ESTRELLA MTN REG PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2016-2036.PDF

Estrella Mountain
Regional Park
Master Plan Update
2016-2036

{This page intentionally left blank.}

Date of Master Plan amendments or updates:
Date Activity
1964 Master Development Plan (original)
1967 Casey Abbott Semi-Regional Park Master Development Plan
1975 Casey Abbott Recreation Area Master Development Plan
1988 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Long-Range Master Plan
2016 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan update

{This page intentionally left blank.}

Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Update (2016-2036)
Recommended by:
MARICOPA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
______________________________________
R.J. Cardin
Director, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
______________________________________
[Date]
Approved by:
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_______________________________________________________
Clint Hickman, Chairman Date
Attest
________________________________________________________
Clerk of the Board Date
Approved as to Form:
________________________________________________________
Attorney for Maricopa County Date

{This page intentionally left blank.}


{This page intentionally left blank.}

Acknowledgements
This master plan update was a collaborative process that involved the guidance and expertise of many.
The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department would like to thank the Planning Team who
committed their time to meetings and document review; likewise to the Stakeholder Advisory Group
(detailed in Appendix A) who took time out of their schedules to provide their invaluable input.
The Planning Team was skillfully guided by Facilitator, Ms. Cate Bradley of the National Park Service via a
grant from the Rivers Trails Conservation Areas program. Her expertise and thoughtful input was greatly
valued by all.
Planning Team
R.J. Cardin, Director
Jennifer Waller, Operations Manager
Jennifer Johnston, West Side Superintendent
Don Harris, Park Supervisor
Ken Vonderscher, Planning and Development Manager
Michele Kogl, Planning and Development Manager (former)
Allen Ockenfels, Trail Development Manager
Emily Miller, Contract Administrator
Michael Martinez, Electrician
Leigh Johnson, Park Planner
Cate Bradley, National Park Service
This Master Plan update was made possible by the contributions and guidance of the following:
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Commission
Denny Barney, District 1 Denise Merdon, District 1
Steve Chucri, District 2 Jack Stapley, District 2
Andy Kunasek, District 3 Anne Lynch, District 3
Clint L. Hickman, Chairman, District 4 Dr. Robert Branch, Vice Chair, District 4
Steve Gallardo, District 5 Devin Del Palacio, District 5
Rod Jarvis, Chair, Member-at-Large
Megha Budruk , Member-at-Large
The Department would also like to thank its agency partners at the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain Patrol Division, Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Bureau of Land Management – Lower Sonoran Field Office, City of Goodyear, and the City
of Avondale for their input and guidance.
The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department would also like to thank the tireless efforts of
the park staff and volunteers, without whom the park could not operate. Additional gratitude is
extended to all the youth group participants and public meeting attendees who offered their valuable
comments and suggestions.

{This page intentionally left blank.}

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
Term Definition
ADA American’s with Disabilities Act
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources
AMA Active Management Area
APS Arizona Public Service Company
ASU Arizona State University
ARS Arizona Revised Statutes
AST Described as a 2,000-gallon steel tank enclosed in a concrete vault and is
adequate under EPA guidelines to provide secondary containment
AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department
AZGS Arizona Geological Survey
ASLD Arizona State Land Department
BOS Board of Supervisors
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CO Carbon monoxide
County Maricopa County
DIP ductile iron pipe
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ET Evapotranspiration
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EYS Estrella Youth Sports
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
FCD Flood Control District of Maricopa County
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Fulltime Equivalent (employee)
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Geographic Positioning System
GRIC Gila River Indian Community
HDMS Heritage Data Management System
HUC Hydraulic Unit Code
HURF Highway User Revenue Fund
I- Interstate (number)
IBA Important Bird Area
IGA Intergovernmental Agreement
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LMP Lightscape Management Plan
MAG Maricopa Association of Governments
MCDOT Maricopa County Department of Transportation
MCPRD (or Department) Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
MCSO Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office

Term Definition
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPA Municipal Planning Area
n.d. No date
NORA Notice of Reality Action
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
OHV Off-Highway Vehicle
PIR Phoenix International Raceway
PM Particulate Matter
RAE Recreation Activity Evaluation
R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act
RU- Rural Residential
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RV Recreational Vehicle
SAG Stakeholder Advisory Group
SERI Species of Economic and Recreational Importance
SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan
SR- State Route (number)
SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VRM Visual Resource Management

Estrella Mountain Regional Park – Master Plan Update
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Project Background …………………………………………………………1-1
1.2 Vision, Mission, and Theme …………………………………………………………1-2
Chapter 2 Master Plan Process
2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan …………………………………………………………2-1
2.2 Previous Planning Efforts …………………………………………………………2-1
2.3 Plan Amendments or Updates …………………………………………………………2-2
2.4 Agency Participation Program …………………………………………………………2-2
2.5 Public Participation Program …………………………………………………………2-3
2.6 Planning Issues …………………………………………………………2-8
2.7 Recreation Activity Evaluation …………………………………………………………2-9
Chapter 3 Resource Analysis
3.1 General Project Setting …………………………………………………………3-1
3.2 Special Designations …………………………………………………………3-2
3.3 Physiography and Climate …………………………………………………………3-6
3.4 Water Resources …………………………………………………………3-7
3.5 Earth Resources ……………………………………………………….3-10
3.6 Biological Resources ……………………………………………………….3-13
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation ……………………………………………………….3-19
3.8 Visual Resources ……………………………………………………….3-22
3.9 Recreation Resources ……………………………………………………….3-23
3.10 Land Use ……………………………………………………….3-25
3.11 Facilities and Infrastructure ……………………………………………………….3-30
3.12 Socioeconomics ……………………………………………………….3-34
3.13 Visitation and Tourism Trends ……………………………………………………….3-37
3.14 Park Use ……………………………………………………….3-39
3.15 Informal Park Surveys ……………………………………………………….3-42
3.16 Local Recreation, Needs, and Opportunities ……………………………………………………….3-42
3.17 Park Administration and Special Functions ……………………………………………………….3-43
3.18 Public Safety ……………………………………………………….3-45
3.19 Finances ……………………………………………………….3-46
Chapter 4 Roads and Access
4.1 Existing Roads, Access, and Parking …………………………………………………………4-1
4.2 Proposed or Planned Roads, Access, and Parking …………………………………………………………4-5
Chapter 5 Trails
5.1 Existing Trails .………………………………………………………..5-1
5.2 Proposed Community Trails/Trailheads .………………………………………………………..5-4
5.3 Trail Use …………………………………………………………5-4
5.4 Trail Rating …………………………………………………………5-5

Estrella Mountain Regional Park – Master Plan Update
Chapter 6 Management Zoning
6.1 Methodology for Determining Management Zones …………………………………………………………6-1
6.2 Description of Management Zones …………………………………………………………6-1
6.3 Area Descriptions that Influence Park Zoning …………………………………………………………6-3
Chapter 7 Recommended Park Improvement Projects
7.1 Issues and Constraints Analysis …………………………………………………………7-1
7.2 Recommended Park Improvements ………………………………………………………..7-2
List of Appendices
Appendix A Public Participation
Appendix B Photo Monitoring Program
Appendix C Water Resources
Appendix D Earth Resources
Appendix E Biological Resources
Appendix F Cultural Resources
Appendix G Land Use
Appendix H Facilities and Infrastructure
Appendix I Roads
Appendix J Trail System Plan
Appendix K Draft Alternatives
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1-1: Themes and Mandates …………………………………………………………1-2
Table 2-1: Delivery and View Rates of GovDelivery system …………………………………………………………2-8
Table 2-2: Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE) ……………………………………………………….2-10
Table 3-1: Average Annual Temperature and Precipitation …………………………………………………………3-7
Table 3-2: Drainage Areas of Major Washes …………………………………………………………3-9
Table 3-3: Flood Alert System ………………………………………………………3-10
Table 3-4: Distribution of Land Ownership .………………………………………………………3-26
Table 3-5: Jurisdictions .………………………………………………………3-27
Table 3-6: Picnic Areas ……………………………………………………….3-31
Table 3-7: Population and Park Visitor Characteristics ……………………………………………………….3-35
Table 3-8: Total Resident Population ……………………………………………………….3-35
Table 3-9: Employment and Education ……………………………………………………….3-36
Table 3-10: Economic Impact Based on Visitor Spending and ……………………………………………………….3-41
Operating Expenses
Table 3-11: Local Recreational Opportunities ……………………………………………………….3-42
Table 3-12: Volunteer Hours by Fiscal Year ……………………………………………………….3-44
Table 3-13: Partnerships ……………………………………………………….3-44
Table 3-14: MCSO Statistics ……………………………………………………….3-45
Table 3-15: Summary of Annual Expenditures ……………………………………………………….3-49
Table 3-16: Donations ……………………………………………………….3-49
Table 4.1: Roadway Jurisdiction and Functional Class …………………………………………………………4-2
Table 4.2: Park Roads and Parking …………………………………………………………4-2
Table 4.3: Park Roadway Classifications …………………………………………………………4-2

Estrella Mountain Regional Park – Master Plan Update
Table 4.4: Existing Park Roadway Maintenance Status …………………………………………………………4-3
Table 4.5: Drive Time/Acres Analysis for Estrella Mountain Regional …………………………………………………………4-4
Park
Table 5-1: Designated Trails …………………………………………………………5-3
Table 5-2: Competitive Track Events and Participants …………………………………………………………5-3
Table 5-3: Trail Uses …………………………………………………………5-4
Table 5-4: Trail Rating Guide …………………………………………………………5-5
Table 6-1: Management Zone and Acreage …………………………………………………………6-1
Table 6-2: Park Management Zones …………………………………………………………6-2
Table 7-1: Issues Constraints and Analysis …………………………………………………………7-1
Table 7-2: Recommended Alternative …………………………………………………………7-5
Figure 2-1: Stakeholder’s site visit …………………………………………………………2-5
Figure 2-2: Planning staff listens to Youth Day participants …………………………………………………………2-5
Figure 2-3: Meeting participants make notes on wall map …………………………………………………………2-6
Figure 2-4: Meeting participants ask questions …………………………………………………………2-7
Figure 2-5: Twitter message, April 30, 2015 …………………………………………………………2-8
Figure 3-1: Park and Metro-area …………………………………………………………3-2
Figure 3-2: Remnants of past homesteaders …………………………………………………………3-3
Figure 3-3: Wildlife Linkages (southwest valley) …………………………………………………………3-4
Figure 3-4: Major washes (light blue lines) …………………………………………………………3-8
Figure 3-5: Floodway and Floodplain …………………………………………………………3-9
Figure 3-6: Geology ……………………………………………………….3-11
Figure 3-7: Soils ……………………………………………………….3-13
Figure 3-8: Biotic Communities ……………………………………………………….3-14
Figure 3-9: Arizona Important Bird Areas ……………………………………………………….3-15
Figure 3-10: Wildlife Linkages, HabiMap™ ……………………………………………………….3-18
Figure 3-11: Petroglyphs ……………………………………………………….3-20
Figure 3-12: Land Ownership ……………………………………………………….3-26
Figure 3-13: Existing land use ……………………………………………………….3-28
Figure 3-14: Turf area facilities ……………………………………………………….3-30
Figure 3-15: Super Playground equipment ……………………………………………………….3-32
Figure 3-16: Rodeo Arena facilities ……………………………………………………….3-33
Figure 3-17: Visitor residency ……………………………………………………….3-37
Figure 3-18: Visitation by fiscal year ……………………………………………………….3-38
Figure 3-19: Visitation per fiscal month within fiscal year ……………………………………………………….3-38
Figure 3-20: Actual and forecasted (exponential trend line) visitation ……………………………………………………….3-39
per fiscal year
Figure 3-21: Organizational chart ……………………………………………………….3-43
Figure 3-22: Revenue per Fiscal Year ……………………………………………………….3-46
Figure 3-23: Revenue by Month in FY15 ……………………………………………………….3-47
Figure 3-24: Camping per Fiscal Year ……………………………………………………….3-47
Figure 3-25: Facility Rentals ……………………………………………………….3-48
Figure 3-26: Annual Passes ……………………………………………………….3-48
Figure 3-27: Daily Pass Entries ……………………………………………………….3-49
Figure 4-1: Park Circulatory Roadway section ……………………………………………………….4-3
Figure 4-2: Drive time analysis …………………………………………………………4-5

Estrella Mountain Regional Park – Master Plan Update
Figure 4-3: Existing and Proposed Roadways …………………………………………………………4-7
Figure 4-4: Potential internal park roadway …………………………………………………………4-9
Figure 5-1: Pedersen Trail, Trails Crew at work …………………………………………………………5-1
Figure 5-2: Trails (existing and proposed) …………………………………………………………5-2
Figure 6-1: Development Zones …………………………………………………………6-3
Figure 7-1: Recommended Park Improvements (entire park) …………………………………………………………7-4
Figure 7-2: Recommended Park Improvements (north area close-up) …………………………………………………………7-5

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the concept of a regional park and a general overview of the project, the vision,
mission, and theme(s) of the park. The regional park fills a void between city, state, or national parks.
Regional parks are located outside the metropolitan area (although with rapid development, this is
becoming less and less the case) but within a reasonable driving distance to the population for which it
was planned and attempts to maintain a buffer from urban encroachment.
A regional park is defined as a natural, unspoiled area providing its visitors an escape from city
trappings, with enough space and facilities for day and overnight use. A regional park provides
opportunities for passive and active recreational activities (e.g. hiking, walking, horseback riding,
picnicking, camping, nature study and sightseeing) that allow its visitors to unwind and immerse
themselves in nature. A regional park may have unique topography and scenery or hold special historical
or archaeological interest. A regional park may also provide a blend of unspoiled nature, wilderness
preserve and refuge, and open space, offering its visitor(s) a sense of remoteness.
Its development, phased in over time, is geared toward facilities that encourage enjoyment of the
natural environment while still providing some comforts of home. All development is carefully patterned
and designed to conform to the landscape, avoiding a crowded feeling, and typically includes a nature
center, picnic tables and shelters, campsites, a trail system, and adequate support facilities (parking,
restrooms, concessions, etc.).
Therefore, the regional park system serves to preserve the mountains, canyons, native vegetation and
wildlife in their natural state while also encouraging the enjoyment of these natural resources by
providing well planned and appropriate facilities. Estrella Mountain Regional Park, one of ten Maricopa
County regional parks or conservation areas, offers the opportunity to picnic, hike or explore, and
satisfies our primitive instincts and restores our sense of well-being.
1.1 Project Background
The Estrella Mountain Regional Park entered the Maricopa County park system in 1954 and its first
master plan was written in 1965 and last updated in 1988 with several iterations in between. Many
components of the master plan have never come into fruition while at the same time public use often
dictates when and where development occurs. This update to the master plan is to bring those
disparities back into alignment and to steer future development of the park. This plan is based on a 20-
year outlook and should be referred to on a regular basis and updated if needed. This plan is meant to
be flexible while also providing long-term direction to the Park Supervisor, senior management, the
public, and other interested parties while continuing to protect the park’s resources both natural and
built.
1-1

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
Estrella Mountain Regional Park is a component of the Maricopa County regional park system and is to
date the third largest at 19,803 acres and features rugged mountain terrain, gentle foothills, and open
valley views. The system includes ten parks or conservation areas that comprise over 120,000 acres and
encircle the Phoenix metropolitan area. The park system provides recreational and educational
opportunities for residents and visitors alike.
1.2 Vision, Mission, and Theme
This plan is meant to align with the vision and mission of the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Department (MCPRD or Department). The park’s unique combination of wilderness and cultural
interests automatically provides a basic direction for the park’s planning and development and is
subsequently reflected in the park’s operational and marketing themes.
1.2.1 Vision and Mission
This plan aligns with the vision and mission set forth by the Department. The vision and mission are:
“Our vision is to connect people with nature through regional parks, trails and programs, inspire an
appreciation for the Sonoran Desert and natural open spaces, and create life-long positive memories.”
“Our mission, through responsible stewardship, is to provide the highest quality parks, trails, programs,
services and experiences that energize visitors and create life-long users and advocates.”
1.2.2 Themes
The 1988 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Long-Range Master Plan noted that the park possesses a
unique potential to serve the needs of the region due to its proximity to the confluence of three rivers,
the Salt, Gila, and Agua Fria. It also noted that the park could serve as a destination to a regionally
significant trail system or function as a starting point for destinations beyond the park (BRW, 1988).
Additionally, MCPRD has established similar operational and marketing themes that acknowledge its
proximity to these important waterways.
Operational Theme
The Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan update is aligned with the Maricopa County Parks and
Recreation 2009 Strategic System Master Plan that recommends maintaining the park as a “destination”
park. As such, its priority mandates have been identified in Table 1-1:
Table 1-1: Themes and Mandates
Maricopa County Park Estrella Mountain Regional Park
Operational Theme Destination Park
Priority Mandates
1 –Strategically develop facilities that increase the revenue generating capacity of the park and park
system.
2 – Preserve the natural setting and environmental aspects of the park by heavily restricted use and
limited public access.
3 – Devote resources to the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure.
Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Strategic System Master Plan, June 2009, page 193.
1-2

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
Until a new department-wide strategic plan is implemented that changes these priority mandates, any
proposed park improvement project (i.e. capital development or programmatic change) should support
one or more of these mandates.
Marketing Theme
Complimentary to its operational theme, each park also carries a marketing theme. Shortly after the
2009 Strategic System Master Plan was adopted, each park developed a “theme” that best represents
the park’s spirit or essence. The themes were vetted through community focus groups and park staff
meetings. A number of park values were identified during this process (e.g. turf, baseball fields, history,
equestrian trails, and others); however, the key features identified for Estrella Mountain Regional Park
were “riparian habitat” and “El Rio”. This emphasis on the riparian experience was carried forward in
the MCPRD Marketing Plan as its marketing theme.1
Although the park has many amenities to offer from mountain biking to picnicking, with the impressive
natural and cultural assets of the park, there are ample opportunities to promote this theme by
providing additional or improved facilities. Any proposed programming should also keep these themes
at the forefront.
1 Themes are further outlined in MCPRD Connecting People with Nature Marketing Plan (12/6/11 revision), page
43.
1-3

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
{This page intentionally left blank.}
1-4

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
CHAPTER 2 - MASTER PLAN PROCESS
This chapter provides the purpose of the master plan and reviews the master plan update process,
including the public participation program, planning issues, and a recreation activity evaluation
conducted during the project. This is the second master plan update the Department has undertaken in
recent years and uses the White Tank Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Update (2014-2034) as its
template.
The planning process for this project involved numerous tasks and relied on input from the planning
team and other key Department staff members, a stakeholder advisory group, and the general public
over the course of two years. Some tasks were completed simultaneously but entailed gathering or
analyzing different sets of information. Each task was tracked on a timeline to provide direction to the
planning team.
This park, already unique to the park system, posed a variety of challenges throughout the planning
process. Further, the park was approached by outside entities with development proposals. These
challenges were welcomed and, when appropriate, proposals were folded into the park improvement
recommendations, but which ultimately extended the timeline of the process.
2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan
The purpose of this plan is to update the 1988 Long-Range Master Plan to reflect current use of the park
as well as to identify and address community needs and concerns, characterize and evaluate
environmental resource information, and identify other potential recreational opportunities suitable for
inclusion in the park.
The ultimate purpose of developing a park master plan is to outline the long-range vision for the park as
well as to guide development priorities that will provide for both the public’s enjoyment and the
protection of the park’s resources. The master plan provides a conceptual planning framework for
establishing those priorities. It will also assist the park with upholding the standards for a “Quality
County Park System” per the 2009 Strategic System Master Plan.
2.2 Previous Planning Efforts
Several plans played an important role in shaping this master plan. Specifically, the 2009 Strategic
System Plan guides the decision-making for future development and management of the park system; it
also provides recommendations on how the park system might improve itself. The Connecting People
with Nature Marketing Plan took additional steps to identify the predominate feature(s) of each park
and promote a “theme” for each as well as a timeline for implementation of that theme. The annual
business plan will outline short-term projects and goals to further enhance or maintain park resources.
This plan consulted the following list of County plans and other documents:
2-1

