931, Physiography of western United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill Inc., 534 p. 

Feth, J.H., and Hem, J.D., 1963, Reconnaissance of headwater 

springs in the Gila River drainage basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-H, 54 p. 

Freethey, G.W., and Anderson, T.W., 1986, Predevelopment 

hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona 

and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA–664, 3 sheets, scale 1:500,000. 

Gæorama, Inc., 2001, Structural geology and groundwater 

exploration, Mayfield Canyon area, Gila County, Arizona— 

Diamond Rim Groundwater Exploration Program Phase I: 

Blanding, Utah, Report for Town of Payson, Gæorama, Inc., 

16 p. 

Gæorama, Inc., 2003, Structural geology and groundwater 

potential, Diamond Rim study area, Gila County, Arizona— 

Diamond Rim Groundwater Exploration Program: 

Blanding, Utah, Report for Town of Payson, Gæorama, Inc., 

47 p. 

Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J., and Flynn, M.E., 2002, 

Generalized hydrogeology and ground-water budget for 

the C aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin and parts of the 

Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 02–4026, 47 p. 

Hereford, Richard, 1977, Deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone 

(Cambrian) in central Arizona: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 199–211. 
Higgins, C.G., 1990, Seepage induced cliff recession and 

regional denudation with case studies by Osterkamp, W.R., 

and Higgins, C.G., in Groundwater geomorphology—The 

role of subsurface water in the Earth-surface processes and 

landforms, C.G. Higgins and D.R. Coates, eds.: Boulder, 

Colorado, Geological Society of America Special Paper 

252, p. 291–317. 

Hopkins, R.L., 1990, Kaibab Formation in Grand Canyon 

Geology, S.S. Beus and Michael Morales, eds.: Oxford, 

New York, Oxford University Press, chpt.11, p. 225–245. 

Johnson, Greg, and Taylor, George, 2003, The NRCS PRISM 

Climate Mapping Project: Oregon Climate Service, 

Corvallis, Oregon State University, accessed November 10, 

2003, at http://www.ocs.orst.edu/prism/przfact.html 

Karlstrom, K.E., Bowring, S.A., and Conway, C.M., 1987, 

Tectonic significance of an Early Proterozoic two-province 

boundary in central Arizona: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 99, p. 529–538. 

Kaczmarek, M.B., 2003, Investigation of groundwater 

availability for the Pine/Strawberry Water Improvement 

District: Helena, Montana, Morrison Maierle, 148 p. 

Mann, L.J., and Nemecek, E.A., 1983, Geohydrology and 

water use in southern Apache County, Arizona: Phoenix, 

Arizona Department of Water Resources Bulletin 1, 86 p. 

Mayer, Larry, 1979, Evolution of the Mogollon Rim in central 

Arizona: Tectonophysics, v. 61, p. 49–62. 

Mayes, H.B., 1990, Cenozoic stratigraphy and depositional 

history of the northern Tonto Basin, Gila County, Arizona: 

Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, master’s thesis, 

113 p. 

McKee, E.D., and Gutschick, R.D., 1969, History of the 

Redwall Limestone of northern Arizona: Geological Society 

of America Memoir 114, 726 p. 

Monroe, Stephen, 2002, Travertine and concrete—A 

geomorphological and historical study of a damsite at Fossil 

Creek, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, 

master’s thesis, 139 p. 

National Climate Data Center, 2003a, U.S. monthly surface 

data: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

accessed March 26, 2003, at http://www5.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

cgi-bin/script/webcat.pl?action=ALL 

National Climate Data Center, 2003b, Climate of 2002— 

Annual review of U.S. drought: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, accessed October 26, 2003, at 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/ann/ 

drought-summary.html 

National Climate Data Center, 2003c, Palmer hydrologic 

drought index—October 2002 to September 2003: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 

October 26, 2003, at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ 

research/prelim/drought/phdiimage.html 

Northern Gila County Historical Society, 1984, Rim Country 

history: Payson, Arizona, Rim Country Printing, 194 p. 

