WHITETANKMASTERPLANUPDATE2014_2034.PDF

White Tank Mountain
Regional Park
Master Plan Update
2014-2034

{This page intentionally left blank.}

White Tank Regional Park Master Plan Update (2014-2034)
Recommended by:
MARICOPA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
______________________________________
R.J. Cardin
Director, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
______________________________________
[Date]
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_______________________________________________________
Denny Barney, 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 monthly meetings and document review; likewise to the Stakeholder Advisory
Group who took time out of their personal lives to provide their invaluable input.
Planning Team Stakeholder Advisory Group
R.J. Cardin, Director Jamil Coury
Jennifer Waller, Operations Manager Linda Gilgosch
Jennifer Johnston, West Side Superintendent John Pesock
Raymond Schell, Park Supervisor Frank Salowitz
Michele Kogl, Planning and Development Manager
Allen Ockenfels, Trails Development Manager
Fareed Abou-Haidar, GIS Technician
Leigh Johnson, Park Planner
This Master Plan update was also made possible by the contributions and guidance of the following:
• Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
o Denny Barney, District 1
o Steve Chucri, District 2
o Andy Kunasek, District 3
o Clint L. Hickman, District 4
o Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5
• Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Commission
o Jack Stapley, District 2
o Anne Lynch, District 3
o Dr. Robert Branch, District 4
o Carlton Yoshioka , Member-at-Large
o Rod Jarvis, Member-at-Large
• Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department staff
• Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain Patrol Division
• Bill “Doc” Talboys, Interpretive Ranger, MCPRD (retired)
• Shelly Rasmussen, Interpretive Ranger, MCPRD (retired)
• Public meeting participants
The Department would also like to thank its agency partners at the City of Surprise, City of Buckeye,
Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Bureau of Land Management - Phoenix District Office 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.

{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
AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department
AZGS Arizona Geological Survey
ASLD Arizona State Land Department
BH-RMP Bradshaw-Harquahala Record of Decision and Approved Resource
Management Plan
BOS Board of Supervisors
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CIP Capital improvement plan
County Maricopa County
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ET Evapotranspiration
FTE Fulltime Equivalent (employee)
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Geographic Positioning System
HDMS Heritage Data Management System
HUC Hydraulic Unit Code
I- Interstate (number)
IGA Intergovernmental Agreement
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LMP Lightscape Management Plan
MAG Maricopa Association of Governments
MCDOT Maricopa County Department of Transportation
MCLD Maricopa County Library District
MCPRD (or Department) Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
MCSO Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPA Municipal Planning Area
n.d. No date
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
OHV Off-Highway Vehicle
PM Particulate Matter
RAE Recreation Activity Evaluation
R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act

Term Definition
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
SR- State Route (number)
SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VRM Visual Resource Management
WTIA White Tanks Improvement Association

Date of Master Plan amendments or updates:
Date Activity
1964 Master Development Plan (original)
2014 Master Plan update

{This page intentionally left blank.}

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………1-1
1.1 Project Background 1-1
1.2 Vision, Mission, and Theme 1-2
Chapter 2 Master Plan Process ……………………………………………………………………2-1
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 2-6
2.7 Recreation Activity Evaluation 2-7
Chapter 3 Resource Analysis ……………………………………………………………………3-1
3.1 General Project Setting 3-1
3.2 Special Designations 3-2
3.3 Physiography and Climate 3-5
3.4 Water Resources 3-6
3.5 Earth Resources 3-8
3.6 Biological Resources 3-9
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American 3-18
Consultation
3.8 Visual Resources 3-22
3.9 Recreation Resources 3-23
3.10 Land Use 3-27
3.11 Drive-time Analysis 3-38
3.12 Facilities and Infrastructure 3-39
3.13 Socioeconomics 3-45
3.14 Visitation and Tourism Trends 3-48
3.15 Park Use 3-51
3.16 Local Recreation, Needs, and Opportunities 3-53
3.17 Park Administration and Special Functions 3-54
3.18 Public Safety 3-56
3.19 Finances 3-57
Chapter 4 Trails ……………………………………………………………………4-1
4.1 Existing Trails 4-1
4.2 Trail Use 4-5
4.3 Trail Rating 4-5
Chapter 5 Management Zoning ……………………………………………………………………5-1
5.1 Methodology for Determining Management Zones 5-1
5.2 Description of Management Zones 5-1
5.3 Area Descriptions that Influence Park Zoning 5-3

Chapter 6 Recommended Park Improvement Projects ……………………………………………………………………6-1
6.1 Issues and Constraints Analysis 6-2
6.2 Recommended Park Improvements 6-2
List of Appendices (under separate cover)
Appendix A Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
Appendix B Public Input Process
Appendix C Photo Monitoring Program
Appendix D Geology
Appendix E Soils, shrink/swell potential
Appendix F Special Status Species, Maricopa County
Appendix G Noxious Weeds
Appendix H Asset Inventory
Appendix I Organization Chart
Appendix J Trail System Plan
Appendix K Implementation Plan
Appendix L Dark Sky Initiative