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
• Maricopa County Regional Park System Plan (1965)
• Casey Abbott Semi-Regional Park Master Development Plan (1967)
• Casey Abbott Recreation Area (1975)
• Estrella Mountain Regional Park Long-Range Master Plan (1988)
• Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan (2004)
• Parks and Recreation Strategic System Master Plan (2009)
• 2012-2013 Visitor Study Final Report (by ASU) (and previous versions)
• Cultural resource surveys (various)
• Integrated Contingency Plan, Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan; Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (n.d.)
• Maricopa County Strategic Plan(n.d.)
• Maricopa County Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan (draft)
• Maricopa County Sustainability, Advancing Regional Sustainability, (n.d.)
2.3 Plan Amendments or Updates
This plan should be reviewed annually by park staff to insure their knowledge of and adherence to this
plan and to evaluate implementation progress. At a minimum, this plan should be revised and updated
every 20 years to take the changing needs of the County and the community into consideration.
If any major and/or sudden changes take place prior to the 20-year mark, an update or amendment may
be needed. Major amendments to this plan may require public notification and as such, all potential
changes should be reported to executive management and planning staff for consideration. Major
amendments may include changes to the Management Zone; adjacent land use changes or
development that impacts the park; acts of nature that dramatically alter the park; any other action that
would permanently affect the land; and/or a proposed action that is not within the scope of the master
plan.
Minor amendments or updates to the plan should be made as needed and do not require public
participation or formal approval. This includes updating demographic and other statistical information;
updates to appendices such as insertion or removal of annual reports (such as business plan, marketing
plan, etc.); new or updated resource information; and/or to correct grammatical or formatting issues.
Minor amendments or updates should be reported to executive management and planning staff for
consideration.
2.4 Agency Participation Program
2.4.1 Department Participation
The master plan update was developed internally by Department planning staff, park staff, and senior
level management. Department staff worked individually and met as a group throughout the planning
process in order to define the scope of the master plan, review project information, consult
stakeholders and the public, and develop and analyze draft park improvement projects, and to finalize
the master plan update.
2.4.2 Parks and Recreation Commission
Department planning staff provided periodic updates or presentations to the Parks and Recreation
Commission and invited them to provide feedback. These meetings were open for the public to attend
2-2

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
and make comments; however, no members of the public provided feedback during these meetings.
Presentations or updates were given on the following dates:
• July 15, 2014
• November 18, 2014
• May 19, 2015
• November 17, 2015
• March 15, 2016
The Parks and Recreation Commission provided their approval recommendation during the March 15,
2016 meeting.
2.4.3 Board of Supervisors
This plan was ultimately presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for their approval. These meetings
are also open to the public. The BOS approved this plan as acknowledged on the signature page in the
front of this document.
2.4.4 Agency Participation
Department planning staff engaged its agency partners such as City of Goodyear, City of Avondale,
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office (MCSO), and Maricopa
County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) via one-on-one meetings as well as by follow-up phone
calls or emails. The Department also invited these and other agencies to attend group stakeholder
meetings and public open house meetings where they could provide additional comments. One-on-one
meetings or presentations were held:
• City of Goodyear:
o December 13, 2013, at Goodyear’s Ballpark Administration Office
o May 5, 2014, at Department headquarters
o April 6, 2016, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
• City of Avondale:
o April 13, 2016 Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Commission
• AZGFD:
o January 14, 2015 at Department headquarters
• MCDOT (at MCDOT offices):
o September 2, 2014
o February 17, 2015
o April 30, 2015
The majority of park land was acquired by the Department via the Recreation and Public Purposes Act
(R&PP) and must remain consistent with R&PP requirements and land patents. As a result, the
Department consulted with the BLM and received its written approval of this plan and is found in the
front of this document.
Planning staff sought input from Arizona State Land Department by inviting the agency to stakeholder
meetings and including them on emails or other notifications. Their comments were taken into
consideration into the final plan update to the extent feasible.
2-3

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
Planning staff also sought input from directly adjacent and potentially interested Native American
communities regarding this master plan update. An email invitation was sent to the Gila River Indian
Community for the second public meeting.
2.5 Public Participation Program
A public participation program was designed by planning staff in order to inform the public of the
planning process, to identify recreational needs, and to solicit as much public and stakeholder feedback
as feasible. The various components are included and detailed in Appendix A.
2.5.1 Arizona State University (ASU) Park Visitor Study
ASU periodically performs visitor use surveys on behalf of the Department. Visitors are asked questions
by an interviewer during an in-park survey. Visitors are also asked to participate in a longer take-home
survey and provide more detailed responses to questions. This allows the Department to identify and
track trends over time. Survey responses for the year 2012-2013 were taken into consideration when
developing park improvement projects.
2.5.2 Partners
The planning team identified several agencies or other parties that the park has either contractual
obligations with or engaged in serious discussions with as partners in the planning process. These
interests were identified and disclosed at the start of the planning process and were consulted first and
early in the process. Later, these partners were incorporated into the larger stakeholder group. Included
were:
• Estrella Youth Sports (EYS)
• Centennial Trail (Three Rivers Historical Society)
• El Rio Watercourse Master Plan (Flood Control District of Maricopa County)
• Tres Rios Golf Course
• Corral West (Horse Trail Rides)
2.5.3 Stakeholders
Another component of the public participation program was establishing a list of stakeholders. The
stakeholders group is meant to reach out to a broader audience than just the Partners and includes
neighboring jurisdictions and other interested parties. The stakeholders met three times between
January 2015 and September 2015 at Estrella Mountain Regional Park Nature Center; a list of
participants invited to these meetings is included in Appendix A.
• January 29, 2015 (9:00-11:00am)
• March 26, 2015 (8:30-11:30am, site visit)
• September 28, 2015 (2:00-4:00pm)
The group’s comments and concerns were integrated into the planning process and assisted in the
development of the recommended park improvements. Comments received during these meetings
reflected a general concern for trails and trail maintenance, turf management, and potential upgrades to
the park. Briefly, those comments included:
2-4

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
• Baseline Trail is a gem being so close to
the nature center but is in serious
disrepair
• Improve the Competitive Track facilities
(e.g. install a restroom)
• Improve the turf field area
• Provide camping for both RV and tents
Figure 2-1: Stakeholder’s site visit
2.5.4 Youth Involvement
After the first Stakeholder meeting, it became clear that youth engagement and input was needed. As a
result, Department planning staff met with three youth groups in the southwest valley. First, planning
staff gave a presentation to the City of Goodyear Youth Commission on March 25, 2015 at its City Hall.
Feedback from the Youth Commissioners included:
• Include sand volleyball
• Competitive track needs better signage and maintenance
• Need better marketing; unaware of park and opportunities; utilize social media
• Provide river access for school groups for educational use
• Offer more family-oriented events
Department planning staff attended “Global Youth Service Day” sponsored by the City of Avondale
Youth Commission on April 11, 2015. Department staff held mini-focus groups with the Service Day
participants. Feedback included:
• Like “green” areas, trees, water, shade, seating,
restrooms, and playgrounds
• Like spending time with family and friends
• Need open areas for multiple uses and sports
activities
• Like a natural look; keep cities out of parks
• Important to protect mountain parks/open space
while we still have it
Figure 2-2: Planning staff listens to Youth
Day participants
Department planning staff also attended a youth group meeting at Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church in the
City of Buckeye on August 16, 2015. This meeting entailed a brief presentation and a group discussion
regarding outdoor recreation preferences. Feedback included:
• Water bottle filling stations
• Shade
• Water access
• Less metal features as it gets too hot
• Skate park
2-5

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
• Signage on trails to identify plants or animals
• Misters at shaded areas
• Indoor interactive, computerized learning experience area
• Lighted ball fields (football, sand volleyball, tennis)
• Shaded resting areas at trails
• Rock climbing
• Indoor education regarding plant life
• Important to protect these areas for its beauty and nature experience before it’s lost
2.5.3 Public Open House Meetings
The public was notified of the planning process and their feedback was sought through two public
meetings. Additional comments were captured through surveys or comment cards, the park website,
letters or email, discussions with citizens, and social media.
Surveys and/or feedback forms were provided at each public meeting to gather the public’s opinion.
Each meeting was followed by a 30-calendar day open comment period to collect the needs and
preferences of those who were unable to attend the meeting(s) in person. Also during these 30-day
periods, poster boards were left on display at the park’s nature center with comment forms available for
the community to review and provide additional feedback.
Public Meeting One
The first public meeting was held April 30, 2015 (6:00-8:00pm) at the Park’s Nature Center where 41
people signed in and 15 comment cards and over 40 sticky notes were collected. Of those who specified
their preferred activity, bicyclists and mountain bikers (15%) represented the largest share of
respondents, followed closely by hikers (14%).
Over 70 additional responses were received during the open comment period of April 30 to May 30,
2015. Comments received indicate a mixed level of support for the proposed sports field development
project; other respondents expressed their desire for additional trail options and improved trailhead
amenities (however, many comments were deemed outside of the scope of this master plan update).
Comments were posted on the Park’s project webpage. Briefly, other comments included:
• A general desire for additional trail options
and trailhead improvements.
• “Have an entrance that stands out. People
see golf course not park.”
• “The park could use some changes but
massive sports fields is not the way.”
• “[The sports field development] is a good
idea. The park needs users and this brings
them in.”
• “Please keep Estrella horse friendly. Corral
West Adventures has really made a Figure 2-3: Meeting participants make notes on
difference at the park.” wall map
2-6

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
Public Meeting Two
The second public meeting was held January 30, 2016 (10:30am-12:30pm) at the Park’s Nature Center
where 36 people signed in; no comment cards were received during the meeting. Planning staff
presented the two draft park improvement alternatives and answered questions throughout the
presentation and afterward. Topics that were raised during verbal conversations with the public
included:
• Increase annual pass fee and fees in general
• Preference for a walk-in gate and iron-
ranger near Indian Springs Road
• Eager for a Maricopa Trail connection
• Trail and trailhead improvements are
needed
• Camping at the rodeo arena is a good idea
• Fix ramadas or remove them if they are not
salvageable
Figure 2-4: Meeting participants ask questions
Fifty-six additional responses were received during the open comment period of January 30 through
February 29, 2016 via Survey Monkey, an online survey service, and via comment forms at the Nature
Center. The public was asked to indicate which draft alternative they most preferred. The majority of
respondents (76%) indicated draft alternative B was most preferred.
The public was also asked what they liked most and what they would change from their chosen
alternative. Trails, again, were the subject of most comments – including a general desire for additional
trail options and trailhead improvements. Mountain bike trails were commonly mentioned (i.e. to install
mountain bike style jumps, turns, and other elements). Briefly, other comments received included:
• “Ramada renovation/development”
• “Added camping RV and primitive”
• “Backcountry campsites not just close-in primitive sites”
• “Keep the park raw untouched desert as much as possible”
• “Need more camping spaces”
• [Add] “full hook-up sites, water, electric”
2.5.4 Project Website
Information was posted on the Park’s “Projects” webpage to keep the public and other interested
parties apprised of the planning process. (The Department website was remodeled in early 2016 and
some links may no longer be valid.)
• http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/estrella/emproject.aspx
• http://www.maricopacountyparks.net/park-locator/estrella-mountain-regional-park/park-
information/park-projects/
2.5.5 Media and Social Media Coverage
A general press release was issued to announce public meeting dates at least 30 calendar days prior to
each meeting and was made available on the County and Department webpages. These news outlets
published (or posted online) the press releases:
2-7

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
• County news: http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=2854
• County news: http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=2874
• County news: http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=3115
• County events calendar:
http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/estrella/EventsDetailPublishers.aspx?date=4/30/2015&EventI
D=24278
Facebook1 and Twitter2 were also utilized as reminders for the public open house meeting dates.
Comments were also retrieved from these social media sources during the open comment periods to
the extent possible and considered with all other comments.
Figure 2-5: Twitter message, April 30, 2015
The County newsletter delivery system, GovDelivery or GovDocs, was also used to distribute
newsletters/bulletins and updates to its email-based subscribers. Interested parties were encouraged to
register to the subscription service in order to receive updates or other notifications related to the park.
The GovDelivery system offers analytics that can be used to test the system’s effectiveness, whereas
other platforms may not.
Table 2-1: Delivery and View Rates of GovDelivery system
Date Sent Recipients Delivery Rate Total Opens
May 18, 2015 1,380 99% 4321
Dec. 21, 2015 1,418 99% 1252
1 Between May 18 and June 15, 2015
2 As of December 21, 2015
2.6 Planning Issues
Tight budgets and staffing are typically the top planning issues. Budgets and staffing will impact all areas
of the park and are always of concern. The budget will dictate the number of staff employed at the park
and the number of park improvement projects that can be successfully completed.
Additional factors that affected the planning process included existing conditions, trends and other
issues both inside and outside of the park. The park is facing a variety of challenges from aged facilities
and infrastructure, declining visitation, changing demographics, and changing recreational use activities
and patterns (for example, the shift away from picnicking towards increased trail uses as the primary
activity). The park also faces pressures from adjacent land use and development; this includes newer
1 Estrella’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/EstrellaMtnPark
2 MCPRD Twitter page: https://twitter.com/mcparks
2-8

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
residential developers that are required by city planning code or ordinance to include neighborhood
parks, trails, and/or open space into their development. The inclusion of outdoor recreational spaces in
neighborhoods provides its residents with new options for how they recreate that were not available to
them previously. These topics are presented in Chapter 3.
Notwithstanding that, the diverse planning issues identified during scoping for the project were
identified by the Planning Team and can be grouped into five major categories: develop new facilities;
maintain/rehabilitate existing facilities; education/interpretation; administrative; and resource
protection. The park improvement recommendations, as detailed in Chapter 7, will address these
concerns while supporting the park’s priority mandates and themes.
2.7 Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE)
A Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE), table 2-2, was prepared to identify various recreational
opportunities appropriate for consideration in the park. In the RAE, potential park recreational uses
were compared against environmental resource management, operational, and other criteria.
Throughout the process, the vision statement, operational theme (destination), and its three priority
mandates were used to guide development and evaluation of the alternatives.
2-9

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
Table 2-2: Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE)
Supports
one or Considered
Complies more for ES
with Supports Park Potential Operations Draft
MCPRD Park's Priority Public Public Regional Site Infrastructure & Potential Master
Type Recreational Activity Policy Theme(s) Mandate Interest Opposition Availability Disturbance Requirement Maintenance Revenue Plan
L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H
Recreational Vehicle
Camping (RV) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Camping Tent Yes Yes Yes Yes
Camping Equestrian-based Yes Yes Yes Yes*
General trailhead
Trails improvements Yes Yes Yes Yes
Trails Peak view trial Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comp Track
Trails improvements Yes Yes Yes Yes
Picnic Ramada upgrades Yes Yes Yes Yes
Signage upgrades or
Interp/Education other displays Yes Yes Yes Yes
Interp/Education Butterfly garden Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shooting Shooting range Yes No Yes No
Facilities Sports fields Yes Yes Yes Yes
Facilities Zipline / Rope course Yes Yes Yes Yes
Facilities Splash Pad Yes Yes Yes Yes
Facilities Brine wetlands Yes Yes Yes Yes
Facilities Super Playground Yes Yes Yes Yes
Facilities Amphitheater Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other Turf Grass Yes Yes Yes Yes*
Comments * Limited to designated area(s) only.

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
CHAPTER 3 – RESOURCE ANALYSIS
The resource analysis for the master plan includes natural, human, and cultural resources that could be
affected by any additional development and operation of the park. Inventory of park resources occurred
from January 2014 through August 2015. Data collection included reviewing previous reports or
documents pertaining to the park and resources in the area, aerial photo interpretation, GIS analysis,
agency contacts, and field investigations.
The park consists of 19,796 acres, of which approximately 532 are developed. This amounts to less than
3% of the total acreage that is developed. The 2009 Strategic System Plan1 provides a guideline to keep
developed areas to 10% or less of the total land area (smaller parks that are contiguous to another
protected open space may exceed 10%).
A photo monitoring program has been established for the park. Using a digital camera and GIS will allow
park staff to return to the same points each year to check for signs of change in any of its visual, cultural
or natural resources. This is detailed further in Appendix B.
3.1 General Project Setting
At nearly 20,000 acres, Estrella Mountain Regional Park is the third largest regional park in Maricopa
County to date and is located within Sections 1 and 4 – 36 of Township 01 South, Range 01 West; the
northwest corner of the park falls within sections 32 and 33 of Township 01 North, Range 01 West. The
park is located southwest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, falling within the planning boundaries of
both the Cities of Avondale and Goodyear and is shown on Figure 3-1.
The park’s mailing address is 14805 West Vineyard Avenue, Goodyear, AZ 85338. The park may be
contacted by telephone 623-932-3811 or fax 602-372-8507 or via email at
estrellapark@mail.maricopa.gov. Although subject to change, the current park operating hours2 are:
Park Hours Nature Center Hours Administrative Office Hours
Sun-Thu: 6:00am – 8:00pm Mon-Sat: 8:00am – 4:00pm Mon-Fri: 8:00am – 4:00pm
Fri-Sat: 6:00am – 10:00pm
365 days a year
1 Maricopa County Parks and Recreation, 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, p105.
2 Source: park website as of February 22, 2013. Check website for the most current information.
3-1

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-1: Park and Metro-area
3.2 Special Designations
3.2.1 Recreation Resources
El Rio Plant Research Trail
The purpose of this 8.5-acre experimental project is to determine what varieties of native vegetation
provide the best flood control measures and to enhance the natural character of the Gila River. Visitors
may see Velvet Mesquite, Fremont Cottonwood, Gooding Willow, Creosote Bush, Quail Bush, Towering
Saltbush, Ironwood, and Blue Palo Verde and read interpretive panels along the quarter-mile trail.
Opened in 2007, this project is a joint effort of the Maricopa Parks and Recreation Department,
Maricopa County Flood Control Department, and the Bureau of Reclamation; future cooperative
projects are being developed for inclusion in the river bottom.
Maricopa Trail
The Maricopa Trail will eventually make its connection to the park. The trail is part of a regional trail plan
that will link all Maricopa County Regional Parks and provide connections with metropolitan areas,
municipal trails, communities, and neighborhoods with a regional, non-motorized, multi-modal corridor.
The Maricopa Trail will also protect open space corridors and natural and cultural resources from
development along its route.
3-2

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Centennial Trail
On April 24, 2012, the Centennial Trail was designated as an official Arizona Centennial Legacy Project by
the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission. The Centennial Trail proposes an educational and looped
trail within the park. In addition to educational elements, the trail may also include a water feature. The
Three Rivers Centennial Trail at Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan (2012 draft) details this
conceptual project further.
3.2.2 Cultural Resources
The park has a long history of human
exploration and cultural remnants are often
found throughout the park in the form of
petroglyphs, old dwellings, and mining test pits.
Despite its history, no sites or buildings within
the park have been listed by the State Historic
Preservation Office on the National Register of
Historic Places. Remnants of an old homestead
are found deep within the park (figure 3-2).
The park contains a number of recorded
archeological sites. Among them, one
(AZ:T:11:3) is thought to be a former Figure 3-2: Remnants of past homesteaders
prehistoric village site and may still contain
significant archaeological data.
Likewise, a trail used by early pioneers travelling from Phoenix to Little Rainbow Valley called “Pack
Saddle Trail” (now a part of Gadsden Trail) bisects the park from northeast to the southwest and has
been recognized by SHPO as a historic trail (site file number 1197).
3.2.3 Natural Resources
Wildlife Linkages
AZGFD has extensively researched and recorded critical wildlife linkage areas for the entire county and
this part of the Valley (figure 3-3). Wildlife linkage is discussed in Section 3.6.6 Wildlife Linkages. The
park is considered a wildlife block due to its adjacency to other vast expanses of undisturbed lands. A
wildlife corridor connects the southwest corner of the park to Buckeye Hills to the west and Rainbow
Valley to the immediate southwest. Additionally, the area along the Gila River is considered a wildlife
linkage corridor for a variety of wildlife species. It is also considered an Important Bird Area (IBA).
3-3

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-3: Wildlife Linkages (southwest valley)
Hunting
The park allows hunting of mule deer (archery only) and some small game (shotgun only) during
specified hunting seasons as regulated by AZGFD. It is illegal and a revocable offense to shoot a firearm
within a quarter-mile of any developed picnic area, developed campground, shooting range, occupied
building, boat ramp, golf course or other recreational area developed for public use; or to shoot from,
on, or across a roadway; or to trespass on private property. A trail is not considered a developed area.
Hunting is discussed further in 3.9.3 Hunting. Some hunting occurs in the Gila River corridor.
3-4