Owen-Joyce, S.J., and Bell, C.K., 1983, Appraisal of water 

resources in the upper Verde River area, Yavapai and 

Coconino Counties, Arizona: Phoenix, Arizona Department 

of Water Resources Bulletin 2, 219 p. 

Peirce, H.W., Damon, P.E., and Shafiqullah, M., 1979, 

An Oligocene(?) Colorado Plateau edge in Arizona: 

Tectonophysics, v. 61, p. 1–24. 

Ploughe, Michael, 2000, North Payson area hydrogeological 

investigation results: Payson, Arizona, Town of Payson 

Groundwater Exploration Program, 10 p. 

Ploughe, Michael, 2001, Town of Payson ground-water 

management 2001 status report: Payson, Arizona, Town of 

Payson Water Department, 12 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: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4225, 907 p. 

Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic map of Arizona: Tucson, 

Arizona Geological Society, Map 26, scale 1:1,000,000. 

Richards, A.M., 1987, Gravity analysis of the Tonto and 

Payson basins, central Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona 

University, master’s thesis, 162 p. 

Ross, P.P., 1977, Map showing ground-water conditions in the 

Lower Verde River area, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Gila 

Counties, Arizona—1976: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations 77–113, Open-File Report. 

Sellers, W.D., Hill, R.H., and Sanderson-Rae, Margaret, eds., 

1985, Arizona climate The first hundred years: Tucson, 

University of Arizona Press, 80 p. 

Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc., 1998, Long-term 

management program of the town of Payson’s water 

resources: Report for Town of Payson: Phoenix, Southwest 

Ground-water Consultants, Inc., 61 p. 

Teichert, Curt, 1965, Devonian rocks and paleogeography of 

central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 464, 181 p. 

Twentner, F.R., 1962, The significance of the volcanic rocks in 

the Fossil Creek area, Arizona in Guidebook of the 

Mogollon Rim region east-central Arizona, New Mexico 

Geological Society, 13th Field Conference, October 18–20, 

1962: New Mexico Geological Society, p.107–108. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Data set: Census 2000 summary 

file 1 (SF 1) 100-percent data, Gila County, Arizona, Payson 

and Tonto census county divisions and Payson town, 

accessed July 22, 2004, at http://factfinder.census.gov/ 

servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_ 

SF1_U&_lang=en&_ts=113764036685 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2003, Draft 

environmental impact statement for the Rodeo-Chediski fire 

salvage project, Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto National 

Forests: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, 

Arizona, Rodeo-Chediski Fire Salvage Team, 399 p. 

86 Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands, Central Arizona 
References Cited 87 

Weir, G.W., and Beard, L.S., 1997, Preliminary geologic map 

of the Strawberry Quadrangle, Yavapai, Gila, and Coconino 

Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report, OF 94–0265, 1 sheet. 

Weisman, M.C., 1984, Geology of the Pine and northern 

Buckhead Mesa quadrangles, Mogollon Rim region, central 

Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, master’s 

thesis, 126 p. 

Weisman, M.C., and Weir, G.W., 1990, Geologic map of the 

Pine 7.5’ Quadrangle, Coconino and Gila Counties, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, 

MF–2123, 1 sheet. 

Weitzman, Morley, 2002, Geology and hydrology of the 

Payson—Strawberry—Diamond Rim area, Gila and 

Coconino counties, central Arizona: Tucson, Arizona 

Geological Survey Contributed Report CR-02-B, 17 p. 

Wilson, E.D., Moore, R.T., Peirce, H.W., 1959, Geologic map 

of Gila County, Arizona: Tucson, Arizona Bureau of Mines, 

scale 1:375,000. 

Wrucke, C.T., and Conway, C.M., 1987, Geologic map of the 

Mazatzal wilderness and contiguous roadless area, Gila, 

Maricopa, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report, p. 22. 
This page left blank intentionally. 
This page left blank intentionally. 
Printed on recycled paper