List of Maps, Figures, and Tables
Maps Page
Map 3-1: Park and Vicinity ..................3-2
Map 3-2: Biotic Communities, Arizona Game and Fish Department, HabiMap™ ................3-10
Map 3-3: Wildlife Linkages, Arizona Game and Fish Department ................3-14
Map 3-4: Hunting Map (subject to change) ................3-26
Map 3-5: Surrounding Land Ownership ................3-29
Map 3-6: Luke AFB Noise Contours ................3-32
Map 3-7: Village 3 Plan, City of Surprise, Arizona ................3-33
Map 3-8: Skyline Regional Park (Skyline Regional Park Master Plan, p28) ................3-35
Map 3-9: ASLD Westside Study Area Conceptual Plan (draft) ................3-36
Map 3-10: Existing and Future Roadways ................3-38
Map 3-11: Drive time analysis. 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PROs Consulting, page 58. ................3-40
Map 3-12: SPCC Plan Site Map (maintenance facility), Figure 2 ................3-42
Map 4-1: Existing Trails ..................4-2
Map 5-1: Development Zones (Source: MCPRD 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, p 116) ..................5-3
Figures Page
Figure 2-1: Public Open House Meeting (September 2013) ..................2-5
Figure 3-1: Nature Pond ..................3-3
Figure 3-2: Summer monsoon flash flood across a park roadway. ..................3-7
Figure 3-3: Javelina and Deer ................3-11
Figure 3-4: Desert pupfish. Photo credit, John Rinne, USFWS ................3-15
Figure 3-5: Vegetation: cholla, saguaro cacti ................3-17
Figure 3-6: Buffelgrass. Photo credit: Larry Allain, USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database. ................3-17
Figure 3-7: Petroglyph panel (August 2010) ................3-19
Figure 3-8: Brand ................3-20
Figure 3-9: Interpretive signage along Waterfall Trail ................3-24
Figure 3-10: Amphitheater ................3-41
Figure 3-11: Picnic Area 4-D (Desert Varnish Ramada) ................3-43
Figure 3-12: Youth Campground ................3-44
Figure 3-13: Horse staging area ................3-45
Figure 3-14: Building Inventory by Year Built ................3-46
Figure 3-15: Visitor Race/Ethnicity ................3-48
Figure 3-16: Visitor residency (*new cities denoted with asterisk) ................3-50
Figure 3-17: Visitation by fiscal year ................3-51
Figure 3-18: Actual (blue) and forecasted (dark blue) visitation per fiscal year ................3-52
Figure 3-19: MCSO and Rural Metro on call ................3-58
Figure 3-20: Revenue per Fiscal Year ................3-59
Figure 3-21: Revenue by Month ................3-59
Figure 3-22: Souvenir Fund ................3-60
Figure 3-23: Camping per Fiscal Year ................3-60
Figure 3-24: Facility Rental ................3-61

Figure 3-25: Annual Passes ................3-61
Figure 3-26: Vehicle Entries ................3-62
Figure 3-27: Donations per Fiscal Year ................3-63
Figure 4-1: Waterfall Trail ..................4-1
Figure 4-2: Mule Deer Trail (Maricopa Trail), looking southwest. ..................4-4
Tables Page
Table 1-1: Themes and Mandates ..................1-2
Table 2-1: Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE) ..................2-7
Table 3-1: Average Temperature and Precipitation ..................3-5
Table 3-2: Drainage Areas of Major Washes ..................3-6
Table 3-3: Flood Alert System ..................3-7
Table 3-4: Springs ..................3-8
Table 3-5: Hunters Present in Park ................3-28
Table 3-6: R&PP Land Patents ................3-28
Table 3-7: Jurisdictions ................3-30
Table 3-8: Drive Time/Acres Analysis for White Tank Mountain Regional Park ................3-39
Table 3-9: Library Visitation & Programs ................3-41
Table 3-10: Picnic Areas ................3-43
Table 3-11: Roads and Parking ................3-45
Table 3-12: Population Characteristics ................3-47
Table 3-13: Total Resident Population ................3-48
Table 3-14: Employment and Education ................3-49
Table 3-15: Median Housing Value ................3-49
Table 3-16: Local Recreational Opportunities ................3-55
Table 3-17: Volunteer Hours by Fiscal Year ................3-56
Table 3-18: Partners ................3-55
Table 3-19: MCSO Statistics ................3-57
Table 3-20: Summary of Annual Expenditures ................3-62
Table 4-1: Competitive Track Events and Participants ..................4-3
Table 4-2: Designated Trails ..................4-3
Table 4-3: Trail Rating Guide ..................4-5
Table 5-1: Management Zone and Acreage ..................5-1
Table 5-2: Park Management Zones ..................5-1
Table 6-1: Issues Constraints and Analysis ..................6-2
Table 6-2: Recommended Park Improvements ..................6-3

{This page intentionally left blank.}

{This page intentionally left blank.}

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the concept of a regional park and the planning activities that accompany it. It
also provides a general overview of the project, the vision, mission, and theme(s) of the park.
The regional park fills a void between city and 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 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 passive
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 provides 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. White Tank Mountain Regional Park, one of ten
regional parks or conservation areas, offers the opportunity to camp or picnic, to hike or explore, and
satisfies our primitive instincts and restores our sense of well-being.
1.1 Project Background
The White Tank Mountain Regional Park entered the Maricopa County park system in 1961 and its
master plan was written in 1964. Many components of the master plan have never come into fruition
while at the same time public use has often dictated when and where development has occurred. 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.
White Tank Mountain Regional Park is a component of the Maricopa County regional park system and is
to date the largest at 29,572 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.
1-1

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
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 parks 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 parks 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 1964 White Tank Mountain Regional Park Master Development Plan acknowledges that while all
parks try to provide many of the same basic features, no park can be all things to all people and that
each park has its own unique qualities. In addition, it noted that the park possesses a unique
combination of wilderness characteristics and archeological interests that should guide development
and management of the park. That principle remains unchanged today. Recreation is an obvious
component to the park and with its unique natural and cultural resources it is ripe for educational
opportunities as well. MCPRD has established an operational theme and a marketing theme to reflect
this character of the park.
Operational Theme
The White Tank Mountain Regional Park Master Plan update is aligned with the Maricopa County Parks
and Recreation 2009 Strategic System Master Plan that recommends keeping the park as a
“preservation, conservation, and education” based park. As such, its priority mandates have been
identified in Table 1-1:
Table 1-1: Themes and Mandates
Maricopa County Park White Tank Regional Park
Operational Theme Preservation, Conservation and Education Park
Priority Mandates
1 – Preserve the natural setting and environmental aspects of the park by heavily restricted use and
limited public access.
2 – Devote resources to the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure.
3 – Pursue limited development to enhance the quality and diversity of recreational opportunities.
4 – Acquire additional property to create a buffer from encroaching external development.
Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Strategic System Master Plan, June 2009, page 203.
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.
1-2