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas3
Maricopa County’s Air Quality Department is tasked with protecting the public from airborne particulate
matter and with complying with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Nearly the entire
Phoenix metropolitan area falls within the non-attainment area. The following designations remain in
effect until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines otherwise:
Particulate Matter
Inhalable coarse particulate matter4 is sized at either 2.5 (PM2.5) or 10 (PM10) micrometers in diameter
and is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The park is entirely within the PM10 Non-
attainment Area and subject to dust-control measures. PM10 includes dust, soot, and other tiny bits of
solid materials that are released into and move around in the air (either from natural or anthropogenic
sources). County inspection reports are kept on file in the park office.
Ozone
The park is included within the 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area boundaries. At ground level, ozone
aids in creating smog and is formed by the reaction of VOCs5 (for example, photochemical smog) and
NOx6 (a reaction of nitrogen and oxygen gases in the air, particularly from motor vehicles) in the
presence of heat and sunlight.
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area
The park is partially included in the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area. The Air Quality Department
explains that the area previously designated by the EPA has exceeded acceptable national standards for
CO (carbon monoxide) pollution levels. The EPA re-designated this area in attainment of the national CO
standards in 2005, thus declaring the area a maintenance area as opposed to a nonattainment area.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that forms when the carbon in fuels does not
completely burn. Vehicle exhaust contributes roughly 60 percent of all carbon monoxide emissions
nationwide, and up to 95 percent in cities. Other sources include fuel combustion in industrial processes
and natural sources such as wildfires.
Fire Bans
At times it is necessary to implement a ban on all fires (such as campfires, fire pits, and charcoal grills)
throughout the entire park in order to ensure public safety and protect park resources. A typical fire ban
may be in effect from May 1 through September 30 each year. A violation of this park rule, Rule 1137,
may result in a citation and park eviction. Gas and propane use is usually acceptable in designated areas,
3 Maricopa County Air Quality Department, Planning Area Maps,
http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/PlanningAreaMaps.aspx as accessed April 9, 2014.
4 EPA, Particulate Matter (PM 10) Information, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/pindex.html as accessed
April 9, 2014.
5 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that have a high vapor pressure at ordinary, room-
temperature conditions. Their high vapor pressure results from a low boiling point, which causes large numbers of
molecules to evaporate or sublimate from the liquid or solid form of the compound and enter the surrounding air.
6 NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide). They are
produced from the reaction of nitrogen and oxygen gases in the air during combustion, especially at high
temperatures. In areas of high motor vehicle traffic, such as in large cities, the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted
into the atmosphere as air pollution can be significant.
7 Maricopa County Parks and Recreation, Park Rules, Adopted August 13, 2003 by Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors. http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/PDF/ParkRules.pdf as accessed May 2, 2012.
3-5

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
except during extreme fire bans. Lifting the fire ban is dependent on regional temperatures and the
amount of seasonal monsoon rain the park receives and is announced by the Department.
A burn permit is not needed from Maricopa County’s Air Quality Department for the following
activities:8
• Cooking for immediate human consumption (Regulation III, Rule 314, Section 303.1.a)
• Warmth for human beings (Regulation III, Rule 314, 303.3a, unless under a fire ban)
• Recreational purposes where the burning material is clean, dry wood or charcoal (Regulation III,
Rule 314, 303.3b, unless under a fire ban)
However, it should be noted that while a permit may not be needed for these activities, they may be
prohibited while under a fire ban.
3.3 Physiography and Climate
This section reviews the physiographic properties of the park and describes typical climatic conditions
and other natural surroundings.
3.3.1 Physiography
Estrella Mountain Regional Park is within the Basin and Range province of the Southwest United States.
An abrupt change in elevation, alternating between narrow faulted mountain chains and flat arid valleys
or basins, is typical here. The development of the province is the result of crustal extension that began
in the Early Miocene era. As these geologic blocks tilted, sediments from erosion filled the valleys
between them, creating the basins.
As a free-standing mountain range, the Sierra Estrella Mountain range extends approximately 20 miles
in a northwest to southeast direction and is about five miles wide. The majority of the mountain range is
protected by the park, BLM wilderness area, or the Gila River Indian Community. These razor sharp
mountains and rocky canyons offer spectacular views. The mountain range features a handful of peaks
over 4,000 feet with Hayes Peak being the highest at 4,512 feet.
The park is within the Sonoran Desert, the dominate feature of Basin and Range. The Sonoran Desert
covers about 120,000 square miles of the Southwest United States, extending into Mexico. This desert
region is the hottest desert in the United States although winter temperatures can sometimes reach
freezing. Winter and summer monsoon storms provide much needed water to the rich and diverse
desert life. The winter storms, when they produce enough precipitation, result in an abundant spring
flowering season.
3.3.2 Climate
The warmest months are June through August when the average temperature can reach over 100°F and
park activity slows down. Cooler months, January through March and November through December,
provide visitors with an opportunity to enjoy the scenic beauty without the heat.
8 Maricopa County Air Quality Department, Regulation III - Control of Air Contaminants, Rule 314 Open Outdoor
Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments.
http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/rules/docs/314-1207.pdf as accessed December 26,
2012.
3-6

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Monsoon thunderstorms are also experienced throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area (due to
seasonal wind shifts and daytime heating9) generally in the months of July through September and may
produce heavy rain or humidity. Occasional wind or dust storms may be experienced as well. On the
highest mountain peaks, temperatures can be 8-12 degrees cooler than in the valley. Snow may be seen
at least once or twice a year on the highest points of the mountain range, typically above 4,000 feet and
occasionally near 2,000 feet.
Annual rainfall is scant and largely limited to the winter and summer seasons (table 3-1). Light winter
rains bring forth grasses and forage plants, and green up the cacti and ocotillo; when plentiful,
wildflowers are abundant. Summer rain, largely the product of thunderstorms, is frequently torrential.
The northern portion of the park occasionally receives enough storm water runoff from the hillsides
located south of Casey Abbott Drive South10 to produce localized flooding.
Table 3-1: Average Annual Temperature and Precipitation
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Avg High (°F) 65 70 76 85 94 103 105 103 98 87 74 64
Avg Low (°F) 42 45 50 56 64 72 79 79 72 59 48 41
Precip. (Inch) 0.99 1.28 0.97 0.37 0.11 0.04 0.83 1.23 0.95 0.49 0.68 0.99
Source: The Weather Channel, http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/4178:19 as
accessed December 30, 2013.
3.4 Water Resources
The water resources section describes surface and groundwater resources within the park. In 1868,
George Ingalls, a surveyor for the United States government, described the Gila River as “a fine stream
of water about 10 chains (680 feet) wide…has a rapid current generally”. In 1883, R.C. Powers, another
government surveyor, described the river as “more than sufficient for irrigation” and in 1910 yet
another surveyor, Guy V. Harrington, noted that the river contained water year-round although the flow
was dwindling as the water was diverted elsewhere.
The United States Congress established the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902 and by 1903 they had
authorized the Roosevelt Dam project on the Salt River. This accelerated growth of the south-central
Arizona desert region. The Roosevelt Dam was finished in 1911 and several more dams were built by
1920. However, it was the completion of the Coolidge Dam in 1929 that reduced the Gila River water
flow to seasonal flows or after heavy rains, leaving it a dry river bed for much of the year. Today, the El
Rio Watercourse Master Plan provides methods to restore water and other riparian functions back to
the Gila River while at the same time reducing flood risk.
3.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The Gila River passes through the northern-most portion of the park. The basin is drained by two major
rivers; the Agua Fria and Gila Rivers. Estrella Mountain Regional Park is within both the Lower Gila-
9 ASU, School of Geographical Sciences & Urban Planning, Basics of the Arizona Monsoon & Desert Meteorology,
http://geoplan.asu.edu/aztc/monsoon.html as accessed April 3, 2012.
10 MCDOT, et. al., Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Access Roads (September 2015), Pages 6-8.
3-7

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Painted Rock Reservoir (HUC 15070101) and the Middle Gila (HUC 15050100)11 hydrologic units and
subsections of the Phoenix Active Management Area for groundwater.
Throughout the remainder of the park, there are no perennial or intermittent streams but there are a
number of natural, ephemeral and mostly unnamed washes throughout the park and three major
watersheds that distribute storm water runoff (figure 3-4; table 3-2).
Figure 3-4: Major washes (light blue lines)12
11 EPA, MyWATERS Mapper.
http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/?layer=LEGACY_WBD&feature=15070102&extraLayers=null
12 National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), obtained January 2011. For more information on the WBD, see
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html
3-8

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-2: Drainage Areas of Major Washes
Location of Wash at Park Boundary Drainage Area Within
Park in Square Miles
Section 32, T1N-R1W 1.9
Section 4, T1S-R1W 2.2
Section 10, T1S-R1W 1.8
Section 11, T1S-R1W 2.1
Section 1, T1S-R1W 0.6
Section 12, T1S-R1W 3.7
Section 19, T1S-R1W (Corgett Wash) 9.0
Source: Maricopa County Regional Park System Plan, Volume 2, page
39, 1965.
The park’s northern and more developed areas fall within a regulatory floodway and floodplain of the
Gila River. It is important to note that at the time of this writing, these designated flood areas are being
reevaluated and altered by FEMA and the Maricopa County Flood Control District; the Department and
park staff should continue to monitor these changes for any impacts to the park. A current map (figure
3-5) is shown below; however any updated maps should be inserted into Appendix C.
Figure 3-5: Floodway and Floodplain
The Maricopa County Flood Control District monitors precipitation and provides flood alerts through the
following monitoring stations (table 3-3):
3-9

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-3: Flood Alert System
Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date
6850 Gila @ Estrella Pkwy. Precip. 2/28/1989
6853 Gila @ Estrella Pkwy. Stream PT 3/1/1993
3.4.2 Groundwater Resources
As does most of Maricopa County, Estrella Mountain Regional Park resides in the Phoenix Active
Management Area (AMA)13 groundwater basin; these are areas that rely heavily on mined groundwater
and require additional withdrawal rate management. There are five registered wells at the park;
however, only one is active.
3.5 Earth Resources
The park is located within the Basin and Range Province of the Desert Southwest, as is much of Arizona.
Basin and Range is a result of tectonic forces and volcanism over millions of years.14 The Sierra Estrella
Mountains are an elevated, tilted fault block and oriented in a northwest to southeast direction.
Elevations vary from about 900 to over 4,000 feet.
3.5.1 Geology
The rock types found are mostly schist and granite with some areas of gneiss and Laramide granite
(figure 3-6). For a full list of types and detailed description of locations of occurrence, as compiled by
Arizona Geological Survey15 Map Services, see Appendix D.
13 Arizona Department of Water Resources, http://www.azwater.gov/ as accessed September 26, 2012.
14 The Geologic Origin of the Sonoran Desert, Robert Scarborough
http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_geologic_origin.php as accessed April 30, 2014.
15 The Arizona Geological Survey, AZGS Map Services Geologic Map of Arizona,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/services_azgeomap.shtml as accessed July 17, 2014.
3-10

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-6: Geology
3-11

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.5.2 Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) is the state agency responsible for identifying and
monitoring active land subsidence areas around the state. There are no known land subsidence areas in
or near the park.16
Effective September 21, 2006, Arizona Revised Statute § 27-152.01(3) requires the Arizona Geological
Survey (AZGS) to complete comprehensive mapping of earth fissures throughout Arizona and providing
earth fissure map data to the State Land Department to be made available online with other GIS map
layers for the public to use in building their own customized maps. Parts of Maricopa County were
mapped17 and no fissures are currently known within the park itself.
3.5.3 Soils18 and Erosion Potential
The major soil types found in the park are fine sandy loam and gravelly loam in the development
management zones and rock outcrop in the primitive management zone areas (figure 3-7). The soils
immediately surrounding the Sierra Estrella Mountains have a low to moderate shrink/swell potential.19
See Appendix D for a soils map and definitions.
Due to the steep and rugged slope (15% or greater) of the mountains, erosion potential is high in these
areas, resulting in talus and alluvium deposits below (and is what slowly fills the “basins” within a Basin
and Range system). During an extreme flash flood event, these materials can be transported to lower
lying areas below.
16 Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division, Arizona Land Subsidence Areas and Interactive
Map, http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Hydrology/Geophysics/LandSubsidenceInArizona.htm as accessed April 30,
2014.
17 The Arizona Geological Survey, Arizona’s Earth Fissure Center, http://www.azgs.az.gov/efv.shtml as accessed
April 30, 2014.
18 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soils website, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ as
accessed July 17, 2014.
19 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Properties Shrink/Swell Potential,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/az/soils/?cid=nrcs144p2_065083 as accessed July 17, 2014.
3-12

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-7: Soils
3.6 Biological Resources
The State of Arizona has over 900 animal species and a diversity of landscapes. Maricopa County is
located in the central portion of the Sonoran Desert and is home to a variety of plants and animals. The
wildlife and vegetation commonly seen in the park is typical of a Sonoran Desertscrub environment.
Fire is not historically common to a Sonoran Desertscrub environment, although with intrusion of
human influence and adjacent development, it is more of a risk today. Tamarisk (salt cedar) fires are a
3-13

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
problem in the river bed at adjacent locations. Historic cattle activity brought more grasses into the area
(as did homes) and these grasses can also serve as fuel to fires.
The Arizona Upland Subdivision vegetation occurs on slopes and broken ground (green areas on figure 3-
8) while desert pavement is typical of the Lower Colorado River Subdivision (red areas on figure 3-8);
high temperatures and little precipitation are common elements to each.
Figure 3-8: Biotic Communities (Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department, HabiMap™)
3-14

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.6.1 Wildlife
The Gila River riparian area also provides habitat for mud turtles, salamanders, coral snakes, tilapia, blue
gills, catfish, carp, crayfish and zooplankton, and other aquatic wildlife.
Common Reptiles and Amphibians
Examples of species adapted to the bajadas, or rocky and steep terrain, and/or brushier vegetation
include the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, Sonoran Population) and Gila monster (Heloderma
suspectum). The Western Diamondback rattlesnake is also common to the park.
Some species spend a majority of their time underground emerging either to feed or breed such as the
Gila monster. Several subspecies of the whiptail lizard may be found inside the park. Whiptail lizards are
diurnal and are most often seen in the day time foraging for food and do not spend as much time
underground as the Gila monster.
Common Birds
Within the HabiMap™ online planning tool, the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas query identifies
reproductively active birds that occur or have the potential to occur within park boundaries. There are
many resident species that inhabit the park such as: roadrunner, cliff swallow, burrowing owl, red-tailed
hawk, American kestrel, cactus wren, Abert’s towhee, and Say’s Phoebe are also common to the park.
The riparian corridor, also considered an Important Bird Area (IBA), at the north boundary of the park
supports a variety of migratory birds as well (figure 3-9).
Figure 3-9: Arizona Important Bird Areas (Source: National Audubon Society)
3-15

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Common Mammals
The park is home to many types of animals typical of the desert environment. Most commonly seen are
coyote, javelina, bobcat, Mule deer, kangaroo rat, raccoon, Harris’ antelope ground squirrel, rock
squirrel, round-tailed ground squirrel, desert cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, and several bat species.
While not rare species, beaver are occasionally found in the riparian areas. Similarly, mountain lion and
a remnant herd of desert bighorn sheep might be seen in the more mountainous areas of the park.
3.6.2 Special Status Wildlife
The Federal Register (Register) currently has 50 federally Threatened or Endangered20 animal species
listed under the Endangered Species Act within the State of Arizona. The Register is updated daily and
species may be added or dropped and should be checked regularly to ensure compliance. See Appendix
E for a listing of these animals that occur within Maricopa County. Of those listed, the following may be
found in the park or habitat that supports the species may be present in the park:
• Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (Endangered)
• Yuma Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Yumaensis) (Endangered)
3.6.3 Natural Heritage Program – Heritage Data Management System (HDMS)
Additionally, AZGFD tracks animals of State concern through its Natural Heritage Program.21 Of those
listed, the following may be found within the park or habitat may exist to support the species:
• Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
• Sonoran collared lizard (Crotaphytus nebrius)
• California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus)
• Yuma Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Yumaensis)
• Bat colony (not specified)
3.6.4 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)22
The State of Arizona has identified certain species with a great need for conservation actions in its
Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and those are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife.
The list includes species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) as well as many others with significant vulnerability such as low and declining
populations. Overall, it is AZGFD’s intent to highlight the needs of these species, as well as Special Status
Species, in an effort to "keep common species common" and maintain as much of Arizona's biodiversity
as possible in light of development pressures and habitat loss. These species within the park planning
area include: Abert's towhee (Melozone aberti), Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana),
Arizona myotis (Myotis occultus), Arizona pocket mouse (Perognathus amplus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum),
Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis), Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, Sonoran
Population), Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), or others.
20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Report,
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingIndividual.jsp?state=AZ&status=listed as accessed July 28, 2014.
21 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Heritage Program,
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml and HabiMap™ HDMS query
http://habimap.org/habimap/ as accessed July 28, 2014.
22 Arizona Game and Fish Department, HabiMap™ SGCN query, http://habimap.org/habimap/ as accessed July 28,
2014.
3-16

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.6.5 Other Types of Animals
Occasionally, park staff finds other types of animals within the park; usually domestic pets that have
been abandoned or lost inside the park. When discovered, these animals are turned over to the
appropriate agency for their care and potential re-homing. These animals include: dogs, turtles, and
lizards.
3.6.6 Wildlife Linkages23
The Sierra Estrella Mountain range is considered to be part of a wildland block; meaning it is part of a
large contiguous natural area capable of supporting a diverse array of wildlife into the foreseeable
future. Currently, these mountains are connected to undeveloped mountainous terrain to the east and
south; with very few roads, urbanization, or other barriers. While there are no designated critical
wildlife linkage zones (or corridors) within park boundaries, it provides an important refuge for wildlife.
Likewise, the riparian corridor along the Gila River is considered a potential linkage zone across habitat
as well as an IBA (figure 3-10).
23 Arizona Game and Fish Department. Wildlife and Habitat Connectivity,
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/connectivity.shtml as accessed December 31, 2012 and in-person meeting December
20, 2012 with Dana Warnecke, Habitat Specialist III, Arizona Game and Fish Department and follow-up
consultation.
3-17

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-10: Wildlife Linkages, HabiMap™ (Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department)
The City of Goodyear’s General Plan 2025 (page 132) recognizes a wildlife linkage overlay to support
wildlife movement between the Sonoran Desert National Monument and the Sierra Estrella Mountains
and designates the area for open space preservation.
3-18

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.6.7 Vegetation
A flora inventory completed in 197424 showed 315 species and variations occurring within the park; the
inventory and a searchable database are available on the Southwest Environmental Information
Network website. The following native plants are commonly seen in the park: sage, ocotillo, Saguaro
cactus, four-wing salt bush, burro bush, creosote bush, brittle bush, pincushion cactus, stag horn cholla,
teddy-bear cholla cactus, as well as desert trees such as ironwood, palo verde, and mesquite.
Noxious Weeds and Plants
Disturbed areas within the park, especially near campsites, parking lots, and along trails are ripe ground
for noxious weeds to take root. The most common noxious weed within the park is red brome. Tamarisk
(salt cedar) is also pervasive within the park and efforts have been made to eliminate this species. See
Appendix E for description of these plants.
3.6.8 Special Status Vegetation
The Federal Register currently has 20 federally Threatened or Endangered25 plant species listed under
the Endangered Species Act within the State of Arizona. The Register is updated daily and species may
be added or dropped. Currently there are no known federally threatened or endangered plant species
within the park. However, the park should review this list periodically for new species that may occur
inside the park.
Additionally, AZGFD tracks over 130 plants of state concern through its Natural Heritage Program.26 See
Appendix E for a listing of these plants that occur within Maricopa County and how other agencies rank
them. Of those listed, the following may be found within the park or conditions exist that may support:
• Lobed fleabane (Erigeron lobatus)
• Desert spike moss (Selaginella eremophila)
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation
This section offers a brief history of the park and surrounding area, but by all means, is not a complete
historical record. The historical names and/or events mentioned in this section may bring context to
park-related naming conventions. While a comprehensive archeological inventory has not been
completed on the entire park, project or site specific surveys have been completed and a number of
records are available. These inventories are kept on file at the park or Department offices and may not
be available to the general public in order to protect sensitive archaeological sites.
Multiple sections of the 1988 master plan served as the primary source for much of the historical
information contained in this section and may be consulted for additional detail (Estrella Mountain
Regional Park Long-range Master Plan, 1988, BRW, Inc.). Appendix F contains additional cultural
resource information.
24 Sundell, E. G. 1974. Vegetation and flora of Sierra Estrella Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County, Arizona.
M. S. thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe. SEINet,
http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/checklists/checklist.php?cl=7&pid=1 as accessed May 2, 2014.
25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Report,
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingIndividual.jsp?state=AZ&status=listed as accessed July 28, 2014.
26 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Heritage Program,
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml and HabiMap™ HDMS query
http://habimap.org/habimap/ as accessed July 28, 2014.
3-19

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.7.1 Pre-History of Area27
Cultural remains may be encountered throughout the park that may represent the remnants of the
prehistoric archaeological culture called Hohokam. However, because of the complex geomorphological
conditions in the park, it is possible for discoveries dating to the earlier Paleoindian and Archaic cultures
to be found. Further, the park is adjacent to the Gila River Indian Community consequently evidence of
Akimel O’odham (Pima) and/or Piipaash (Maricopa) use of the area may also be present.
Water was a critical element to those who lived in this desert region. Unsurprisingly, the Hohokam relied
heavily on irrigation for its farms in order to produce food and trade
goods. Traces of irrigation canals have been found along the Salt and
Gila Rivers and evidence of which have been located within the park
but not confirmed. Around A.D. 1450, these agricultural centers were
abandoned for unknown reasons.
Petroglyphs (figure 3-11) are found in many places throughout the
park. Petroglyphs are renderings left behind on rock by ancient
peoples. The rocks are covered by a paper-thin coating of dark
“desert varnish” or patina28 on exposed rocks and boulders. This
varnish is what allowed native peoples to leave their petroglyph
messages behind. The park interpretive ranger occasionally leads
educational hikes to some petroglyphs located closer to the Nature
Center and front-country areas. Others locations may be monitored
by the Arizona Site Steward program.
Figure 3-11: Petroglyphs
3.7.2 History of Area29
Up to 1821, when Mexico broke from Spain, the native people occasionally encountered Roman Catholic
missionaries who converted the local people and introduced new crops and technologies but were
largely left alone. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, ending the war with Mexico.
With this treaty, all lands north of the Gila River were part of the United States territory and all lands
south of the river remained with Mexico. Later, through the Gadsden Purchase (1853-1854), the border
between the United States and Mexico was moved south to its present day location, placing Estrella
Mountain Regional Park within the New Mexico territory of the United States.
In 1861, as the nation was embroiled in the Civil War, Colonel John R. Baylor of Texas took official
possession of the “territory of Arizona” for the Confederacy – an area that included all of present day
Arizona south of the 34th parallel. This action put the park under the Confederate flag by signature of
then Confederate President Jefferson Davis in 1862. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill
creating the new Territory of Arizona; the legislation remained law at the end of the war and effectively
divided the New Mexico and Arizona territories at their current boundaries.
Beginning in the 1850’s through the 1860s, the lands around the park experienced an increase in travel
via newly formed stage lines, mail routes, and other overland trails. In 1857, the San Antonio and San
27 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Long-range Master Plan, 1988, BRW, Inc.
28 Desert Soils, Joseph R. McAuliffe, http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_desert_soils.php as accessed
April 18, 2012.
29 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Long-range Master Plan, 1988, BRW, Inc.
3-20

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Diego Mail line began operation south of the park. The Butterfield Overland Mail stage line also
operated through this area from 1858 to 1861 followed by the Arizona Stage Company (and others)
during the 1860s though 1870s.
Gold was discovered near the Town of Wickenburg in 1863 and travel increased along the Southern
Overland Trail (following the old Gila Trail) before branching off towards Wickenburg and Prescott. The
prospect of striking it rich in gold continued to attract people to the mountains of Central Arizona, and
although a number of mining claims were filed nearby, as well as within park boundaries, nothing of
consequence was found in or near the park. Test pits can still be found inside the park.
Around this time, the United States government created the reservation system for Native Americans.
The first one established was the Gila River Indian Reservation (64,000 acres) in 1859 – east and south of
Estrella Mountain Regional Park. By 1869, the Reservation was increased to 145,000 acres. The 1860s
and 1870s brought additional pressures (e.g. severe water shortages and other agricultural pressures) to
the Reservation for several decades that caused many to flee to areas with better water access. Some
portions were later allowed to be developed by non-native peoples, per order of the Secretary of the
Interior in 1911.
Homesteading, Ranching and Herding
Homesteaders and ranchers began staking claim to the lands inside the park boundary as early as 1889.
Official GLO plats of 1914 and 1917 show a frame house at one site and another property owned by
James H. Kennedy, although the remnants of these structures no longer exist. Between 1900 and 1930
one homestead and six land lease claims appear in BLM or Arizona State Land Department records.
However, water claims were filed as early as the 1870s along with proposals from individuals or
companies to divert water from the Gila River for livestock and irrigation. The Coolidge Dam
construction in 1929 put an end to this by effectively ending water flow in the river. Similarly, plans to
use runoff from the mountains to irrigate the flatter southwest quadrant of the park did not pan out.
During the 1920s, 14 homestead claims and six land lease claims were filed in the park but all were
eventually cancelled or transferred after tenants failed to make necessary improvements. Up to 24
homesteads had been filed between 1889 and 1950. After 1940, all homestead claims, land leases, and
mining claims were transferred or bought by Maricopa County for inclusion into the park. One of the last
private landowners was “Hassayampa” Clyde Pedersen, whose father, Hans Pedersen, homesteaded and
improved 160 acres in the southwest corner of the park. The property was finally sold to the County in
the mid-1970s. Remnants of the Pedersen residence, outbuildings, and mining activity are still visible
today and the family is the namesake for the Pedersen Trail.
The dry, mountainous nature of the park provided little range land. In fact, the State Land Department
determined the carrying capacity was three cows or fewer per section. Only one grazing operation was
known to use these lands. In 1886, brothers William R. and John Beloat out of Buckeye grazed a small
herd on the Gila River near Liberty under the “SL” brand. While park lands were not successfully used for
either farming or grazing, lands adjacent to the park have been under cultivation for centuries by
ancient people to modern farmers alike.
Mining Claims and Mineral Rights
The Sierra Estrella Mountain Range lured prospectors in search of mineral wealth, but much like grazing,
did not produce anything of significance. Legend and lore suggest lost mines or other treasure troves are
3-21

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
yet to be rediscovered in the natural caves or rocky peaks, it is simply one of many miners’ tall-tales that
abounds in the Southwest. As the 1988 master plan suggests, geologists give no credence to mineral
wealth in this area and, likewise, archaeologist testimony does not support metalworking by native
peoples living nearby.
Records of the 1940s show a few oil and mineral leases on former State Lands, but these soon proved
fruitless and were not renewed. The Buckeye Placer, the only patented mine in the area, patented by
the Wessex Water Company in 1915, also proved to be void of minerals or gemstones. Test pits and
other evidence of mining may still be seen in the park and along trails to this day.
3.7.3 Native American Consultations
Planning staff sought input from potentially interested Native American communities regarding this
master plan update. The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) shares a boundary with the park and was
invited to the January 2016 public meeting. No feedback had been received at the time of publishing this
plan.
Likewise, during future master plan updates consultation with representatives of Native American
Communities claiming cultural affiliation to the area should be coordinated through Department
planning staff in order for the Community to assist in assessing the cultural significance of or actions
needed to protect any significant resources.
3.7.4 Findings
A cultural resource records review was initiated to document the extent of previous archaeological
survey within the park and the number of previously recorded archaeological and historical sites that
have been identified by those surveys. These studies were undertaken in support of a variety of projects
such as hiking trail construction, campgrounds, and even roadwork near the park. The surveys
performed inside park boundaries aggregate to more than 189 acres, or about one percent of the park’s
total 19,840 acres. No new field surveys were undertaken for this plan update. No sites have been listed
as National Register of Historic Places except for Pack Saddle Trail (SHPO site file 1197) - a historic trail
that was used by pioneers traveling from Phoenix to Little Rainbow Valley.
Previous research, and also noted in the 1988 master plan, from areas near or inside the park includes a
map of irrigation canals (O. Turney and G. Kelly, State Historian, 1929); numerous Hohokam and historic
Native American settlements (as reported by F. Midvale, Fowler, the Gila Pueblo (private archaeological
consulting firm), the Museum of Northern Arizona, the Pueblo Grande Museum, and others). The most
comprehensive report to date is based on a 1963 survey of five Maricopa County Parks, in which, a
dozen sites were authenticated or further verified by the author and former Park Ranger Jim Jenkins (An
Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources of Five Regional Parks in Maricopa County, Arizona. Alfred E.
Johnson with Emil Haury, Director of Arizona State Museum, 1963.).
A cultural resource management program should be established to track and monitor known sites. A full
cultural resource survey or investigation and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultation is
recommended prior to any new construction or trail project on previously undisturbed ground.
3.8 Visual Resources
Important views for public enjoyment, trail development and vegetation management are identified in
this section. Management actions to classify and retain selected views from key observation viewpoints
3-22

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
should be taken into consideration with any new development within the park. The park follows general
guidance provided by the Department’s mission statement, and management zoning definitions to
protect its scenic views.
3.8.1 Sensitive Views
Residential Views
The park shares its boundary with a number of residential homes. Planned communities are expected to
occur at a future date along the west side of the park. These neighbors will have excellent views of the
Sierra Estrella Mountains.
Recreation Views
The park’s trail system includes several prominent spots where visitors are likely to stop and admire the
view. Providing unobstructed natural views are important to the recreational experience. These include:
• Viewpoint (accessed via Baseline Trail)
• Baseline Trail
• Rainbow Valley Trail, with its views to the west
Transportation Views
The roadways near the park provide travelers will excellent views of the golf course and ball fields along
Vineyard Avenue and from the Bullard Avenue Bridge; golf course and mountainous open space views
along Estrella Parkway; and mountainous views along 143rd Avenue and along Indian Springs Road.
3.9 Recreation Resources
One unique feature of the park is the open space sports fields. These fields offer the opportunity for
baseball, cross-country running, obstacle runs, or other active uses. Further, as a result of the abundant
natural and cultural resources, the park offers visitors a number of more passive recreational and
educational opportunities:
• Picnicking
• Trails (hiking, equestrian, mountain bike)
• Playgrounds
• Wildlife viewing
• Nature photography
• Hunting
3.9.1 Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV)
OHV use is not an approved recreational activity within the park or on its trails and therefore is not
detailed further in this plan. As of the date of publication of this plan, OHV use within park boundaries
may violate park rule R-107 regarding motor vehicle and bicycle use. However, OHV use may be
permitted by Department staff for park maintenance or by authorized first responders for emergency
search and rescue purposes.
3.9.2 Interpretation and Environmental Education
Interpretive rangers at the park lead hundreds of visitors on a variety of educational hikes and programs
throughout the year and incorporate the local history and nature components to tell the story of the
park. The park provides other events and programs such as:
3-23

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
• Guided nature hikes
• Guided fitness walks
• Youth-oriented events, and
• Star gazing
Additionally, the park has a fairly large hillside amphitheater where interpretive rangers can present
educational lectures or special-event hosts can perform for up to 300 people. The El Rio Plant Research
Trail provides another educational experience with interpretive panels along the quarter-mile trail
describing native riparian vegetation. The proposed Centennial Trail will also provide educational
opportunities by showcasing local history and native plant life along a half-mile looped and barrier-free
trail.
3.9.3 Hunting
The park allows hunting of mule deer, javelina, mountain lion, some small game, reptiles, and
amphibians during specified hunting seasons and as regulated by AZGFD. The park currently falls within
Region 6, Game Unit 39 on the AZGFD Game Management Unit Map.
A valid hunting license is required and each hunter should state his/her intention to hunt at the park
entrance station or with the Park Supervisor (or his/her designee) and pay any applicable park fees. All
hunters must comply with the most current version of Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona Game and Fish
Commission rules and regulations, and Park rules.
It is illegal and a revocable offense to shoot a firearm or bow and arrow within a quarter of a mile of any
developed picnic area, developed campground, shooting range, occupied building, boat ramp, or golf
course or other recreational area developed for public use; or to shoot from, on, or across a roadway; or
to trespass on private property. A trail is not considered a developed area.
Participation
Hunting is not a large recreational component of the park. The 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study (as
well as previous studies) reported no visitors engaged in hunting during the survey period. The Visitor
Study did not record any hunters during this time and no hunters checked in with the park office.
When surveyed during the 2007-2008 Visitor Study, less than ten percent of Estrella’s respondents
agreed that hunting was an appropriate activity with the County’s park system. This question was not
asked in the 2012-2013 visitor study.
Illegal hunting activities do occur in the riparian areas and near Mica Butte. When this happens, park
staff is forced to alter its operations and programs so to avoid any conflicts or harm. These areas are
monitored by law enforcement for illegal activities.
Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI)
This category, developed by AZGFD, represents the economic and recreational importance of 13 of
Arizona’s huntable species. The distribution of these species influences important aspects of wildlife-
related recreation and the distribution of consumer spending across the state. Together, the economic
and recreational importance of game species to hunters, the community, and to AZGFD provide a
realistic view of the importance of game habitat for conservation (excerpt from Arizona’s State Wildlife
3-24

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Action Plan 2012–2022 (May 16, 2013), page 44). For the park, species of economic and recreational
importance include:
• Desert bighorn sheep (remnant herd)
• Gambel’s quail
• Mountain lion
• Mule deer
• White-winged dove
Statewide, anglers and hunters spend $958 million, creating an economic impact of $1.34 billion to the
state of Arizona. This spending supports over 17,000 jobs, provides residents with $314 million in salary
and wages and generates more than $58 million in state tax revenue.30
According to AZGFD, fishing and hunting within Maricopa County accounts for $409.1 million (or 43% of
the statewide total) in expenditures (or $515 million using an economic impact multiplier effect). Salary
and wages of the 5,382 outdoor industry professionals is about $103 million and provides $21.1 million
in state tax revenue.31
3.10 Land Use
3.10.1 Ownership & Jurisdiction
Ownership
Just over 500 acres of land was acquired through the State Land Department in 1976. However, the bulk
of the property was acquired through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act32 (R&PP) process in the
1960s and 1970s. The R&PP is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and authorizes
the sale or lease of public lands for recreational or public purposes. All land uses must comply with the
R&PP Act33 and the patents as issued. The County owns several parcels in fee title. The park has not
acquired any additional lands since 2002. Appendix G details land use. The Department holds these
areas as patents or in fee title (table 3-4; figure 3-12):
30 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Economic Impact, http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/survey_results.shtml as
accessed December 24, 2012.
31 Arizona Game and Fish Department, The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting,
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf, page 30-31, as accessed December 24, 2012.
32 As revised August 1996. Recreation and Public Purposes Act (68 Statute 173; 43 United States Code 869 et. seq.)
as a complete revision of the Recreation Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 741). This law is administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
33 BLM, Recreation and Public Purposes Act,
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/recreation_and_public.html as accessed February 28, 2013.
3-25

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-4: Distribution of Land Ownership
Type Date Acres
Federal Patent (02-66-0070) Jan-1966 640.00
Federal Patent (02-72-0037) Dec-1971 17,124.504
Federal Patent (02-76-0037) Jul-1977 80.00
State of AZ (6352) 1976 40.00
State of AZ (6353) 1976 450.803
Fee Title/Warranty Deed various 1,459.553
Other various 2.646
Total park acres: 19,795.66
Figure 3-12: Land Ownership
3-26

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Jurisdiction
Estrella Mountain Regional Park is located within the following jurisdictions (table 3-5) or service areas:
Table 3-5: Jurisdictions
Political Unit District
Legislative 4 & 19
Congressional 3
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 5
Maricopa County Parks Commission 5
Municipal
Goodyear (traffic, planning, etc.)
Avondale (traffic, planning, etc.)
School Districts
Buckeye Union Hills High School District
Liberty Elementary District (predominantly)
Littleton Elementary District
Law Enforcement
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
3.10.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning
Existing Land Use
Much of the lands adjacent or near the park’s northern boundary is a mix of commercial, residential,
and agricultural and largely under private ownership (figure 3-13). The City of Goodyear owns a 120-acre
parcel (zoned agricultural) located west of 137th Avenue, south of West Beverly Road, and abutting the
park boundary. No information is available regarding its intended use.
The City of Goodyear’s planning boundary covers the western half of the park. The Goodyear 2020
General Plan specifies open space, scenic neighborhood, and neighborhood classifications along the
western boundary of the park. There is a small residential development adjacent to the park’s west
boundary and Estrella Foothills High School is located south of this small development. Estrella
Mountain Ranch, a larger residential community, is located west of Estrella Parkway.
The City of Avondale’s planning boundary covers the eastern half of the park. The City’s General Plan
2030 (adopted April 2012) identifies the area that includes Phoenix International Raceway (PIR) as a
“sports and entertainment” land use designation. The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) also lies east
of the park and today stands at about 373,599 acres or 583 square miles.
Lands to the southwest are largely agricultural or vacant in nature while they are held in trust and
managed by Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The ASLD mission is to maximize revenue for Trust
beneficiaries through the sale or leasing of state land, as such these lands are under a lease.
Lastly, the BLM maintains stewardship of 3,100 acres near the southeast park boundary.
3-27

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-13: Existing land use
Zoning
The area within park boundaries is zoned RU-43 or RU-190 by Maricopa County. The unincorporated
parcels immediately outside of park boundaries are also zoned RU-43 or RU-190 on which some
properties have mining exemptions.
• RU-43 (Rural Residential): one dwelling unit34 per 43,000 square feet - protects farm and
agricultural uses and permits recreational and institutional uses.
• RU-190 (Rural Residential): one dwelling unit35 per 190,000 square feet - protects farm and
agricultural uses and permits recreational and institutional uses.
34 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 Rural Zoning Districts, Pages 13-15 of 15.
http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Ordinances/pdf/reform_ordinance/mczo1.pdf as accessed April
12, 2012.
3-28

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Land use surrounding the park is a mix of commercial, residential, and agricultural, however, much of
the area is currently vacant regardless of its current zoning category.36 Areas north and west of the park
fall within the City of Goodyear’s planning area and are largely zoned for master planned communities.
The City of Avondale’s planning area falls north and east of the park. These areas are discussed further
in the “Future Land Use” section below.
3.10.3 Future Land Use
Much of the land surrounding the park is held in trust by ASLD and could be sold or leased at market
value for development purposes. Other jurisdictions have planning documents in place to facilitate
development around the Estrella area. Land use maps are not zoning maps; they merely reflect the
general desired use of the area rather than specific zoning / development standards at a specific site.
Maricopa County (unincorporated areas) and Private Property
Privately owned parcel(s) just outside of park’s eastern boundary and within the unincorporated County
are currently zoned RU-43 and RU-190 which limits housing density to protect the agricultural or rural
character of the area; however this is subject to change pending any new zoning or variance
applications.
City of Goodyear
The Goodyear 2025 General Plan was ratified by City voters on November 4, 2014 and will remain in
effect until the year 2025 or until a major amendment occurs. Chapter 8 of the City’s plan outlines the
preferred land use and transportation goals. Open space, scenic neighborhood, neighborhood
classifications are noted uses along the western boundary of the park. The plan also notes arterial
roadways at the park’s southern boundary.
City of Avondale
The City’s General Plan 2030 (adopted April 2012) identifies the area that Phoenix International
Raceway (PIR) now occupies as “sports and entertainment” land use area, to include a potential resort
and roadway upgrades – and notes that this is an expected growth area. Existing aggregate operations
will continue to be an allowable use along the Gila River by right or by a Special Use District overlay.
Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)
As previously stated, the lands just south of the park boundary are under ASLD management and are
currently vacant but subject to purchase and future development. This area falls within the City of
Goodyear’s planning boundary and the City has indicated the desire for arterial roadways37 to support
future development in this area.
35 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 Rural Zoning Districts, Pages 1-11 of 15.
http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Ordinances/pdf/reform_ordinance/mczo1.pdf as accessed April
12, 2012.
36 City of Goodyear, Goodyear 2025, General Plan (draft), Chapter 8, pages 2-4 define each land use category.
37 City of Goodyear General Plan 2025, page 110, http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=10645 as
accessed December 23, 2015.
3-29