______________________________________________________________________ Introduction
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 selected a “theme” that best represents the
park’s spirit or essence. The themes were vetted through feedback via community focus groups and park
staff meetings. As a result, the primary themes identified for White Tank Mountain Regional Park were
“petroglyphs and Native American history” with the tag line of “where education and nature meet”. This
placed an emphasis on the wilderness experience and was carried forward in the MCPRD Marketing
Plan.1
Although the park has many amenities to offer from mountain biking to camping, with the impressive
natural and cultural assets of the park, there are ample opportunities to promote this theme by
providing additional educational programs as well interpretive opportunities. 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
44.
1-3

________________________________________________________________ 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 first master plan update the Department has undertaken and it
shall be used as a template for future park master plan updates.
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 18 months. 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.
2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan
The purpose of this plan is to update the 1964 Master Development 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
This is the first major update to the original master plan for the park. 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 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 plans and documents:
• Master Development Plan, White Tank Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County Parks and
Recreation Commission (August 1964),
• Maricopa County Regional Park System Plan, Volumes 1 and 2 (1965),
• Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the Future, White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan (December 6,
2000),
• Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the Future, October 1997 (Revised August 2002),
• Trail System Plan, White Tank Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Department (2002),
• Integrated Contingency Plan, Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan; Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (n.d.),
2-1

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
• Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the Future, Olive Avenue Scenic Corridor Design Guidelines
(March 2006),
• MCPRD Strategic System Master Plan (June 2009),
• MCPRD Connecting People with Nature Marketing Plan (December 6, 2011 revision), and
• White Tank Business Plan, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department (May 2012).
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, it may also be time to update
this plan. 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; acts of nature that dramatically alter the park; any other action that would permanently
affect the land; and/or an occurrence 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 also 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 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
and make comments; however, no members of the public provided feedback during these meetings.
Presentations or updates were given on the following dates:
• November 13, 2012,
• April 9, 2013,
• November 12, 2013, and
• January 21, 2014.
The Commission provided its approval recommendation on January 21, 2014. Their support is
acknowledged on the signature page in the front of this document.
2-2

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
2.4.3 Board of Supervisors
This plan was presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on February 26, 2014 for their approval. The
public is invited to attend BOS meetings. 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 Surprise, Town of Buckeye,
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office (MCSO), and Maricopa
County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) in one-on-one meetings as well as by follow-up phone
calls or emails. The Department also invited each agency (and others throughout the metro area1) to
attend public open house meetings and to provide comments. One-on-one meetings were held:
• City of Surprise:
o November 19, 2012, at Surprise City Hall,
o July 16, 2013, at Surprise City Hall,
o November 5, 2013 at Surprise City Hall (presentation to City Council),
• Town of Buckeye:
o November 29, 2012, at Buckeye Town Hall,
o July 10, 2013, at Buckeye Town Hall,
• AZGFD:
o December 20, 2012, at Department office,
o August 14, 2013, at Department office,
• MCSO:
o June 26, 2013, at Department office, and
• MCDOT:
o June 27, 2013, and
o November 8, 2013, at MCDOT office.
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 and had several telephone discussions
and email exchanges with their representative, after which their comments were incorporated into the
final plan update. Planning staff also sought input from potentially interested Native American
communities regarding this master plan update. Consultation letters were mailed to the following
communities: Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community, and Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community. No responses were received. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.7.4.
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 included:
1 DMB Associates (the Verrado community HOA representative); City of Phoenix; Pueblo Grande Museum; Heard
Museum; City of Litchfield Park; Sun City West; City of Goodyear; Arizona State Land Department; City of Peoria;
White Tank Riding Stables; Bureau of Land Management; Maricopa County Library District; APS.
2-3

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
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. Survey responses for the year 2012-2013
were taken into consideration when developing park improvement projects.
2.5.2 Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
A major component of the public participation program was the formation of a Stakeholders Advisory
Group (SAG). The purpose of the SAG was to establish a small group representing a range of opinions in
a forum small enough to allow for education of the participants, detailed discussion of issues, and
informal dialogue. Members were selected based on their knowledge of the park, capability to commit
time required throughout the project, and willingness to be impartial. The group was comprised of four
avid park users with varying recreational interests, with planning staff and the Park Supervisor serving as
facilitators. The group’s comments and concerns were integrated into the planning process and assisted
in the development of the recommended park improvement projects.
The SAG met four times between March and August 2013 at White Tank Mountain Regional Park Nature
Center; a list of participants is included in Appendix A.
• March 8, 2013 (9:00-11:00am),
• April 19, 2013 (9:00-11:00am),
• June 28, 2013 (9:00-11:00am), and
• August 16, 2013 (9:00-11:00am).
Comments received during these meetings reflected a general sense of happiness with the park and its
performance although the group did provide its insight on potential upgrades to the park. Briefly, those
comments included:
• Develop modest facilities on the west side of park (small visitor center, trailhead, trails),
• Expand the horse staging area to better accommodate large trailers; include a restroom and a
covered picnic area,
• For visitors who camp with horses, provide a corral (or space to set up one’s own corral) in a
camping area,
• Install a restroom at the competitive track,
• Need additional access points (from Greenway, Bell, or to the north and west),
• Need additional trail connections (Willow to Mesquite to Goat Camp trail),
• Offer additional trail options (ADA or family trails, GPS trail markers),
• No shooting range, water park, OHV use, mini-golf, major roads or invasive development,
• No need for thousands of picnic or camping sites as stated in 1964 master plan, and
• Earlier summer hours; later evening hours.
2.5.3 Public Open House Meetings
The public was notified of the planning process and their feedback was sought through two public
meetings and surveys or comment cards. Additional comments were captured through the park website,
email, and by park staff members’ discussions with citizens. More information on the public
participation process can be found in Appendix B.
2-4