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.11 Major Facilities and Infrastructure
Most of the park’s existing development occurs in the northern 220 acres (approximately) of the park
where the golf course, nature center, ball fields, and picnic areas converge. Figure 3-14 outlines the
major facilities and infrastructure found in this portion of the park and is further discussed within this
section.
Figure 3-14: Turf area facilities
3.11.1 Entrance Station
The main entrance and contact station, is located off of Casey Abbot Drive North on the northwest side
of the park and is the park’s primary entrance.
3.11.2 Nature Center
The Nature Center, opened in 2008, provides a space to purchase retail items and park souvenirs. The
Nature Center also has a classroom that can accommodate up to 15 tables or 50 chairs for educational
programs or other events. Behind it, there is an outdoor patio with a spectacular mountain view. The
Nature Center may be rented by the public for special occasions or meetings.
3.11.3 Maintenance Compound
Once inside the park, the Camino Hildalgo roadway provides access to the maintenance compound. A
fueling station and storage for vehicles, tools, and other equipment is housed within the maintenance
compound. The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC, January 2014, pages 6-7)
3-30

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
prepared by Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. describes the area in detail. “The
maintenance facility (site) drains from north to south to a detention area on the southwest of the
property. Overflow from the detention area could reach a wash along Estrella Parkway. This wash
extends north, passes under West Vineyard Avenue through a culvert and into the Gila River.”
The SPCC also describes the site as “…a paved lot surrounded by a block wall. The lot contains two (2)
ASTs38; one (1) 2,000-gallon unleaded gasoline tank, and one (1) 2,000-gallon diesel tank. There is one
wash rack for vehicle washing and one spill control drainage area to the north of the 2,000-gallon tanks.
These have central drains that collect the water and any spilled fuel and convey it by underground
piping to an underground storage vault with a capacity of 1,050-gallons. The contents of the vault are
pumped out and disposed of as needed. A used oil 55-gallon drum is stored at the center of the site.
Secondary containment is provided by a drip pan. Access to the septic tank is provided by a manhole
cover on the northeast corner of the lot behind the maintenance shed. The septic tank releases into a
leach field north of the property. All stormwater runoff from the site leaves the site one of two ways:
runoff sheet flow which flows from the site through small openings in the wall to a retention basin on
the south end of the property, or into the wash rack and spill control drains and thereby into the
underground holding tank.” For maintenance, inspection, and spill control measures for this area, refer
to the most recent Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures Plan.
3.11.4 Picnic Areas
Estrella Mountain Regional Park currently offers 114 picnic tables within its picnic areas. One large group
area, Ramada 9 with 48 tables, can accommodate groups up to 380 people and may be reserved for a
fee in four-hour increments. If not marked as reserved, all picnic ramadas are available on a first-come,
first-served basis. All picnic sites are considered day-use only; all have restrooms nearby. Table 3-6
describes each picnic area.
Table 3-6: Picnic Areas
Ramada Description
1 On the north side of the picnic loop, has 6 picnic tables, one large grill and a fire ring. This area
can seat about 36-48.
2 On the north side of the picnic loop, has 2 ramadas with a large patio between them. Each
ramada has 5 picnic tables and 1 large grill. There is a large fire pit, volleyball poles, a basketball
hoop and shade trees. For a total of 10 tables, this area can seat about 60-80.
3 On the north side of the picnic loop, has 6 picnic tables, one large grill and a fire ring. This area
can seat about 36-48.
4 On the north side of the picnic loop, has 4 picnic tables and can seat about 24-32, and 1 large grill.
This ramada is closest to the Super Playground.
5 Newly built near the Navy Area, has 2 ramadas with a large patio between them. Each ramada
has 4 picnic tables and 1 grill. There is a small basketball court nearby. This area can seat about
48-64.
6 On the south side of the picnic loop, has 2 large ramadas with a large patio between them. There
are 10 picnic tables, 2 large grills, a basketball hoop and a fire ring. For a total of 10 tables, this
area can seat about 60-80.
7 On the south side of the picnic loop, has 6 picnic tables, one large grill, a fire ring, and a basketball
hoop. This area can seat about 36-48.
8 On the south side of the picnic loop, has 2 large ramadas with a large patio between them. There
are 16 picnic tables, 2 large grills, a fire ring, and a basketball hoop. This area can seat about 84-
128.
38 An AST is described as a 2,000-gallon steel tank enclosed in a concrete vault and is adequate under EPA
guidelines to provide secondary containment.
3-31

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
9 Situated in a plaza, it is on the west end of the picnic loop near the park entrance. There are 48
picnic tables, 4 large grills, a fire pit with seating, a large parking lot and a restroom nearby. This
area can seat up to 380.
3.11.5 Campgrounds
The park does not have a designated campground that is comparable to other parks in the system and is
makeshift at best. The park offers 15 RV sites; however, they are most commonly used by
concessionaires or by volunteer park hosts who assist with park operations. These sites are seldom open
for public rental. Each host site has a large parking area to accommodate up to a 45' RV and is
considered a "Developed Site" with water, septic and an electrical hookup, as well as a picnic table and a
barbecue fire ring.
Scout and Youth groups may camp at one of the ramadas or at the Navy Area, located on the east end of
park's picnic loop. Groups are permitted to camp on the turf and under shade trees. Picnic tables,
barbecues and fire pits are provided. Trailheads and hiking trails are nearby as are restrooms with flush
toilets (shower facilities are not available). Likewise, the rodeo arena parking lot may also be used for
camping and can accommodate many trailers.
Backcountry Camping
Overnight backpacking, with a permit, is allowed. This is for “low impact” camping, i.e. no fires and pack
out what is packed in.
3.11.6 Playgrounds
The park received new playscape equipment in 2014 and 2015 (figure 3-15). The park has one
playground (currently located close to Ramada 4). Additional improvements are expected to occur in
year 2016 in order to complete the playscape experience with additional pieces, shade, and seating.
Figure 3-15: Super Playground equipment
Playgrounds are inspected regularly by park staff for obvious signs of disrepair. Additionally, playgrounds
are inspected periodically by a certified playground inspector (via an IGA with the City of Phoenix or by
Department staff) to ensure each playground complies with current safety and ADA standards.
Inspection reports are kept on file at the park’s administrative office.
3.11.7 Rodeo Arena
Built in 1981, the rodeo arena is showing its age. The arena is lighted and offers water and electricity.
The arena features six bucking chutes, a calf roping chute, north and south stripping chutes, six large
holding pens, a warm-up arena, load/unloading chute, restrooms, and announcer’s stand (figure 3-16).
The bleachers are handicap accessible. Many of these components are in need of extensive repair in
order to be comparable to newer and more modern facilities elsewhere in the valley.
3-32

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
It is available to rent for most types of equestrian competition or livestock events. Although it has a full-
scale set-up, it is most suitable for amateur, or youth, and entry-level professional competitors. Special
event access can be controlled by access gates on 143rd Avenue.
Figure 3-16: Rodeo Arena facilities
3.11.8 Amphitheater
The 300-plus seat amphitheater is located up on the hillside just south of the turf area. It is accessed by
West Amphitheater Drive. It has a large stage that may be used for presentations and a small parking
lot. There are two developed RV camp sites that are typically used by park hosts. Both the roadway and
the amphitheater are aged and in need of extensive repair.
3.11.9 Potable Water
In mid-2014 a cursory review was performed on the existing water system in order to estimate future
needs. The results of that review indicated that the potable water supply system was in good working
order and produced adequate flow and pressure.
The review noted that the park receives its potable water from the City of Goodyear via a 6-inch
diameter connection to a 12-inch diameter water main pipeline that is located near the park entrance
and Vineyard Avenue. The 6-inch diameter connection traverses thru a 6”x4” reducer, thru a 4-inch
turbo water meter and 6-inch backflow prevention device, to a 6-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) distribution
3-33

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
pipeline. The distribution pipeline traverses thru the park and loops back into a 6-inch diameter
backflow prevention device and 4-inch water meter, which connects back to the City of Goodyear’s 12-
inch diameter water main. As-built drawings show that several half-inch diameter to 2-inch diameter
feeds have been installed in various locations and connect to the 6-inch DIP waterline.39
Fire protection is currently achieved thru fire hydrant assemblies connected to a 6-inch diameter DIP
water pipeline supplied by the City of Goodyear.40 The potable water and fire protection connections
are tracked with a master meter for the entire park.
3.11.10 Electrical
Estrella Mountain Regional Park receives its electricity from Arizona Public Service Company (APS).
3.11.11 Asset Inventory
As the first park in the system, many park facilities were built in the 1960s through 1970s and in 1993
and are showing their age. By assigning each building type an estimated lifespan, park management can
better plan budgets for the years when major repairs or replacements are estimated to occur. Having
such a large number of buildings within the same age bracket could indicate that their expected
usefulness, or lifecycle, expires at the same time. Management should be ready to make decisions at
that time that may include extensive renovation or total replacement. Appendix H contains a building
inventory; this appendix section is to be updated and replaced as needed.
For example, the most visible park assets are the monument sign and nature center (both constructed in
2008). Assuming a 50-year useful lifespan for these two structures, it can be estimated that both will
need replacement or extensive renovation by 2058. Note: This is outside of annual maintenance and
general upkeep measures.
3.12 Socioeconomics
Nearly 60% of the state’s residents live in Maricopa County. This section compares population
characteristics in more detail at the state, county, and park levels.
3.12.1 Population Characteristics
The 2010 Census reveals that the State of Arizona has 6,392,017 people (a 24.6% increase from the 2000
census41) with 3,817,117 residing in Maricopa County. Women slightly outnumber men in the state and
county; and women also outnumber men as visitors to the park. There were 443,971 households with
people under the age of 1842 years. County-wide, the median age was 34.6 years compared to 42.5 for
the park. This is detailed in table 3-7.
39 Estrella Mountain Park Preliminary Utility Infrastructure Report, October 16, 2014, Ritoch Powell & Associates as
prepared for Estrella Youth Sports, page 2.
40 Estrella Mountain Park Preliminary Utility Infrastructure Report, October 16, 2014, Ritoch Powell & Associates as
prepared for Estrella Youth Sports, page 2.
41 As result of the population increase, Arizona gained one member to the House of Representatives, bringing the
number to nine for the state.
42 2010 US Census Bureau, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04 as accessed March 14,
2012.
3-34

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-7: Population and Park Visitor Characteristics
Population State of Arizona1 Maricopa County1 Estrella MRP (2007- Estrella MRP
by Sex/Age 2008)2 Visitors (2012-2013)3
Visitors
Total 6,392,017 3,817,117 138,942 87,875
Population
Male 3,175,823 (49.6%) 1,888,465 (49.5%) (40.1%) (51.7%)
Female 3,216,194 (50.0%) 1,928,652 (50.5%) (59.9%) (48.3%)
Under 18 1,629,014 1,007,861 n/a n/a
18 & over 4,763,003 2,809,256 n/a n/a
20 - 24 442,584 266,872 n/a n/a
25 - 34 856,693 541,126 n/a n/a
35 - 49 1,249,516 786,104 n/a (30.1%)
50 - 64 1,141,752 640,768 n/a (19.2%)
65 & over 881,831 462,641 n/a (7.9%)
Median Age 35.9 34.6 42.47 42.5
1 Source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04
2 ASU Park Visitor Study and visitation for 2007-2008.
3 ASU Park Visitor Study and visitation for 2012-2013.
Note: totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
n/a = data not available for direct comparison
The most noticeable differences in race or ethnicity during the 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study were
among the following: 72.4% of park visitors self-identified as white (up from 52.1% in 2007-2008); and
19.7% as Hispanic (down sharply from 40.5% in 2007-2008).43
3.12.2 Census Tracts
The Maricopa County census tracts that include or are adjacent to the park (tracts 610.19, 822.08,
7233.03, 7233.04, 7233.07, 7233.08) have a total population estimate of over 20,000 people.44
3.12.3 Population Forecast
In the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) document called Socioeconomic Projections,
Population, Housing, and Employment By Municipal Planning Area and Regional Analysis Zone (June
2013), it is forecasted that by 2040 Maricopa County will almost double in population over the year
2010 base population resulting in an anticipated total of 6.1 million people. This means that the region
will experience a growth of approximately one million people during each decade (table 3-8).
Several Municipal Planning Areas (MPA) in the west valley are projected to grow by more than 100,000
persons, including Phoenix, Buckeye, Surprise, Goodyear, and Peoria – requiring the park to pay close
attention to growth in the western part of the metro-area. Those MPA’s closest to the park are shown in
Table 3-8.
Table 3-8: Total Resident Population
(July 1, 2010 and Projections July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2040)
Total Resident Total Resident Total Resident Total Resident
Population 2010 Population 2020 Population 2030 Population 2040
43 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, page 195.
44 U.S. Census http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04013 and
http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php as accessed December 23, 2015.
3-35

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Avondale 77,900 96,600 121,500 155,300
Buckeye 62,800 103,600 183,800 313,500
Goodyear 68,000 115,300 167,600 241,400
Litchfield Park 10,500 12,000 13,800 13,800
Phoenix 1,501,300 1,711,600 1,953,800 2,198,000
Tolleson 6,600 7,000 8,200 8,900
County Total 3,823,900 4,507,200 5,359,300 6,175,000
Source: MAG, Socioeconomic Projections, June 2013. Page 5,
http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/IS_2013-06-25_MAG-Socioeconomic-Projections-Population-
Housing-and-Employment-June-2013.pdf as accessed March 25, 2014.
3.12.4 Employment, Income, and Educational Attainment
The State of Arizona had an unemployment rate of 7.3% in February 2014 according to the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics.45 U.S. Census data also shows that 28.3% of Maricopa County residents have
attained a bachelors degree or higher; over 2% higher than the state. Likewise, the median household
income was $50,410 which is over $3,600 above the statewide median (table 3-9).
Table 3-9: Employment and Education
Population State of Arizona1 Maricopa Estrella MRP (2007- Estrella MRP (2012-
County1 2008)2 2013)3
Employed n/a 57.2% 55.8% 74.5%
Median household $46,789 $50,410 14.8% ($45,001 to 13.8% ($45,001 to
income $60,000) $60,000)
College only n/a n/a 47.6% 56.6%
Bachelor’s degree or 26.9% 29.8% (33.3%) (40.1%)
higher (graduate
school)
1 US Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04013.html as
accessed June 18, 2015.
2 ASU Park Visitor Study, 2007-2008, page 143.
3 ASU Park Visitor Study, 2012-2023, page 205.
3.12.5 Obesity
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 61.9% of adults in Arizona were either
overweight (35.1%) or obese (26.8%) in the year 2013.46 The Maricopa County Department of Public
Health reports that 62.2% of adults in Maricopa County were either overweight (37.0%) or obese
(25.2%) in the year 201047 but that figure has declined slightly from previous years.
45 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.az.htm as accessed April 23, 2014.
46 Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Data, Trends and Maps web site. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, Atlanta, GA, 2015. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/DNPAO/index.html.
47 Maricopa County Community Health Assessment 2012, Page 50.
http://www.maricopa.gov/publichealth/Programs/OPI/pdf/CHA-2012.pdf as accessed June 18, 2015.
3-36

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.13 Visitation and Tourism Trends
The State of Arizona attracted 40.7 million domestic and international overnight visitors or equal to
roughly 111,506 visitors per day in 2014.48 Of those, 86% of overnight visitors were domestic travelers
and 14% were international travelers.49 Domestic visitors were about 45.1 years old, had an average
household income of $70,380, and stayed in Arizona for 3.7 nights, spending $651 per visit.50
3.13.1 Residency51
During fiscal year 2012-2013, only 5.5% of the park’s visitors were from out of state and 0.5% from out
of the country52 (figure 3-17). Most park visitors are residents of Arizona (94%) with most coming from
the metropolitan area and driving an average of 36.34 miles53 to arrive at the park. The top five metro-
area locations include:
• Goodyear 22.6%
• Phoenix 18.5%
• Avondale 14.4%
• Glendale 7.2%
• Laveen 6.2%
Figure 3-17: Visitor residency (*new cities denoted with asterisk)
48 Arizona Office of Tourism, https://tourism.az.gov/research-statistics as accessed January 19, 2016.
49 Arizona Office of Tourism,
https://tourism.az.gov/sites/default/files/GCOT%20Research%20Presentation%202015_0.pdf, page 6, as accessed
January 19, 2016.
50 Arizona Office of Tourism,
https://tourism.az.gov/sites/default/files/GCOT%20Research%20Presentation%202015_0.pdf, page 12, as
accessed January 19, 2016.
51 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, page 32, table 1.18.
52 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, page 32, table 1.18.
53 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 5, page 194.
3-37

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.13.2 Park Visitation
During fiscal year 2014-2015 the park welcomed 69,795 visitors to the park, the lowest within the last 11
fiscal years (figure 3-18). Park visitation has fluctuated greatly over the previous 11 fiscal years with
119,126 as the average for this period.
Figure 3-18: Visitation by fiscal year
Visitation can fluctuate for a variety of reasons: Spring Break, Easter, and mild temperatures usually
result in March or April being the busiest months. Similar to other County parks, Easter is generally the
busiest day of the year when all or most picnic areas are fully rented. The months with the lowest
visitation are July and August when temperatures soar (figure 3-19).
Figure 3-19: Visitation per fiscal month within fiscal year
3-38

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Forecasting future visitation carries with it its own uncertainties; however, preliminary trend analysis
indicates a negative trend line to future visitation (as shown by the exponential trend line applied in
figure 3-20). This estimate of future visitation does not take into account any park improvement
proposals mentioned later in this master plan and is based solely on past visitation data and standard
spreadsheet trend line functions.
Figure 3-20: Actual and forecasted (exponential trend line) visitation per fiscal year
3.14 Park Use and Visitor Preferences
This section describes park visitor attitudes, preferences, or use patterns as gathered by ASU and as
reported in the 2012-2013 Park Visitor Study Final Report.
3.14.1 Day and Overnight Use54, 55
About 97% of visitors were in the park for a “day use” activity, spending an average of 2.92 hours inside
the park. This is down from 3.93 hours reported in the 2007-2008 visitor use survey.
Of the 2.9% of visitors that spent the night inside the park, they stayed for an average of 2.67 nights
(down from 2.84 nights in 2007-2008).
3.14.2 Primary Activity56
Park visitors engage in a range of activities during their visit (trail hiking, picnicking, photography,
mountain biking, nature study, and more); however one activity is usually considered the primary
activity, or what the visitor specifically came to the park to do. The top five primary activities in 2012-
2013 were:
• Trail hiking (73.7%)
• Mountain biking (7.3%)
• Picnicking (7.3%)
54 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 4, page 194.
55 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 1, page 305.
56 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.9A, page 23.
3-39

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
• Running/jogging (3.7%)
• Walking for pleasure (1.5%)
3.14.3 Return Visits
Seventy-four percent of those surveyed were return visitors, visiting the park nearly 20 times on average
in the previous twelve months57 (up from 13 visits in 2007-2008). When asked what prompts visitors to
return to the park, trail-related responses were most common; other written responses included the
park being close to home and its cleanliness.58
Return visits based on activity, reveals that walkers made 117 visits and runners/joggers returned 151
times within the last 12 months (both by far the highest mean averages in the system). Hikers made
over 14 return visits in the previous twelve months and mountain bikers made over 19 return visits.
Picnickers made just over three return visits to the park.59
3.14.4 Reasons for Use60
Visitors come to the park for a variety of reasons, and among them include:
• Enjoy the solitude
• Enjoy physical exercise
• Improve my physical health
• Observe the scenic beauty
• Get away from everyday responsibilities
• To experience the open space.
3.14.5 Satisfaction
When asked about their level of satisfaction with the park, 43.8% of those surveyed were extremely
satisfied and 46.3% were very satisfied with the park; 10.0% were fairly satisfied. No visitors that were
surveyed by ASU expressed dissatisfaction with the park.61
3.14.6 Attachment to Park
Park visitors often form strong attachments to their favorite park or locations within a park and about
40% of the parks visitors agree that they are, indeed, very attached to this park. Nearly 67% agreed that
the park means a lot to them; 50% agreed that this park offers the best settings and facilities for the
activities that they enjoy most.62 Favorite parts of the park included many trail-related responses,
specifically mentioning Baseline Trail and the park’s views.
57 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 1, page 194.
58 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 7b, page 208.
59 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 3.4 page 88.
60 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 6, page 197. Responses of Important and Extremely
Important.
61 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 11, page 195.
62 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 7, page 198.
3-40