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
Surveys and/or feedback forms were provided at each public meeting to gather the public’s opinion.
Each meeting was followed by a 30-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.
The first public meeting was held March 27, 2013 (6:00-8:00pm) at the White Tank Nature Center where
10 people signed in and three comment cards received. Thirty-five additional responses were received
during the open comment period. Comments received during this time expressed their general
happiness with the park and its performance (however, many comments were deemed outside of the
scope of this master plan). Hikers represented the largest share of respondents. Briefly, some comments
included:
• A general desire for additional trail options,
• Partner with other agencies for additional trailheads/trails,
• Maintain wildlife connections,
• Acquire buffer parcels,
• Protect natural and cultural resources,
• Develop north and/or west side of park,
• Prefer the natural feel of the park,
• Additional campsites,
• No tram or lake, and
• Pursue partnerships.
The second public meeting was held September 7, 2013 (10:30am-12:30pm) at the White Tank Nature
Center where 25 people signed in and eight comment cards received. Twenty-eight additional responses
were received during the open comment period. Comments received during this time expressed their
general approval with the park improvement projects as presented (however, a few additional
comments were deemed outside of the scope of this master plan). Bicyclists represented the largest
share of respondents. Briefly, comments included:
• Acquire additional lands to buffer the park,
• Develop and promote a “dark sky” preserve,
• Need additional play areas for children,
• Good general plan and involvement procedure,
• Do not over-improve. Keep it as nature built it,
• Need a coffee shop/café,
• New trail connections,
• Expanded camping is great,
• No ATV’s or such in this park,
• Cabins are a good idea,
• Upgrades to competitive track are good,
• Expand trails for mountain bikers,
• Allow rock climbing/rappelling,
• Maintain a tent camping only area, and Figure 2-1: Public Open House Meeting (September
2013)
• Include a north entrance/trailhead.
2-5

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
2.5.4 Project Website
Information was posted on the park website to keep the public and other interested parties apprised of
the planning process. The public was also invited to provide comments through the park website at
http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/white_tank/wtproject.aspx, by sending an email or letter to planning
staff, or by completing an online survey or questionnaire during each 30-day comment period.
2.5.5 Media Coverage
A general press release was issued at least 30 calendar days prior to each public open house meeting
and made available on the County website and Department website. Facebook2 was also utilized to
inform the community of public open house meetings. Press releases are contained in Appendix B.
Additionally, these news outlets published (or posted online) the press release:
• Maricopa County Office of Communications,
http://www.maricopa.gov/Communications/CountyNews.aspx ,
• Arizona Boating and Watersports, Western Outdoor Times,
http://azbw.com/Maricopa_Arizona_County_Parks_Updates.php,
• Verrado Home Owners Community, http://www.verrado.net/, and
• West Valley View,
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2cr9v/WestValleyViewVol28I/resources/index.htm?referrer
Url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westvalleyview.com%2F .
2.6 Planning Issues
Tight budgets and staffing are 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.
Notwithstanding that, the remaining 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 6, will address these
concerns while supporting the parks priority mandates and themes.
2.7 Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE)
A Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE), Table 2-1, was prepared to identify various recreation
opportunities appropriate for consideration in the park. In the RAE, potential park uses were compared
against environmental resource, management, and operational criteria. Throughout the process, the
vision statement, operational theme (preservation, conservation, and education) and its four priority
mandates were used to guide development and evaluation of the alternatives.
2 White Tank Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/WhiteTankPark
2-6

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
Table 2-1: Recreation Activity Evaluation (RAE)
Supports
one or
Complies more Considered
with Supports Park Potential Operations for WT
MCPRD Park's Priority Public Public Regional Site Infrastructure & Potential Master
Type 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
Family:
Camping upgrade/expand Y Y Y YES
Camping Back country Y Y Y YES
Camping Youth: expand Y Y Y YES
Group: upgrade
Camping restroom Y Y Y YES
Camping Willow: renovations Y Y Y YES
Area 1: convert to RV
Camping camping Y Y Y YES
Camping With horses Y Y Y YES*
Trails Motorized: OHV N N N NO
New connections
Trails (multiple locations) Y Y Y YES
Trails To towers Y N N NO
Competitive track
Trails (beginner level) Y Y Y YES
Trails Bike park elements Y Y Y YES
Wildlife Trail to
Trails barrier-free Y Y Y YES
Competitive track
connection to
Trails Ironwood Y Y Y YES
Day Use: shaded
Picnic picnic Y Y Y YES
Waterfall:
Picnic renovations Y Y Y YES
Picnic Area 4: renovations Y Y Y YES
Picnic Area 7: renovations Y Y Y YES
Area 3: convert to
Interp/Education kids education area Y Y Y YES

________________________________________________________________ Master Plan Process
Interp/Education Kiosks/Panels Y Y Y YES
Interp/Education Butterfly garden Y Y Y YES
Interp/Education Tortoise enclosure Y Y Y YES
Shooting Hunting Y Y Y YES*
Shooting Archery Y Y Y YES*
Facilities Development (north) Y Y Y YES
Maintenance
Compound
Facilities improvements Y N Y YES
Area 4: (north)
relocate landscape
materials Y Y Y YES
Playground updates
Facilities at 3 sites Y Y Y YES
Facilities Cabins Y Y Y YES
Roads (bike lane,
Facilities improvments) Y N Y YES
Facilities Coffee cart/shop Y N Y YES
Expand parking (in
Facilities key areas) Y N Y YES
Horse staging area:
Facilities renovations Y Y Y YES
Facilities Mini-golf N N N NO
Facilities Water park N N N NO
Facilities Restroom(s) Y N Y YES
Other Zip lines Y Par Par NO
Rock
Other climbing/repelling Y Par Par NO
Other Lake N N N NO
Other Tram N N N NO
Other Extended hours Y Par Par NO
Comments * Limited to designated area 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 September 2012 through June 2013. Data collection included reviewing previous reports and
documents pertaining to the park and resources in the area, aerial photo interpretation, GIS analysis,
agency contacts, and field investigations.
The park consists of 29,571.59 acres, of which approximately 517 are developed. This amounts to less
than 2% 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 its visual, cultural or
natural resources. This is detailed further in Appendix C.
3.1 General Project Setting
At nearly 30,000 acres, White Tank Mountain Regional Park is the largest regional park in Maricopa
County to date. The park is located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area and serves as the
westernmost edge of the Salt River Valley. Most of the park is made up of the rugged and beautiful
White Tank Mountains, the range that separates the Phoenix Basin from the Hassayampa Plain, with
elevations ranging from 1,270 to 4,083 feet above sea level. Infrequent heavy rains cause flash
floodwaters to plunge through the canyons and pour onto the plain. These torrential flows, pouring
down chutes and dropping off ledges, have scoured out a series of depressions, or tanks, in the white
granite rock below. Many tanks still exist in the mountains; however the White Tank that is the source of
the name of the mountains was destroyed during a storm sometime between 1898 and 1902. This very
large tank was an important source of water in the early years of Arizona Territorial history. The White
Tank was said to have held water all year and appears in journals and maps as early at 1863.2
The park’s physical location is 20304 W. White Tank Mountain Road, Waddell, AZ 85355. The park may
be contacted by telephone 623-935-2505 or fax 623-535-4291 or via email at
whitetankpark@mail.maricopa.gov. Map 3-1 shows the location of White Tank Mountain Regional Park
in proximity to the greater metropolitan area and other Maricopa County Regional Parks. Current park
operating hours3 are:
Park Hours Nature Center Hours Administrative Office Hours
Sun-Thu: 6:00am – 8:00pm Mon-Sun: 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 Arizona Place Names, Byrd H. Granger, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1960 and History of Waddell, Arizona,
posted by Karen Krause , http://waddellhistory.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/how-the-white-tank-mountains-got-
their-name/, as accessed October 30, 2013.
3 Source: park website as of February 22, 2013.
3-1

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-1: Park and Metro-area
3.2 Special Designations
3.2.1 Recreation Resources
Maricopa Trail makes its connection to the park with Mule Deer Trail. 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 regional non-motorized multi-modal corridors.
Maricopa Trail will also protect open space corridors and natural and cultural resources from
development along its route.
3-2

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.2.2 Cultural Resources
There are several important petroglyph areas within the park and are worth safeguarding and are
monitored by the Arizona Site Steward program. Along the Waterfall Canyon Trail at "Petroglyph Plaza"
is a large collection of petroglyphs on display. Black Rock Loop Trail circles through a Hohokam village
site, though the pit houses and trash mounds are hidden to all but the trained eye of an archaeologist.
Known sites are monitored by Arizona Site Stewards, an Arizona State Parks program. The park is
routinely surveyed for pre-historic and historically significant cultural resources prior to the construction
of new trails or other projects. To date, over 2,900 acres have been surveyed.
3.2.3 Natural Resources
The park is abundant with natural resources and steps have been put into place to protect some of the
more vulnerable, of which include:
Pond
The park entered into a Safe Harbor Agreement (March 2008)
between the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD)
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Gila
topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), Yaqui topminnow
(Poeciliopsis sonoriensis), desert pupfish (Cyprinodon
macularius macularius), and Quitobaquito pupfish
(Cyprinodon eremus)4 – although they may not all be stocked
at the same time.
Figure 3-1: Nature Pond
In 2011, after two years of planning and construction, the park opened a nature pond and a 40-foot
working replica of a historic windmill to showcase the Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) and
desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius macularius) - made possible by a Natural Heritage Grant from
AZGFD and with an agreement with the USFWS. The original windmill was used by early 1900’s
cattlemen to pump water from its deep well. This area is designated for wildlife viewing only; horses are
not permitted to walk through or drink from the pond. Bulrush, a noxious species, tends to overgrow
and is removed from the pond as needed.
Wildlife Linkages
AZGFD has extensively researched and recorded critical wildlife linkage areas along the north and west
park boundary. These linkages allow wildlife, such as mule deer, to migrate from the Belmont Mountains
and from the Vulture Mountains to the White Tank Mountains. Wildlife linkage is discussed in Section
3.6.2 Wildlife Linkages.
Hunting
The park allows hunting of mule deer and some small game 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, or golf
course or other recreational area developed for public use; or to shoot from, on, or across a roadway; or
4 Under the authority of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
15389(a)(1)(A). This agreement establishes a population and permits incidental taking of the specified species.
3-3