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.14.7 Visitor Spending and Economic Impact
The 2012-2013 ASU Visitor Use Survey shows that visitors reported spending $46.30 per group for their
visit to the park (down significantly from $138.31 in 2007-2008). This is also significantly lower than the
system-wide average of $157.63 per visit. 63
In 2014, the Department asked ASU to study the economic impacts64 of the County park system. Impacts
were estimated by inputting operating expenses, visitor spending, and other data into IMPLAN software
to determine multiple types of impacts. Perhaps not surprisingly, the park ranked last in visitor spending
related impacts. However, based on operating expenses, the park performed well in line with other
parks (table 3-10).
Table 3-10: Economic Impact Based on Visitor Spending and Operating Expenses
Park level Visitor Spending Operating Expenses
Full-time jobs created 0.3 7.7
Total economic impact $24,783 $1,373,890
System-wide
Full-time jobs created 138.9 116.4
Total economic impact $11,310,284 $12,864,318
Source: 2014 MARICOPA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STUDY REPORT
Economic Impact of the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation System, Chhabra, et al, pages 14-
15.
3.14.8 Importance and Use of Park Facilities
Park visitors were surveyed about which facilities are most important to them. In the 2012-2013 survey,
parking availability, park roads, multi-use trails, and restrooms were the most important features at the
park. (The least important facilities were: boat ramps, equestrian facilities, playgrounds, and outdoor
amphitheater.)65
When visitors were surveyed about what facilities they would be likely to use, if provided, wildlife
viewing areas or blinds, visitor/nature center, shaded picnic areas, outdoor exercise/circuit course, and
restaurants/snack bars rounded out the top five responses. (The facilities that they would not use or
don’t know if they would use were: sewage disposal site, conference facility, RV or trailer hook-ups, OHV
areas, and equestrian/horse facilities.) 66
3.15 Informal Park Surveys
From time to time Park staff may conduct its own informal or non-scientific visitor surveys to gauge how
well a certain program or park amenity has been received by the public. In March and April 2015, park
staff conducted an informal survey of first-come-first-served park visitors at the ramada and turf areas in
an attempt to understand how they are using these areas and what draws them to the park.
63 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 8, page 199 and Table 2.9, page 59.
64 2014 MARICOPA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STUDY REPORT Economic Impact of the
Maricopa County Parks and Recreation System, Chhabra, et al.
65 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 4, page 196.
66 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 9, page 199.
3-41

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Park staff collected 127 surveys overall, of which 94 (or 79.6%) respondents were using the space on a
first-come-first-served basis. Party size of these ramada visitors ranged from one to 40 with an average
of 10.2 people per group. The vast majority were not annual pass holders. Roughly 15% were first-time
park users; about 30% reported using the park multiple times per month; but most (about 43%) were
occasional visitors that come to the park about two to five times per year. All respondents reported
using the park for a variety of reasons ranging from experiencing nature, hiking, to family gatherings.
3.16 Local Recreation, Needs, and Opportunities
Estrella Mountain Regional Park has a unique opportunity to offer visitors camping, golfing, a
competitive track, multi-use trails, wildlife viewing, picnicking, hunting, and other opportunities as
approved park activities. The park also offers educational and interpretive events on a regular basis.
Many of these activities cannot be found elsewhere in the community, giving Estrella Mountain Regional
Park an opportunity to fill those needs. Other recreational opportunities near Estrella Mountain
Regional Park include (table 3-11):
Table 3-11: Local Recreational Opportunities
Facility Distance from Park Acres / Miles of trails Recreational Opportunities
City of Goodyear 6.81 miles 327 acres Aquatics, sports fields or turf areas,
26.17 miles playground, picnic sites, dog parks, bike
park, trails/paths and more.
City of Avondale 7.15 miles ~208 acres Sports fields or turf areas, picnic, dog
parks, and more.
City of Buckeye 14.39 miles 8,778+ Aquatics, sports fields or turf areas,
playground, picnic sites, dog park, picnic,
camping, and more.
Phoenix International Raceway 4.0 miles n/a Viewing NASCAR racing
Cincinnati Reds Spring Training 2.5 miles n/a Professional baseball teams spring
facility training facility.
Glendale Sports and 12.0 miles n/a Stadium for professional and college
Entertainment District, football and bowl games as well as
including Arizona Cardinals’ hockey.
Stadium (aka Jobing.com Arena
/ Univ. of Phoenix Stadium)
Additional recreational opportunities:
Undeveloped Camping: Camping is allowed on Bureau of Land Management lands throughout the area. Camping on State Land
requires a permit from the State Land Department.
The City of Goodyear’s Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan (July 2014, pages 21, 78)
identified an existing lack of sport field space for local teams as well as a growing need as the City’s
population increases. Estrella Mountain Regional Park currently offers two baseball fields and a local
non-profit group has proposed to redevelop part of the park into multi-use sports fields; combined, the
Park’s existing and/or future fields may help alleviate the anticipated shortage of sports fields in this
part of the valley.
3.17 Park Administration and Special Functions
This section provides a brief overview of park staffing. Additional detail may be found within the park’s
annual business plan.
3-42

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.17.1 Staffing
Currently, the park has a staff of five full-time Park Supervisor (1)
employees (figure 3-21). This includes the park
supervisor, one administrative assistant, one
interpretive ranger, and two park maintenance
workers. The park does not currently have any Administrative Interpretive Ranger (1) Maintenance Worker
part-time employees. Assistant (1) (2)
Figure 3-21: Organizational chart
A park supervisor plans, organizes, coordinates and is responsible for all operations of the park while
protecting park resources. This position supervises all aspects of work and performance of subordinates
to facilitate productivity and efficiency. The park supervisor also constantly coordinates activities for
maximum revenue and most efficient utilization of facilities including outdoor education and wellness
programs for park users. This position is also responsible for marketing efforts to promote the park,
operating within the budget and providing detail for formulation of budget as related to grants, capital
improvement projects and park projects.
An administrative assistant performs clerical duties in support of park operations to include but not
limited to: proper cash handling during fee collection, preparing daily deposits, reconciliation, revenue
recording and reporting, administrative reporting and support, processing camping and ramada
reservations, souvenir program oversight, and customer service via the phone, mail and email.
An interpretive ranger plans, organizes, promotes, conducts, and evaluates outdoor recreation and
environmental educational programs to include maintaining and demonstrations of live animal and
plant displays. This position provides customer service by assisting and providing information and park
interpretation to park visitors, the general public, County departments, other agencies, volunteers, and
community groups. Responsibilities also include accurate reporting of program attendance, fee
collection and reconciliation, and occasional response to emergency situations.
A park maintenance worker performs general facilities management to include but not limited to:
cleaning and maintaining restrooms, trash collection, painting interiors and external structures, graffiti
removal, minor plumbing and electrical repairs, fence repair, trail maintenance and signage, desert
landscaping maintenance, and customer service to park visitors.
3.17.2 Volunteers
The park utilized over 60 volunteers in FY14-15 who provided over 16,521 hours of service such as camp
hosts, entrance station attendants, nature center hosts, among other roles (table 3-12). The
Independent Sector estimates that the value of volunteer time was worth $22.37 per hour for the state
of Arizona in 2014.67 This translates to volunteers providing $369,585.95 worth of services or the
equivalent of almost eight full-time68 employees, providing an enormous economic value to the park
each year.
67 Independent Sector, dollar value by state for year 2014, http://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time as
accessed January 19, 2016.
68 FTE = total volunteer hours divided by 2,080 hours (2,080 = 40 hours week * 52 weeks).
3-43

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-12: Volunteer Hours by Fiscal Year
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Volunteer Type Volunteers Hours Volunteers Hours Volunteers Hours Volunteers Hours
Park Hosts 14 8,220 18 10,544 13 8,452 14 15,567
Community 13 639 14 475 7 475 7 911
Volunteers
Episodic (groups) 4 943 4 148. 2 160 2 43.5
Total 9,802 11,167 9,087 16,521.5
A park host will assist the park supervisor and serve as an ambassador to park visitors by providing
information and promoting resource protection and recreational opportunities through visitor
education. Duties may include fee collection, light maintenance work, clerical tasks, trail maintenance,
and special projects. In return for 40 hours of service, the park host(s) is allowed to utilize camping sites
and use park facilities while they are serving as hosts.
Community volunteers may provide administrative, trails, education, special event, or maintenance
assistance. Episodic volunteers give their time for a special project, rather than volunteering on an on-
going basis. See the Volunteer Manual, Making a Difference and webpage69 for more details on
volunteer roles and responsibilities.
Episodic volunteers may assist in short-term, special projects. For example, Three Rivers Historical
Society volunteers performed trail maintenance on several occasions along the Centennial Trail during
fiscal year 2012-2013, providing valuable assistance to the park.
3.17.3 Partnerships
Estrella Mountain Regional Park has identified several partners or other organizations with a mutual
interest in the park’s operation and success. Table 3-13 specifies existing and potential partners and
their roles in the operation and improvement of the park.
Table 3-13: Partnerships
Partner Potential or existing role
Maricopa County Agencies Parks Commission: Lobby and advocate for park causes.
Flood Control District (FCD): river related issues and El Rio.
Sheriff’s Office (MCSO): Regularly patrols park, trails, and boundaries.
Department of Transportation (MCDOT): Road maintenance.
State Agencies Arizona Office of Tourism: Cooperative work on attracting tourism, especially “Watchable
Wildlife” tourists.
Arizona Game and Fish Department: Variety of wildlife issues, advice and enforcement.
Arizona State Land Department: Protection of adjoining property and access issues.
Arizona State Parks: Site Steward Program (and SHPO) Volunteers regularly patrol and
check on archaeological sites in park.
Federal Agencies BLM: Land exchange/purchase, R&PP consultation.
Local cities/towns City of Goodyear: Trail connections, public safety, and other partnerships.
City of Avondale: Trail connections and other partnerships.
City of Phoenix: Playground inspections.
Citizens for Estrella Mountain Perform fundraising for specific projects.
Park, Inc. (CEMP) A voice and advocate for the park.
69 Website and Volunteer Manual available here: http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/volunteer.aspx
3-44

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Equestrian, RV, Mountain Bike, Work with individual groups on special interest desires when possible.
Special Interests
3.18 Public Safety
The park relies on the Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office (MCSO) for law enforcement and public safety.
MCSO may be contacted by using the following phone numbers:
• 602-876-1011 for non-emergency needs; and
• 911 for emergencies.
MCSO keeps track of all contacts and reports it produces (table 3-14). Note that inconsistencies with the
data may exist based upon where the call was located; i.e. if it was actually outside the park boundary
but responding units did not correct that location with dispatch. Additionally, MCSO began using new
software in 2013 that may also account for some inconsistencies during part of that year.
Table 3-14: MCSO Statistics
Estrella Mountain Regional Park
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Contacts (all)1 64 58 61 59 42
Search & Rescue Operation 1 3 0 0 1
Sick/Injured Person 2 0 4 0 3
County Parks Violation 6 5 1 1 1
Fire Violation (R113) 1 1 0 1 1
Vehicle & Bicycle Violation (R107) 0 0 0 2 0
Camping Violation (R112) 0 0 1 0 0
Game & Fish Violation 0 0 0 1 0
Burglary from vehicle 0 0 1 0 0
Theft/Burglary Metals Copper
Aluminum 0 1 2 0 1
Notes:
1. Totals exclude “Patrol/Vacation Watch” category.
Source: personal communication from MCSO Sgt. Fred McCann to Don Harris, 5/1/14.
The City of Goodyear also provides public safety and rescue support. Park staff and its volunteers also
provide park visitors with safety messages and summon assistance when needed. Park visitors are
expected to know and comply with all park rules.
3.18.1 Fire and Fire Bans
Park Rule R-113 outlines acceptable use of fire and grills. MCPRD implements fire bans during the warm
summer months to help prevent destructive fires. The bans are lifted as soon as the prevailing weather
conditions permit. Some limited use of grills may be permitted unless under an extreme fire ban.
3.19 Finances
This section includes park budget and revenue trends. The charts or tables exhibited below reflect year
to year trends when available. More detailed budget and financial information is contained in the park’s
annual business plan. This section should not be considered a complete audit-level look into park
finances, but rather a generalized view of some specific categories and a general trend analysis.
3-45

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
From the data presented here, the reader may ascertain the more recent revenue intake is less than the
park expenditures. For example, in fiscal year 2015 the park’s revenue was $480,205 but its expenses
were just over $656,828 – requiring that the Department’s overall budget subsidize the difference. This
means the park has an approximately 73% self-sufficiency level for fiscal year 2015.
3.19.1 Park Budget
The park budget consists of components shown below such as park revenue, park expenditures, and
park donations. Park staff is responsible for revenue generation and staying within the budget
formulated by the Department’s finance team.
3.19.2 Park Revenue
Park revenue comes from many sources but primarily from visitor entrance fees, camping and picnic
reservations, souvenir sales, etc. The park also receives revenue from its concessionaires (mainly the
golf course and horse rental rides). Revenue is also generated through an agreement with PIR for
camping two to three times per year. Special use permits also generate revenue for the park.
Other funding sources may come from grants or other partnerships, but those funds are generally
earmarked for specific projects or purposes. Revenue is generally increasing each year (figure 3-22) due
to improved or additional facilities as well as from improved marketing.
Figure 3-22: Revenue per Fiscal Year
Figure 3-23 demonstrates the monthly breakdown of the fiscal year 2015, noticing that the cooler and
winter months show the largest values, very similar to visitation trends. A spike is noted in April 2015 for
the Easter holiday weekend, as well as the weekend that precedes Easter; this spike may shift each year
as the date of the holiday changes.
3-46

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-23: Revenue by Month in FY15
A lack of camping accommodations at the park results in low camping revenue figures (figure 3-24). The
park is a popular group camping location for youth groups.
Figure 3-24: Camping per Fiscal Year
Facility rentals remain fairly consistent (figure 3-25) year to year. Rentals include the nature center,
ramadas, or other facilities.
3-47

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-25: Facility Rentals
Annual pass sales show an overall upward trend from year to year (figure 3-26) and is expected to
increase. Park visitors have expressed their satisfaction with the annual pass program.
Figure 3-26: Annual Passes
Daily entry pass levels fluctuate with overall visitation (figure 3-27).
3-48

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-27: Daily Pass Entries
3.19.3 Expenditures
Park expenditures cover everything from park staff wages and benefits, maintenance, as well as general
office supplies, vehicle maintenance and fueling (table 3-15). Although facility needs have increased,
staff levels have remained the same for several years. The park covers extra staffing needs with
additional hosts and volunteers.
Table 3-15: Summary of Annual Expenditures
Expense type FY 2014 FY 2015
Personal Services (wages and benefits) $155,540.42 $165,693.68
General Supplies $15,180.01 $16,355.80
Fuel $7,675.96 $6,940.19
Utilities - electricity $83,120.25 $68,648.23
Utilities - water $14,133.49 $18,636.33
Repairs and Maintenance* $41,280.01 $357,175.31
TOTAL EXPENSES (all types) $323,124.10 $656,828.53
*includes expense categories 812 and 825
3.19.4 Donations
Donations to the Park are accepted pursuant to ARS §11-941, paragraph A and are used for designated
items such as memorial benches, ramadas, brochures, critter care, or general use. Donations (table 3-
16) to the park represent a small, but important, percentage of income to the park.
Table 3-16: Donations
FY 2014 FY 2015
Amount $429.61 $215.40
3-49

________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
{This page intentionally left blank.}
3-50

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
CHAPTER 4 – ROADS
This master plan varies slightly from the White Tank Mountain Regional Park Master Plan template in
that it includes a roads chapter. Estrella Mountain Regional Park, already unique to the park system,
faces a multitude of existing and potential challenges depending on which park improvement
opportunities are chosen for the park. The Department requested that the Maricopa Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) study the existing roads and to make recommendations for roadway
improvements and to recommend potential new roads or access points. The result of the Estrella
Mountain Regional Park Access Roads Final Roadway Evaluation September 2015 (MCDOT study) is
found in Appendix I, excerpts of which are drawn out in this chapter and, in some cases, expanded upon.
4.1 Existing Roads, Access, and Parking
4.1.1 External Roads and Access
Estrella Parkway is a paved road adjacent to the west park boundary and bisects a small portion of the
northwest corner of the park and transitions into an unpaved road near the park’s southernmost
boundary (Pecos Road alignment). Bullard Avenue extends slightly into the park’s northern boundary
and terminates at its intersection with Vineyard Avenue.
The intersection of Estrella Parkway and Vineyard Avenue is commonly used to access the park’s main
vehicular entrance and golf course entrance off of Vineyard Avenue. When travelling southbound, this
intersection has no formal left turn lane onto Vineyard Avenue, forcing turning vehicles to cross
oncoming traffic. The City of Goodyear predicts this section of Estrella Parkway to be over capacity by
the year 20351. Accordingly, the City of Goodyear has included intersection upgrades2 in its most recent
Transportation Master Plan (June 2014). Likewise, the MCDOT study made several recommendations3
and those have been provided to the City of Goodyear for their consideration.
Vineyard Avenue to Casey Abbott Drive North serves as the park’s main entrance point. Likewise,
Vineyard Avenue to South Golf Course Drive provides the only vehicular entry to the golf course. The
park has two other vehicular access points at approximately 143rd Avenue and Indian Springs Road and
at 143rd Avenue and West Baseline Road; however, these entry points are generally gated and locked
and most often go unused by the general public.
Indian Springs Road provides another vehicular access point to the park’s competitive track via an
easement granted over PIR property at the South Old Baseline Road alignment (sometimes labeled
South Avenida Estrella). At certain times of the year, this entry point many be closed to the general
1 City of Goodyear Transportation Master Plan (June 2014), table 3-4, page 35.
2 City of Goodyear Transportation Master Plan (June 2014), (list item 73), page 54.
3 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Access Roads Final Roadway Evaluation September 2015, pages 23-27.
4-1

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
public while PIR holds events. During these times, there is no alternative way to reach the competitive
track area.
Although old dirt roads or paths may exist into the park, the main park entry and the competitive track
entrance provide the only authorized vehicle access points into the park. Additionally, the park
maintains several trail entry points on the west and northern borders for non-motorized and pedestrian
entry. There are currently no public vehicular roads or non-motorized entry points east or south of the
park.
Table 4.1: Roadway Jurisdiction and Functional Class
Road Jurisdiction Functional Class
Estrella Parkway City of Goodyear Scenic Arterial
Vineyard Avenue City of Goodyear Arterial
Bullard Avenue (and bridge) City of Goodyear Arterial
Indian Springs Road MCDOT Minor Arterial
4.1.2 Internal Park Roads and Parking Lots
Park roads are designed and built to conform to the Park Road System Guidelines/Standards in effect at
the time of construction as well as by compatible MCDOT roadway design manuals. The MCDOT study
compared existing park roads to the newly adopted Park Road System Guidelines and by and large the
existing park roads are adequate; however, it noted a couple of deficiencies in the geometric review.4 In
these cases, the road geometrics do not meet standards for a 30 MPH design speed; however, these
roads are posted at 25 MPH and subsequently should cause no impediments to sight stopping distance
or superelevation.
Estrella Mountain Regional Park has just over five miles of existing paved roads that allow park visitors
to circulate between activity areas. The park also has about five miles of unpaved service roads that
allow park staff to provide maintenance in hard to reach areas. The park provides multiple parking lots
throughout the park, totaling over 2,900 parking spaces.
Table 4.2: Park Roads and Parking
Roads Miles Parking Vehicle Spaces
Paved 5.15 Designated 910
Unpaved 5.00 Undesignated 2,009
4.1.3 Classification
Park road guidelines define four types of roads: primary access, circulation, area, and special purpose.
Circulatory roads, meant to move vehicles between activity sites, serve as the typical roadway
classification at the park.
Table 4.3: Park Roadway Classifications
Roadway Classification
Casey Abbott Drive North Circulatory
Casey Abbott Drive South Circulatory
143rd Drive Circulatory
South Golf Course Drive Circulatory
4 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Access Roads Final Roadway Evaluation September 2015, page 10.
4-2