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
to trespass on private property. A trail is not considered a developed area. Hunting is discussed further
in 3.9.3 Hunting.
Non-Attainment Areas5
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. These designations remain in effect
until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines otherwise:
Particulate Matter
Inhalable coarse particulate matter6 is sized at either 2.5 (PM2.5) or 10 (PM10) micrometers in diameter
and is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Except its westernmost edge, the park is
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 also included within the 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area boundaries. At ground level,
ozone aids in creating smog and is formed by the reaction of VOCs7 (for example, photochemical smog)
and NOx8 (a reaction of nitrogen and oxygen gases in the air, particularly from motor vehicles) in the
presence of heat and sunlight.
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 1139,
may result in a citation and park eviction. Gas and propane use is usually acceptable in designated areas,
except during extreme fire bans. Lifting the fire ban is dependent on the amount of 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:10
5 Maricopa County Air Quality Department, Planning Area Maps,
http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/PlanningAreaMaps.aspx as accessed July 18, 2013.
6 EPA, Particulate Matter (PM 10) Information, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/pindex.html as accessed
August 27, 2012.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 Maricopa County Air Quality Department, REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS, RULE 314 OPEN
OUTDOOR FIRES AND INDOOR FIREPLACES AT COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS
3-4

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
• 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
White Tank 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 blocks titled, sediments from erosion filled the valleys between
them, creating the basins.
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 storms and summer monsoons 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.
As a free-standing mountain range, the White Tank Mountain range extends approximately 13 miles in a
north-south direction and is about 50% contained within park boundaries. The elevation ranges from
about 1,315 feet on the east side of the park to 4,083 feet at Barry Goldwater Peak, the highest point
within the park. White Tank serves as the western-most boundary of the Salt River Valley, the valley
which encompasses the Phoenix metropolitan area.
3.3.2 Climate
The warmest months are June through September when temperatures 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.
Table 3-1: Average Temperature and Precipitation
Month Avg. High Avg. Low Avg. Precip.
January 67.0 °F 37.0 °F 0.96 in
February 72.0 °F 41.0 °F 1.13 in
March 77.0 °F 45.0 °F 1.10 in
April 86.0 °F 51.0 °F 0.30 in
http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/rules/docs/314-1207.pdf as accessed December 26,
2012.
3-5

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
May 95.0 °F 59.0 °F 0.12 in
June 105.0 °F 68.0 °F 0.05 in
July 108.0 °F 75.0 °F 0.71 in
August 106.0 °F 74.0 °F 0.95 in
September 101.0 °F 67.0 °F 0.93 in
October 90.0 °F 55.0 °F 0.71 in
November 76.0 °F 43.0 °F 0.69 in
December 67.0 °F 37.0 °F 0.97 in
Source: The Weather Channel, http://weather.yahoo.com/united-
states/arizona/white-tank-mountain-regional-park-23504538/, as accessed
March 29, 2012.
However, as elevation increases, temperature decreases and humidity rises. The 2,720 foot elevation
differential with the park sometimes causes a lowering of heat index11 in summer months as one climbs
up from the valley floor. Similarly, heat related discomfort may be reduced by the prevailing westerly
winds and thermal air movement in the canyons and upper reaches of the mountain. Higher elevations
combined with nearly constant air movement may result in an increase in summer use of the park due
to a more comfortable temperature as compared to other parks lower in the Valley. Park visitors are
advised to use caution when hiking in extreme temperatures.
The National Weather Service provides information regarding heat index calculations and educational
information at:
• http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/heat/index.shtml
Monsoon thunderstorms are also experienced throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area (due to wind
shifts and daytime heating12) 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.
3.4 Water Resources
The water resources section describes surface and groundwater resources within the park.
3.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology
There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the area but there are a number of natural, ephemeral
washes throughout the park.
Table 3-2: Drainage Areas of Major Washes
Location of Wash at Park Boundary Drainage Area Within Park
in Square Miles
Section 6, T3N-R3W 2.2
Section 5, T3N-R3W 2.7
Section 7, T3N-R2W 5.6
Section 18, T3N-R2W 4.2
Section 19, T3N-R2W 2.6
11 NOAA, Heat Wave: A Major Summer Killer, http://www.noaawatch.gov/themes/heat.php and NOAA’s National
Weather Service, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services, Heat: A Major Killer,
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/heat/index.shtml as accessed April 3, 2012.
12 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.
3-6

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Section 30, T3N-R2W 5.1
Section 31, T3N-R2W 2.3
Section 31, T3N-R3W 1.5
Section 32, T3N-R3W 1.8
Source: Maricopa County Regional Park System Plan, Volume 2, page 18,
1965.
Annual rainfall is scant and largely limited to the winter and summer seasons. 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 and although run-
off accounts for only 10% of total precipitation, it is
exceedingly fast due to steepness of slope and
prevalence of surface rock.
Flash floodwaters, carrying large amounts of rock
debris, plunge through the canyons and pour out
upon the plain where they lose their momentum,
deposit their burden of sand and silt and soak into
the ground. These torrential flows, pouring down
chutes and dropping off ledges, have scoured out a
series of depressions, or “tanks”, in the white
granite rock below. The Flood Control District
monitors precipitation and provides
flood alerts through the following monitoring stations: Figure 3-2: Summer monsoon flash flood across a
park roadway.
Table 3-3: Flood Alert System
Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility
5300 Sun Valley Pkwy at Precip/Stage 8/2/2005 FCD Maricopa Co
Northern Ave.
5415 White Tank FRS 3 Precip/Stage 3/12/1986 FCD Maricopa Co
5425 Ford Canyon Wash Precip/Stage 2/5/2002 FCD Maricopa Co
5430 White Tank Peak Repeater/Precip 4/1/1981 FCD Maricopa Co
5440 McMicken Dam South Precip 2/13/2002 FCD Maricopa Co
Note: shaded stations are within park boundaries; other stations are nearby.
3.4.2 Groundwater Resources
As does most of Maricopa County, White Tank 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. The basin is drained by five major rivers; the Salt,
Gila, Verde, Agua Fria, and Hassayampa Rivers. White Tank Mountain Regional Park is within the Agua
Fria (HUC 15070102) and Hassayampa River (HUC 15070103)14 hydrologic units, subsections of the AMA.
13 Arizona Department of Water Resources, http://www.azwater.gov/ as accessed September 26, 2012.
14 EPA, MyWATERS Mapper.
http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/?layer=LEGACY_WBD&feature=15070102&extraLayers=null
3-7

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
According to a study of water development15 possibilities, the granite and granitic gneiss which prevails
throughout the White Tank Mountains is not generally a water-bearing material, although there are
several springs within the park. Springs fed by underflow beneath dry drainage courses break out at
fault lines in the bedrock and add to surface water collected in the tanks. Springs may also be found in
areas where the rock material is decomposed enough to store limited supplies of water.
Table 3-4: Springs
Location Source
Section 23, T3N-R3W Willow Spring
Section 23, T3N-R3W Mesquite Spring
Section 26, T3N-R3W Dripping Spring
Section 35, T3N-R3W Spring (no name)
Source: Maricopa County Regional Park System Plan,
Volume 2, page 16, 1965.
There is one active well in the park, marked by a working historic replica windmill, that supplies water to
a small constructed pond; however, water is supplemented when the water table is down to keep the
pond full.
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.16 Unlike the typical
northwest-southeast orientation of Basin and Range, the White Tank Mountains are oriented at a
northeast-southwest angle,17 indicative of a much older geological event (called metamorphic core
complex18) than other ranges found throughout the province.
3.5.1 Geology
The rock types found are mostly Precambrian granite, gneiss, schist, and other related rock types. For a
full list of types and detailed description of locations of occurrence, as compiled by Arizona Geological
Survey19 Map Services, see Appendix D.
White Tank Mountain Regional Park is well known for its petroglyphs, renderings left behind on rock by
ancient peoples. The rocks are covered by a paper-thin coating of dark “desert varnish” or patina20 on
15 Master Development Plan, White Tank Mountain Regional Park, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Commission, August 1964, quoting report by Heinrich J. Thiele, Preliminary Groundwater Development Study,
White Tank Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County, Arizona, 1692.
16 The Geologic Origin of the Sonoran Desert, Robert Scarborough
http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_geologic_origin.php as accessed April 18, 2012.
17 Chronic, Halka. Roadside Geology of Arizona. Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1983,
page 33.
18 Metamorphic Core Complexes, complied by V.L. Rystrom,
http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/Resources/WUSTectonics/CoreComplex/5700.html and
http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/Resources/WUSTectonics/CoreComplex/Arizona.html as accessed April 18,
2012.
19 The Arizona Geological Survey, AZGS Map Services Geologic Map of Arizona,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/services_azgeomap.shtml as accessed March 5, 2012.
3-8

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
exposed rocks and boulders. This varnish is what allowed native peoples to leave their petroglyph
messages behind.
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. The West Valley land subsidence feature is
located in the Western Phoenix Metropolitan Area in Maricopa County and lays closest to the park. This
land subsidence feature is just outside of the eastern park boundary and includes the cities of Sun City,
Sun City West, Surprise, Peoria, and Glendale. The feature shows zero to one centimeter and/or one to
two centimeters of change between the study period of May 8, 2010 and April 22, 2013.
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. Maricopa County was mapped21 and
no fissures are currently known within the park itself. However, the closest study area is the “Luke” area
(http://www.azgs.az.gov/Earth%20Fissures/Luke2-09.pdf) and some fissures were noted there.
3.5.3 Soils22 and Erosion Potential
Soils are made up of decomposed White Tank Mountains: granite, gneiss, schist, andesite, rhyolite,
basalt. The major soil types found in the park are coarse loam and gravelly loam. The soils immediately
surrounding the White Tank Mountains have a low to moderate shrink/swell potential23 - see Appendix
E for a soils map. 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.
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, it is more of a risk today. For example, in July and August of 1993 a fire sparked by a
metal blade hitting the rocks during road construction to the towers (known as the Bug Fire24) burned
3,000 acres with the White Tank Mountains, including acreage inside the park.
20 Desert Soils, Joseph R. McAuliffe, http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_desert_soils.php as accessed
April 18, 2012.
21 The Arizona Geological Survey, Arizona’s Earth Fissure Center,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/Earth%20Fissures/MaricopaCounty1-10%20(DM-EF-17)_sm.pdf as accessed March 5,
2012.
22 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soils website, http://soils.usda.gov/ as accessed April 18, 2012.
23 The Arizona Geological Survey, Arizona’s Geologic Hazard Center,
http://www.azgs.az.gov/hazards_problemsoils.shtml as accessed March 5, 2012.
24 History of Waddell, Arizona, posted by Karen Krause, http://waddellhistory.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/the-
bug-fire-the-story-of-a-fire-started-by-a-caterpillar/ as accessed September 20, 2013.
3-9