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
Trailhead Drive Area
Amphitheatre Drive Area
Camino Hildalgo Area
Diamondback Way Area
Chipolte Way Area
Arena Road Area
The design guideline for a circulatory roadway section is shown in figure 4.1 and leaves adequate space
for a four foot paved shoulder that may also be used as a bike lane.
Figure 4.1: Park Circulatory Roadway section
4.1.4 Capacity
Physical capacity at the park is currently limited by the number of parking spaces. There is a minimum of
2,919 designated and undesignated parking spaces. Using the park’s average of 2.315 people per vehicle,
this would put peak capacity at about 6,742 visitors at any one time based on available parking alone.
Further study is needed to determine the physical, environmental, and social capacity of the park.
4.1.5 Maintenance
A Maricopa County Board of Supervisors resolution dated February 21, 1984 allows MCDOT to perform
construction and/or maintenance activities inside County parks and to do so using Highway User
Revenue Fund (HURF) monies for park roads intended for public use. All paved and named roads are
constructed and maintained by MCDOT and conform to County guidelines for park roadway systems at
the time of construction. As park roads become eligible for upgrades, the road should be designed to
meet the newest standard.
Additionally, most paved parking lots also have curbing; however, it is deteriorating and crumbling in
many areas. Any parking lot improvements should also include curbing repairs or replacement at the
same time.
Unnamed and unpaved roads are maintained by the park’s maintenance staff or the Department’s
trade’s crew. Paved and unpaved parking areas are likewise constructed and/or maintained by the park
maintenance staff or trades crew, but the Department will periodically contract MCDOT for these
services.
Table 4.4: Existing Park Roadway Maintenance Status
Roadway Construction Pavement PCR Most Recent Work (Year)
Date Type
5 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.20A, page 34.
4-3

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
Casey Abbott Drive North 1993 Asphalt 91 Preservative Seal (2014)
Casey Abbott Drive South 1993 Asphalt 91 Preservative Seal (2014)
143rd Drive 1993 Asphalt 92 Preservative Seal (2014)
Golf Course Road 1993 Asphalt 91 Preservative Seal (2014)
Trailhead Drive 1993 Asphalt 91 Preservative Seal (2014)
Amphitheatre Drive NR NR NR Preservative Seal (2014)
NR = Not Reported
Source: Final Roadway Evaluation, Table 2 Existing Roadway Pavement Summary, page 9, Sept. 2015
4.1.6 Drive-time Analysis
As part of the 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, Pros Consulting6 (PRO’s) examined drive times from
the park entrance outward on roadways traveling at designated minute increments. PRO’s used 2000
Census Tract estimates for 2007 populations, simplified into density categories:
• Urban (2.0 people per acre or more; 0.5 acres per person or less);
• Exurban (0.5 people to 2.0 per acre; 0.5 to 2.0 acres per person); and
• Rural (less than 0.5 people per acre; 2.0 acres per person or more).
PRO’s then derived proportional population estimates for each drive time and weighted against the
drive time acreages to establish average correlated people per acre and the inverted ration of acres per
person. This effort to measure population against acres available is to demonstrate the need and
pressure each County park will be under for the future and how to plan to meet that need in updated
master plans and to serve all age groups despite pressure on the park’s per person per acre ratio.
Table 4.5: Drive Time/Acres Analysis for Estrella Mountain Regional Park
Total Population by Time Segment (minutes)
Year 15 30 45
2007* 65,303 801,960 2,638,637
2017 106,212 1,103,520 3,493,037
Acres by Time Segment (minutes)
59,991 270,041 602,442
Source: 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PRO’s Consulting, page 46, 48, 52.
*2000 Census Tract estimates for year 2007.
6 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PROs Consulting. Page 45-47.
4-4

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
Figure 4-2: Drive time analysis (Source: 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PROs Consulting, page 52)
4.2 Proposed or Planned Roads, Access, and Parking
Current land use designations adjacent to the park are mostly residential. However, with any level of
development roadways are required to serve the residents and businesses. With the predicted level of
development in this part of the valley, the park and the Department should remain aware and involved
with each appropriate jurisdiction to influence or guide roadway development to the extent possible.
Roads that run parallel to park boundaries are not preferred as they tend to provide nearly unlimited
and uncontrolled park access and increase the opportunities for illegal park access. Parallel roads also
serve as a barrier to wildlife and other biological movement patterns.
4.2.1 Proposed or Planned Roads
Goodyear
The City of Goodyear Transportation Master Plan, a component of its 2025 General Plan, outlines its
desired future road network. The City plans for an arterial roadway7 network along the park’s southern
boundary (Pecos Road alignment) as well as a parkway west of the park’s boundary (Cotton Lane
alignment).
7 City of Goodyear, Transportation Master Plan (Final Draft), Chapter 3, Page 29, Figure 3-10 Future Functional
Class (South). http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=9854 as accessed August 1, 2014.
4-5

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
The City also identified Estrella Parkway8 as in need of a traffic signal and widening to accommodate
future traffic demands. The Department asked MCDOT to analyze internal park roads and the external
roadway network near the park. A recommendation from their analysis provided several alternatives9 to
improving this intersection; the most cost effective alternative being a restriping of the road and
realigning of the guardrail (Option 4a) to allow additional space for a left turning lane from Estrella
Parkway to Vineyard Avenue.
Avondale
The City of Avondale Transportation Plan10 (November 2012) proposes to expand the Dysart Road
alignment into a four to six lane arterial at least as far south as the park boundary. The City’s
Transportation Plan also recommends upgrading Indian Springs Road into a four to six lane arterial road.
The City has a long term goal of extending Dysart Road through the interior of the park and mountains
to reach the southern extent of their City planning area. This extension of Dysart Road into the interior
of the park is neither supported nor desired by the Department.
MCDOT
In July 2014, Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) began the process to update the
countywide Transportation System Plan; once complete, this document will outline the vision for the
planning and construction of transportation facilities through the year 2035. MCDOT and its
consultant(s) are also conducting feasibility studies on the following parkway proposals in the west
valley:
• SR 303L / Cotton Lane extension (west of park boundary, a MCDOT and/or ADOT project);
• Hassayampa Freeway: the study area is approximately 41.2 miles and extends from the north to
the Gila River, although this may be incorporated into I-11 development.
ADOT
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) (in cooperation with Nevada Department of
Transportation and its consultants) began a study in October 2012 to determine feasibility of Interstate
11 (I-11), a multi-modal transportation corridor connecting the Phoenix metropolitan area to Las Vegas,
Nevada. Per the I11 Study website, ADOT is commencing a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and Conceptual Engineering Document11 in order to select a preferred corridor (approximately 2,000
feet wide) and a preferred transportation mode to accommodate future traffic demand from Nogales to
Wickenburg. ADOT will comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines and will
engage and involve affected agencies, organizations, and members of the community as a part of the
Tier I EIS document. The Department and the park should continue to monitor its progress and be aware
of any management impacts.
ADOT is also actively reviewing the expansion of SR30 (intended to provide relief to Interstate 10 and a
potential tie-in to the Loop 303 and Loop 202 freeway expansions). As of publication of this master plan
8 City of Goodyear, Transportation Master Plan (Final Draft), Chapter 4, Page 56-57.
http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=9854 as accessed August 1, 2014.
9 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Final Roadway Evaluation, Section 4.6, September 2015.
10 City of Avondale, Transportation Plan http://www.avondale.org/documentcenter/view/31342 as accessed
October 30, 2015.
11 I-11study, http://i11study.com/index.asp as accessed December 3, 2015.
4-6

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
update, ADOT continues to evaluate four alternatives including a no-build alternative for SR30.12
Construction of the Loop 202 freeway, also known as the South Mountain Freeway, may facilitate access
to the park for visitors coming from the south by connecting to I-10, depending on exit ramp locations.13
Figure 4-3: Existing and Proposed Roadways (source: MAG)
12 ADOT, http://azdot.gov/projects/phoenix-metro-area/state-route-30 as accessed October 30, 2015.
13 ADOT currently estimates construction to begin in the summer of 2016 and open for travel in 2020.
4-7

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) document Interstate 10 – Hassayampa Valley
Roadway Framework Study or its update provides more detail regarding many of these roadways. All of
these roadway expansion projects (and others as they are identified) should be tracked by the
Department and the park itself so that park management pressures or impacts can be addressed.
4.2.2 Future Access Points
The MCDOT study recommends one additional vehicular entry point between the Baseline and Indian
Springs Road alignments.14 An access point in this location will allow RV traffic to bypass the main entry
(and potential youth sports field traffic) and proceed directly to existing and proposed camping at the
rodeo arena area.
The MCDOT study briefly looked at alternative golf course access points.15 Should future traffic volumes
become significant enough to hinder the existing golf course access, the park should commence a more
detailed feasibility study of alternate golf course access points.
The Department has a specific decision making protocol to follow when deciding when and where to
install a new access point. The protocol involves looking at all aspects of the access point and may
require its own and separate public involvement. The City of Goodyear’s 2014 Parks Recreation Trails
and Open Space Master Plan16, a component of its 2025 General Plan, identified its preferred access
points to the park. Similarly, adjacent residents sometimes request access within neighborhoods.
However, in all cases, the park will follow the Department’s access matrix protocol to determine which
of these preferred entry point locations may be suitable for the park.
Based on the City of Goodyear identification of arterial roadways and access points at the park’s
southern boundary, the park should consider developing a southern park entrance point that can
accommodate both vehicles and non-motorized park visitors should these arterials become a reality. A
master plan amendment or a new master plan should be considered in the event the southern boundary
becomes accessible so that additional needs and potential impacts that are not apparent today may be
fully measured.
4.2.3 Future Internal Park Roads and Parking Lots
The Park Road System Guidelines/Standards should be followed when park roads require extensive
maintenance or as new roads are designed and developed. All roadway classifications are adequate to
accommodate the design vehicle - a motorhome with a boat trailer.
Future actions should include correcting the design deficiencies noted in the MCDOT study. Additionally,
an alternate road from approximately the rodeo arena to the competitive track should also remain near
the top of roadway priorities. As previously mentioned, when PIR holds events, the competitive track
area is inaccessible to the public; by having an alternate route, the competitive track can be put to
beneficial use and not be completely closed off to the general public. A new roadway to the competitive
track could also open some portions of the park to primitive or tent camping opportunities. The MCDOT
14 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Final Roadway Evaluation, Section 4.6.5, page 21-22, September
2015.
15 Estrella Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Final Roadway Evaluation, Section 4.6.5, page 27, September 2015.
16 City of Goodyear, Parks Recreation Trails and Open Space Master Plan, July 2014, figures 14 and 15.
http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=13071 as accessed December 30, 2015.
4-8

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
study briefly looked at a potential roadway alignment (figure 4-3). This alignment is approximately four
miles and crosses several washes and mountainous terrain. This alignment crosses the adjacent State
Land Trust property. The alignment shown is conceptual only and it should be noted that additional
study is required to examine this or other internal park roadway options.
Figure 4-4: Potential internal park roadway (Source: MCDOT study, figure 24, p29)
Improvements to the combined service road (sometimes labeled Riverhawk Road) and Coldwater Trail
are also recommended so that the Coldwater events area may be used as a formalized trailhead and
parking lot. Scenic pullouts and/or walk-in tent sites are recommended on either side of this road.
As new amenities are added to the park, adequate parking should also be incorporated into its site
design. Some existing parking lots can be expanded or realigned to accommodate future parking needs.
Likewise, the multipurpose sports field development proposal must take parking needs into account in
their site design in order to accommodate its players and spectators. As trail use continues to increase in
popularity with park visitors, trailhead parking must also be evaluated. Some trailheads may require
additional parking.
4-9

__________________________________________________________________________Roads
{This page intentionally left blank.}
4-10

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
CHAPTER 5 – TRAILS
The trails chapter details the existing trails within the park. The trail system is a vital component of the
park and provides park visitors with diverse recreational experiences from educational interpretive trails
to rugged mountain hikes. The Estrella Regional Park Trail System Plan (Appendix J) was adopted in 1998
and amended in 2012 (figure 5-1). The Trail System Plan (and amendments) describes the desired future
condition of the trail system, including trail access points and service road access, and prescribes actions
to achieve the planned condition.
This master plan update will
provide conceptual trail
recommendations (found in
Chapter 7) based on public
feedback received during the open
public comment phases; it will then
delegate the specific trail
alignment planning to the park’s
Trail System Plan. Additional trails
or deletions to the trail system may
require an amendment to the Trail
System Plan; the trail development
planner/manager is tasked with
making that determination and
implementing the amendment
process, if required. Figure 5-1: Pedersen Trail, Trails Crew at work.
All trail alignments must be incorporated into the Trail System Plan prior to construction and are not
considered authorized trails until that time regardless of their mention in this Master Plan update. In
areas where this Master Plan update is silent, the Trail System Plan prevails. The Trails Management
Manual provides further detail on Policies, Standards, and Guidelines for Planning, Design, Construction,
and Maintenance of the Trails and Tracks System in Maricopa County Parks.
5.1 Existing Trails
Estrella Mountain Regional Park offers approximately 30 miles of shared-use trails, ranging in length
from 0.25 mile to 6.1 miles (figure 5-2). Trails are rated from easy to strenuous and include two
diamond-rated trails (table 5-1). In addition, there are 0.5 miles of barrier-free trails.
5-1

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
Figure 5-2: Trails (existing and proposed)
5-2

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
Table 5-1: Designated Trails
Name Miles1 Kilometers1 Notes Rating2 Management
Classification
Baseline 2.6 4.2 Hike only, round-trip Primary
Butterfield (front) 0.8 1.2 Shared use Primary
Butterfield (back) 1.3 2.3 Shared use Primary
Coldwater 2.9 4.7 Shared use Primary
Dysart 1.9 3.1 Shared use Primary
Gadsden 6.1 9.6 Shared use Primary
Gila 0.5 0.7 Barrier-free, round-trip Barrier-free
Pedersen 6.8 10.9 Shared use, loop Primary
Rainbow Valley 4.2 6.7 Shared use Secondary
Toothaker 3.7 5.9 Shared use Primary
Saddle 0.3 0.5 Shared use Secondary
Horseshoe 1.0 1.6 Shared use Primary
Homestead 2.4 3.9 Shared use Primary
Crossover 0.9 1.5 Shared use Secondary
Competitive Track Total tread length
Distances are round-trip Competitive
Long Loop 9.5 15.3
from trailhead Track
Distances are round-trip Competitive
Technical Loop 4.7 7.6
from trailhead Track
Distances are round-trip Competitive
Junior Loop 1.6 2.6
from trailhead Track
1 Distances may have been rounded
2 Rating symbols are defined in Table 4-3 below or online at http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/trailrating.aspx
5.1.1 Competitive Track
The park offers an approximately 15-mile Competitive Track in addition to its trails. The Competitive
Track is designed to provide challenging, strenuous, and high-speed outdoor recreation for individuals,
groups, and organized events. The Competitive Track is designed multiple-use for cross-country runners
and joggers, fast bicyclists and racers, and trotting/galloping equestrians and endurance riders. The
track may be closed to general use while organized events are taking place. Large events, like the Cactus
Flower Women’s Trail Race, may attract over 400 participants. Other events or races may bring 50 to
350 participants to the park (table 5-2). The track has an ample parking area that can accommodate 50
to 100 vehicles. (The parking area may also be used as overflow camping for Phoenix International
Raceway attendees when needed.)
Table 5-2: Competitive Track Events and Participants
Fiscal Year Number of Events Participants/Spectators
2010-11 4 850 / 165
2011-12 3 750 / 250
5-3

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
2012-13 3 750 / 250
2013-14 3 900 / 300
2014-15 6 1,250 / 400
5.1.2 Maricopa Trail
The Maricopa Trail (and Sun Circle Trail) has planned connection(s) to the park (future Beaver Trailhead)
within its “Priority One” construction. The trail is part of a regional trail plan that will link all Maricopa
County regional parks and will provide connections to metropolitan areas, municipal trails, communities,
and neighborhoods with regional non-motorized multi-modal corridors. It will also provide an outlet for
competitive hikers and bicyclists seeking long distance routes.
5.2 Proposed Community Trails/Trailheads
The City of Goodyear’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan1, a component of its 2025 General Plan,
outlines its desired future trails/paths, trailheads, and access points to the park. Any future updates to
the park’s Trail Plan should take these desired locations into consideration and perform the Access
Matrix process to determine the precise location, suitability, and public benefit of adding an access
point.
5.3 Trail Use
All trails are shared-use unless otherwise designated. All trail users are encouraged to practice proper
trail etiquette. Park Rule R-118 requires hikers, equestrians, and bicycle riders to remain on designated
trails and shortcutting by any type of trail user is prohibited. Trail education and, if necessary, law
enforcement will be used to attain compliance. Signs will be posted and barriers constructed at
obliterated paths, roads, and undesignated washes if use is continued after closure.
The 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study shows that park visitors use trails for an average of 4.14 miles2.
When singled out by the visitors’ primary activity, other trail uses include (table 5-3):
Table 5-3: Trail Uses
Primary Activity Percent of Visitors1 Miles of Trail Used2
Trail hiking 73.7% 3.62
Mountain biking 7.3% 9.83
Picnicking 7.3% 2.08
Running/jogging 3.7% 9.17
Horseback riding 1.5% 5.67
Walking for pleasure 1.5% 1.50
1. 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.9A, page 23.
2. 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.10, page 26.
1 City of Goodyear, Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails Master Plan (July 2014), Supporting Elements of the
System, Trailheads and Access (North), Figure 16, Page 55
http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=9852 as accessed August 1, 2014.
2 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.10, page 26.
5-4

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
5.4 Trail Rating
In 2012, a partnership of metro-area park agencies developed a trail rating guide to assist trail users in
assessing what trails are best suited for their abilities (table 5-4). During the hotter months when the
temperatures and/or humidity are high, trails are rated at least one level higher.
Table 5-4: Trail Rating Guide
Rating Symbol Brief Definition Surface Grade Obstacles/Steps
Paved Accessible Trail Paved or hard and None
smooth
Easiest
Mostly smooth and wide Dirt with occasional 2" or less, rocks
unevenness and ruts
Easy
Mostly smooth, variable Dirt with occasional <8" rocks and ruts,
Moderate width unevenness loose material
Mostly uneven surfaces Dirt and rock <12" rocks and
ruts, loose material
Moderate
difficult
Long rocky segments Dirt and loose rock with 12" or taller, loose
with possible drops and continual unevenness rocks, exposure to
Difficult exposure drops
Long rocky segments Dirt and loose rock with 12" or taller, loose
with possible drops and continual unevenness rocks, exposure to
Extremely exposure drops and
difficult excessive heat
>90F
5-5

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
{This page intentionally left blank.}
5-6

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
CHAPTER 6 – MANAGEMENT ZONING
The foundation for the management zones is found in the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Department 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, June 2009 (page 105-116), and is presented again here
(table 6-1). It should also be noted that the Strategic System Master Plan also recommends that the size
of all developed areas should be limited to 10% of the overall park size; however, smaller parks that are
adjacent to other protected open space may exceed that 10% recommendation. As of 2009, the park
has about 2.3% of its total acres developed; however, that is expected to increase slightly as new
projects or trails are constructed.
Table 6-1: Management Zone and Acreage
Zone Percent of Total Park Acres
Development 2.3% (463.00 acres)
Trail 1.4% (274.64 acres)
Semi-Primitive 31.3% (6,200.10 acres)
Primitive 58.2% (11,528.44 acres)
Perimeter Buffer 6.8% (1,336.97 acres)
Non-Management Zone 0% (0 acres)
Source: 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, page 110.
6.1 Methodology for Determining Management Zones
The current management zoning descriptions and maps used for Estrella Mountain Regional Park are
taken directly from the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department Strategic System Master
Plan, June 2009 (pages 105-116), as prepared by PRO’s. The zones were determined based on existing
use and location of developed features. These management zones are meant to provide some flexibility.
If/when development occurs on the north, south, or west side of the park, the development zone in
those areas will require review and possibly changed.
The park was zoned according to existing use which may or may not be its preferred future use; as such,
future revisions of these zones should include descriptions of the desired visitor experience and level of
intended management. For example, one zone may provide the visitor with a sense of wilderness and
remoteness, challenging their outdoor skills. This zone would thus require a low level of management
and a high level of resource protection and may be labeled as “primitive” and should reflect the desired
future conditions of the park rather than existing use or conditions.
6.2 Description of Management Zones
The following chart (table 6-2) describes the zones that are areas of land-based management only and
are designed to be a working document so that some flexibility of the classification of each is allowed.
6-1

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
Table 6-2: Park Management Zones
Zone (Management Level) Description Includes, but not limited to:
Development Includes areas which require the Roads
(Highest) highest level of management. These Golf courses
areas contain the largest level of Archery/shooting range
park activity by visitors. Model airplane
Sports fields
When possible, this zone should not Aquatic complex
exceed 10% of overall park size. Restroom facilities
Smaller parks that are contiguous to Picnic areas and ramadas
other protected open space may Camp sites
exceed 10%. Equestrian facilities
Entrance stations
Visitor centers
Trailheads
Parking lots
Boat launch areas
Amphitheaters
Group areas
Staging areas
Park offices
Trail This zone requires a level of Park access gates
(High) management second only to Shared-use trails
development zones. These areas are Barrier-free trails
limited to passive recreation and Hiker-only trails
park maintenance only. In most Regional system trails
cases, public vehicular access is Competitive tracks
restricted. Service roads
Public roads (with no connectivity
Hiking trails and their connectivity to developed management zones)
to adjacent land uses makes up the Unpaved roads
majority of this zone.
Perimeter buffer This area includes areas along the Fencing
(Fairly high) park boundary and adjacent to Access gates
varying land uses. Park security and
limiting external connectivity are
the goals of this zone.
Due to encroaching development at
several parks, the management
required for this zone can be fairly
high.
Semi-primitive This zone includes areas adjacent to Back country areas
(Low) and between other management
zones which contain few amenities.
These areas should act as a
transition between zones of high
and low management.
Typically contain minimal impact
activities and provide a “back
country experience”. The
6-2

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
management required for this zone
is very low.
Primitive Encompasses the areas which are Wildlife areas
(Lowest) considered remote and inaccessible.
Included, are areas which the
terrain is too rugged for vehicular or
pedestrian traffic as well as areas
that are a great distance from any
other “developed” zone without a
point of access.
The key element of this zone should
be wildlife conservation and
preservation. Access to this zone is
available only by special permit (i.e.
wildlife study) and therefore
requires the least amount of
management.
6.3 Area Descriptions that Influence Park Zoning
Topography or natural and cultural resources may determine the areas that are considered semi-
primitive and primitive. Many areas are too rugged for any type of development and therefore semi-
primitive or primitive are inherently appropriate in a large portion of the park.
The 2009 Strategic System Plan (page 110) notes that current management zones reflect existing land
uses within the park (figure 6-1). As future connectivity and access needs change, these zones will
require an update.
Figure 6-1: Development Zones (Source: MCPRD 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, Figure 41, p 110)
6-3

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
{This page intentionally left blank.}
6-4

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
CHAPTER 7 – PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
This chapter identifies new park improvement projects that have been determined through the planning
process. This process included analyzing existing conditions, trends, public input, consultation with
neighboring agencies, and Department staff expertise as described in previous chapters. Staff,
stakeholders, and the public were presented with two draft alternatives (Appendix K) and asked to
comment and provide input on each. The results of all comments and feedback indicated that draft
alternative B was most preferred. The recommended park improvement projects presented herein best
align with draft alternative B with additional edits for clarity.
This master plan update will continue to uphold the concept of “active use area” by streamlining the
1988 Long-Range Master Plan objectives by:
Supporting existing features and amenities:
This plan update recommends supporting amenities to existing areas and promotes educational
components of the park, such as:
• Upgrades and repairs to existing facilities (e.g. Super Playground and restrooms);
• Active recreation areas such as sports fields;
• Improved signage and maps; and
• Incorporating El Rio and a wetlands/water feature with educational opportunities within each.
Limiting other features:
This plan update streamlines the quantity of built facilities to protect its natural and cultural resources.
Other developed features outlined in the 1988 Long-Range Master Plan that are not currently in place or
recommended within this update are not desired facilities for the park.
7.1 Issues and Constraint Analysis
The planning team met early in the planning process to discuss issues that may place constraints on the
park. The plan update will make every attempt to address those items discussed within its improvement
projects and operations (table 7-1), such as:
Table 7-1: Issues Constraints and Analysis
Issue/Constraint Analysis
Land ownership The various means of land acquisition may also bring limitations to
land development or use.
Access Adjacent private land ownership and/or rugged landscape bring
limitations to the park staff being able to access remote locations.
Management Zones Management Zones represent existing land use. Additional
development actions must complement its zone or modify the zone.
The Management Zone should reflect the desired use and visitor
expectation for that zone. Some proposed projects may require a
7-1

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
zone change.
Rugged landscape Prevents development or access to some areas.
Wildlife corridors/linkages MCPRD has consulted with AZGFD to locate known
corridors/linkage patterns. Any future development will be sited in
locations that will accommodate linkages.
Hunting Designated areas of the park can fill this niche other areas cannot;
as regulated through AZGFD.
Compliment established themes All efforts have been made to compliment park’s theme(s) of El Rio
and destination park.
Neighboring city/town development The Park Supervisor and/or Park Planner routinely participate with
patterns neighboring agencies regarding development patterns.
Maintain development to under 10% of Currently, 2.7% of land acres are considered developed; park is well
land acres within the 10% limit. Future development actions will need to take
this guideline into account and repurpose previously disturbed
ground to the extent feasible.
Operations The park has had visitor declines and revenue declines for several
years; these improvement projects are intended to increase
revenue and diversify what amenities the park offers.
7.2 Recommended Park Improvements
These park enhancements adhere to the MCPRD vision and mission. These enhancements also address
the park’s priority mandates and promote the park’s theme. The park improvements and features
detailed in the section were based on public input, stakeholder advisory group suggestions, and park
staff’s knowledge, experience, and guidance from other planning documents (figures 7-1 through 7-2,
and table 7-2).
A timeline for completion was not assigned to any one project as any one may be completed as the
opportunity presents itself. Projects will be scheduled through the Department’s Capital Improvement
Plan and potential costs and funding sources will be identified through the Implementation Plan.
However, a priority level was assigned to show which projects may be of a relative greater need than
another:
• High Priority: projects that are in progress; public health or safety issues; resource protection.
• Medium Priority: important, but not a matter of public health or safety; to indicate a desired
level of service across a range of recreation opportunities.
• Low Priority: desired features; or dependent on long-term partnerships or other considerations.
A majority of these projects will be phased in individually over multiple years to maximize budgetary
resources, build partnerships with other agencies, and to minimize impacts to park operations and
resources. Site specific plans (including any applicable natural or cultural resource inventories and
clearances) and engineering plans will be required for new construction. The Implementation Plan and
an annual Business Plan will help identify which projects will be funded at that time. All of these
improvement projects are contingent upon having adequate funding and staffing resources to
implement.
Many of the park’s facilities were developed with Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant monies.
Any substantial changes to such facilities should require a consultation with the LWCF administrator at
Arizona State Parks to ensure program compliance. Similarly, R&PP land areas may also require BLM
consultation prior to development and implementation.
7-2

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
For the purposes of this Master Plan update, the mapped location of any new facilities herein is
conceptual only; the precise location may change due to engineering feasibility and resource
management issues. Additional public meetings regarding individual projects may be required and the
results of which may shape the final outcome of the project.
Additionally, any new trail or road alignments shown in these park improvements are also considered
conceptual only. The locations are general corridors and not intended to be precise; new trails or roads
will be located according to MCPRD trail standards and area topography. These alignments are not open
to travel until they have been properly constructed, posted, and designated by MCPRD. Traveling on
undesignated routes causes damage to the land, may be hazardous, and is in violation of park rules.
As a result of public input, agency partner input, and staff expertise, this plan update recommends the
following park improvement projects:
Based on all public and stakeholder comments received throughout the entirety of the planning process,
draft alternative B was the most preferred and offered the most benefits to the park and its visitors.
Draft alternative B was further refined and is presented below in its final and recommended form.
7-3

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
Figure 7-1: Recommended Park Improvements (entire park)
7-4

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
Figure 7-2: Recommended Park Improvements (north area close-up)
Table 7-2: Recommended Alternative
ID# Location Description Priority Acres of new
ground
disturbance
(Approx)
B1 Existing park features including:
Nature Center
Maintenance Compound
Host Sites
Super Playground
Ramadas
Restrooms
Trails / Trailheads
Horse rental area
Comp Track
Golf course
Navy Day Use Area
Ball fields
Maintain/Rehabilitate Existing Facilities
B2 Super Continue with planned improvements and equipment High n/a
Playground upgrades. Install interpretive signage.
7-5

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
B3 Gila River Install “no parking” signage at Vineyard Avenue curve in road High n/a
corridor and roadsides. (Legal parking is located at Plant Research Trail
parking lot.)
B4 Park-wide Domestic water main replacement to stabilize water High n/a
distribution.
B5 Ramadas Renovate existing or develop new ramadas to include updated High n/a
electrical and water.
B6 Restrooms Renovate existing restrooms and/or construct new restrooms. High n/a
Demolish crumbling restrooms and replace with new or
expanded restrooms in an area with greater need (area of
greater need is TBD pending other improvements).
B7 Park-wide Explore costs and feasibility of sewer hookup to City of High n/a
Goodyear and/or expanding and replacing existing septic
systems.
B8 Roads Existing roads: Maintenance is on a routine schedule and High n/a
should be coordinated with other park upgrades to minimize
impacts to park visitors.
B9 Ball Fields Renovate existing ballfields: may include improvements to turf, Medium n/a
restroom, fencing, lighting, existing parking. (Most closely
corresponds to Phase 1 of EYS plan)
B10 Near Super Screen and shade pumping station area from visitors view. This Medium n/a
Playground will also protect the machinery from sun damage.
B11 Navy Area Realign the approximately 4 acre picnic area to include both Medium n/a
ramadas and open picnic tables. Use desert landscaping and
pathways/roads to define area. Replace worn or broken grills
and fire pits. Day uses only; no overnight use.
Develop New Facilities
B12 Near New amphitheater constructed near Nature Center Medium n/a
Nature (approximately 75x75 square feet). To include a trail or
Center pathway from Nature Center to site; distance of this
trail/pathway may vary depending on final location of
amphitheater.
B13 Turf area Install up to 8 multipurpose sports fields/open space; final Medium n/a
number dependent on market demand and needs assessment.
(Most closely corresponds to Phase 2 of EYS plan)
B14 Trails Centennial Trail – install trail just behind Nature Center; to Medium n/a
feature barrier-free and pedestrian only access; may include
public art, interpretive panels, or other trail amenities.
B15 Trails Install a Maricopa Trail connection near the existing Medium tbd
Competitive Track. This trail will be built in cooperation with
the Maricopa Trail and MCPRD trails crew.
B16 Trails Provide a peak view trail: A trail that spurs off of the Medium tbd
Rainbow/Toothaker/Dysart trails will provide a peak view and
be located within a distance that most hikers can travel in a
couple hours round-trip and remain close to existing facilities.
B17 North park Brine wetlands: 30-40 acres as designated via Medium n/a
area and Parks/Goodyear/BOR partnership. May include a 3-5 acre
golf course blending pond at east turf area, service roads and berms.
Additional public meetings or input may be required.
B18 Gila River As a cooperative effort with Flood Control District of Maricopa Medium tbd
corridor County, City of Goodyear, City of Avondale, and others, to
implement the El Rio Watercourse Master Plan and related
7-6

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
documents or projects for riverbed restoration and recreation
elements. Additional public meetings or agency input may be
required on a project by project basis.
B19 Roads New roads and/or upgrades; future road improvements may Medium tbd
include: expand entrance lane widths; bicycle lane installation;
improving dips; etc., scenic loop/pullouts; loops to ramadas,
picnic areas, or campgrounds; road to competitive track.
Additionally, recommendations from the MCDOT park roadway
evaluation (dated Sept. 2015) regarding the Estrella Parkway
and Vineyard Ave intersection will be forwarded to the City of
Goodyear for their consideration.
B20 Trails Design a looped trail around main, northern area of park; Medium tbd
repurpose remnants of old perimeter road to the extent
possible with the final alignment to be compatible with the
proposed wetlands and sports field layouts.
B21 Quail Develop trailhead may include: kiosk map and trail information Medium 0.004
Trailhead and educational materials; designated path from Nature
Center, public art, defined parking and crosswalk,
trim/landscape vegetation. Develop the overlook with kiosk or
educational materials and seating. Rename trail to reflect
overlook destination.
B22 Trails Install additional signage at trailheads, trail mileage signs, and Medium n/a
interpretive signs along trails.
B23 Primitive A basic, walk-in style camping area. To include defined Medium 0.05
Camping individual tent pads, grill or fire ring, and a restroom if feasible. (approx.
Area The precise location will be determined based on a future site per site)
suitability and engineering analysis and access considerations.
Install small, modest cabins at the approximately 5.1 acre site
Amphithea that currently serves as an amphitheater. May include pre-
B24 Medium n/a
ter fabricated cabins that provide kitchenette and HVAC. A
centralized restroom/shower area may be provided.
Secondary entrance point with entry station near existing
gate(s) on 143rd Ave. This entrance is associated with
campground development and/or as a relief entrance/exit
B25 Access Medium 0.15+
point to sports field use. This entry point should include a self-
pay station and a walk-in gate to accommodate equestrian,
bicyclists, and hikers.
Develop trailhead, may include: kiosk map and educational
Baseline materials; public art, trim/landscape vegetation.
B26 Medium 0.2+
Trailhead Consider relocating trailhead (dependent on EYS level of
activity) or define parking and crosswalk for trailhead access.
Upgraded staging area - features may include: technical trail
(already in trails plan as comp track expansion), pump track,
B27 Comp. Maricopa Trail connection, restroom, water, shade, improved Medium n/a
Track entry and kiosk signage. Note that the consideration of trail
reroutes out of sandy wash areas are implemented via the trails
plan process.
Multipurpose and ballfield expansion and support facilities (to
include clubhouse, batting cages, sand volleyball, ADA ballfield,
B28 Turf Area Medium n/a
parking etc.). (Most closely corresponds to Phases 2 through 5
of EYS plan.)
B29 Main Create a highly visible park entrance monument. Medium 0.0014
7-7

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
Entrance
B30 Trails Design, build, and incorporate more challenging trails for both Low tbd
mountain bikers and hikers alike (akin to National and Mormon
Trails at South Mountain). May require Trail Maintenance
Manual update prior to instigating any design, layout, and/or
implementation as well as following the trail planning process
for all new trail development.
B31 Trails Included in 2012 Trails Plan and reiterated by this Master Plan Low tbd
Update: backcountry trail at elevation (consult with AZGFD to
determine trail alignment).
B32 Trails/ Included in 2012 Trails Plan and reiterated by this Master Plan Low tbd
Roads Update: similar to B15, to provide a connector trail to
competitive track. However, if the need arises, this may be
upgraded to an improved road; improved roadways require
MCDOT consultation and assistance. Further, this trail or road
may facilitate opening certain areas to primitive or basic tent
camping.
B33 Equestrian As part of RV campground development (as related to B48), Low n/a
camping include site(s) with space to assemble own corral. The park will
site(s) identify and provide adequate space (16x16 square foot or
0.0118 acre minimum) adjacent to one or two campsites for a
camper to assemble their own corral; based on demand, this
may include constructing a permanent corral at the same camp
site(s) sized 16x16 square foot minimum.
B34 Near Install an approximately 0.021 acre Monarch Waystation Low n/a
Nature butterfly garden near Nature Center. Collaborate with
Center knowledgeable entities regarding plant varieties and garden
layout.
Formal entrance at south park boundary to coincide with the
B35 Access development of the City of Goodyear’s planned arterial Low tbd
roadways. To include entry station, trail connections, ramada
area, or other desired amenities.
Additional access points desired by City of Goodyear or other
B36 Access entities will follow the process of the access matrix protocol for Low tbd
final determination and placement. The access matrix protocol
may require additional public meetings.
Rope-course adventure area or zipline. Precise area is to be
determined based on engineering and site analysis.
B37 TBD Low tbd
Note: Development and implementation of this project will be
contingent upon consultation with BLM prior to construction.
Resource Protection
B38 Park-wide Mixed-use conflict (requires study): High n/a
Research is needed to determine the level of each type of use,
the expectations for that use type, ways the park may lessen
potential conflicts in order to improve the visitor’s experiences,
and impacts of use. These studies may be performed by
MCPRD staff or with the assistance of an educational institution
or other knowledgeable entities. Research methods may
include visitor survey, field monitoring, literature review, aerial
photography comparison, or other methods.
B39 Park-wide Capacity - social, physical, environmental (requires study): High n/a
As the most popular places in the park, these areas play host to
7-8

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
hikers, bikers, picnickers, and others; differing activities may
expect different experiences which may be in conflict with
other uses. Likewise, a study is needed to determine how much
use or how many people a given area can handle before the
experience is degraded or the environment is degraded.
B40 Turf Area Reconfigure remaining turf areas not under development for High n/a
sports fields with native desert vegetation, where appropriate.
May include adding ramadas or picnic tables.
B41 Developed Develop and implement a tree replacement plan and program. High n/a
Areas Use flood irrigation for trees to the extent possible.
B42 Park-wide Develop a Lightscape Management Plan that will outline the High n/a
park’s commitment to dark skies conservation and its
lightscape management practices. The park will develop this
plan using “International Dark-Sky Association, Dark Sky Park
Program Criteria” or equivalent as its guideline.
B43 Park-wide Develop a plan for conducting a species inventory/census with High n/a
the advice and guidance of AZGFD or other knowledgeable
entities. Once survey work is complete, this knowledge will
assist the park in managing its biodiversity.
B44 Park-wide Protect and/or restore park natural and cultural resources via High n/a
surveys, inventories, or studies with the guidance of qualified
institutions per Department standards.
Education/Interpretation
B45 Park-wide Encourage educational components related to water resources, High n/a
habitat or other natural systems, and cultural and historic
resources into park programs, interpretive signage, or other
displays.
Administrative
B46 Park-wide Develop and improve relationships with volunteer base for trail High n/a
maintenance and other park projects.
B47 Park-wide The park shall continue to engage with and build upon past High n/a
success with Citizens for Estrella Mountain Park. The park
should also seek out their assistance for minor park
improvements, educational events, and park advocacy when
appropriate.
B48 Rodeo The park will divest itself of the rodeo arena and repurpose the Medium n/a
Arena area with another recreational activity that provides self-
sustaining revenue. The overall redesign of this area shall take
into account:
• RV camping (approximately 12.5 acres) as the primary
use
• A group RV camping area of limited size and acreage
• Retain existing building with restroom or remodel to
the extent feasible
• Concessionaire needs and facilities at the western-
most portion of the area (approximately 2.5 acres)
• An equestrian staging area and trail access
• Enhanced trailhead access near eastern-most portion
of area near existing ramada (approximately 0.5 acres)
• A green space with landscaping and picnic tables as a
buffer between equestrian staging area and RV
camping area
7-9

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
• An entrance from the Indian Springs Road access
point(s) to service this area
Note 1: The rodeo arena was constructed with LWCF grant
funds and any redesign efforts require a consult and change of
use report with the LWCF grant coordinator at Arizona State
Parks prior to any changes.
Note 2: Development and implementation of this project will be
contingent upon consultation with BLM prior to construction.
B49 Coldwater Establish this clearing as a trailhead with restroom. To enter Medium n/a
discussions with MCDOT to improve road access; to also offer
roadside pullouts for picnicking and/or tent camping. To
include full utilities if feasible. Potential site for concessionaire.
Note: Development and implementation of this project will be
contingent upon consultation with BLM prior to construction.
B50 Park-wide The park shall continue to engage with the Cities of Avondale Low n/a
and Goodyear, Arizona Game and Fish Department (as well as
with other appropriate agencies) to develop potential
partnerships. As adjacent land use designations change, it’s
critical to form these partnerships early.
B51 Trails Install air pump stations for bikes at key trailhead locations Low n/a
7-10

___________________________________________________________ Park Improvement Projects
{This page intentionally left blank.}
7-11