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
The Arizona Upland Subdivision vegetation occurs on slopes and broken ground (green areas on map 3-
2) while desert pavement is typical of the Lower Colorado River subdivision (red areas on map 3-2); high
temperatures and little precipitation are common elements to each.
Map 3-2: Biotic Communities, (Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department, HabiMap™)
3.6.1 Wildlife25
Most low desert mountain ranges in central Arizona share a predictable fauna, a rich assortment of
common and less abundant species of reptiles, amphibians, mammals and birds. Many of these species
have broad distributions across much of the state. However, some these central Arizona mountain
ranges with higher elevations, have species that are not found in the more abundant lower elevation
ranges. Additionally, from a biogeographical standpoint, many of these ranges are literally where east
meets west and species from the low arid western deserts overlap with species from the wetter uplands
in a narrow band running north to south more or less through the center of the state. In a like manner,
the desert valley bottom habitats surrounding these ranges support an abundance of species not found
in the mountain ranges, but equally unique and important to the biological integrity and ecology of the
region.
Common Reptiles and Amphibians
Several central Arizona mountain ranges, including the White Tanks, act as a reptilian fault line where
western species such as desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, Sonoran population), speckled rattlesnake
25 This section was developed with significant input and assistance from D. Warnecke, Habitat Specialist III, Arizona
Game and Fish Department.
3-10

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
(Crotalus mitchellii), Great Basin collared lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores), and desert rosy boa (Charina
trivirgata), reach their eastern distributional limits; species such as tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris) and
eastern collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) reach their western distributional limits; and Sonoran
desert toad (Bufo alvarius) and desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) reach their northern limits.
Examples of species adapted to sandy washes and relatively open gravelly areas include the zebra-tailed
lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), greater earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus), desert iguana (Dipsosaurus
dorsalis), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), variable
sandsnake (Chilomeniscus stramineus), and sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes).
Examples of species adapted to the bajadas, or rocky and steep terrain, and/or brushier vegetation
include the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, Sonoran Population), Gila monster (Heloderma
suspectum), desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma solare), common
chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater), Western patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis), and tiger rattlesnake
(Crotalis tigris).
Some species spend a majority of their time underground emerging either to feed or breed such as the
Gila monster; or the case of the Western threadsnake (Leptotyphlops humilis) remains underground to
feed on larval insects such as ants or termites.
Some of the most wide spread species throughout the park area include the common kingsnake
(Lampropeltis getula), long-nosed snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei), diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
atrox), and several toads including the red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo
woodhousii), and Great Plains toad (Bufo cognatus). Several toads reach their northern most
distributions in the planning area including the Sonoran Desert toad (Bufo alvarius) and Couch’s
spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus couchii).
Common Birds
Within the HabiMap™, an online planning tool, the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas query function identifies
reproductively active birds within the park’s planning area. The more common Sonoran Desertscrub
species with confirmed breeding activity are: Anna's hummingbird, ash-throated flycatcher, Bendire's
thrasher, black-tailed gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, and others.
For example, there are many resident and migratory bird species that inhabit the park. A few of the
most common and visible diurnal (active during the
day) species include the Gila woodpecker, cactus wren,
roadrunner, verdin, Gambel's quail, mourning dove, and
turkey vulture. The great horned owl (Bubo virginianus)
and Western screech owl (Otus kennicottii) are
nocturnal raptors (active at dusk/dawn and during the
night); and the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and
American kestrel (Falco sparverius) are common diurnal
raptors.
Common Mammals
With the exception of the desert bighorn sheep, the
diversity of large and medium sized mammalian fauna Figure 3-3: Javelina and deer
3-11

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
of the White Tanks remains diverse, despite increasing urban development and habitat loss around the
mountains. Mule deer, an important prey species for mountain lion, inhabit the steep slopes of the
mountains as well as the surrounding bajadas. Coyote, javelina, raccoons, and skunks are common and
abundant. The nocturnal and more secretive kit fox lives in the creosote valley bottoms west of the
mountains and the ringtail inhabits the canyons and
rocky cliffs of the mountains. Numerous small mammals occur in this region, many of which are active
nocturnally, including several species of pocket mice, Merriam's and desert kangaroo rats, and white-
throated woodrats. A few of the more visible during the day include the desert cottontail, rock squirrel,
round-tailed ground squirrel, and Harris' antelope squirrel.
Bat surveys in the area are limited, but several species have been documented in the western portions
of Maricopa County including: western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus Hesperus), big brown bat (Eptesicus
fuscus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), cave myotis bat (Myotis velifer), California leaf-
nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), Greater Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), Hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus) and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). A few additional Species of Greatest Conservation
Need (SGCN) bat species that have historic, present and potential distributions within the planning area
include Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, Western red bat, Western yellow bat, Arizona myotis and Yuma
myotis, pocketed free-tailed bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat. The California leaf-nosed bat roosts in
mines within the foothills of the White Tank Mountains. AGFD research indicates that this species
forages within close proximity to the roost sites by gleaning insects from natural desert and wash
vegetation and uses the area for "lekking" (aggregations of males competing for female attention), a
reproductive activity.
3.6.2 Wildlife Linkages26
The White Tank Mountain range is considered to be a wildland block; meaning it is a relatively large
contiguous natural area capable of supporting a diverse array of wildlife into the foreseeable future.
Currently, these mountains are connected to undeveloped river valleys and mountain ranges to the west
and north; with very few roads, urbanization or other barriers. Wildlife linkages (often called corridors)
are areas of land used by wildlife to move between or within habitat blocks in order to acquire resources
necessary for survival: food, water, protective cover, and mates. AZGFD has researched wildlife
movement and modeled critical wildlife linkage areas that extend from the north and west park
boundaries to adjacent wildlands, in anticipation of future urban development (Map 3-3). AZGFD
recommends preservation of upland habitats across various elevations, from valley bottom to mountain
tops, and wash corridors in order to best ensure goals associated with wildlife linkages (corridors) may
be achieved in the future. It is believed that these linkages would allow wildlife such as mule deer to
migrate between the park, Hassayampa River corridor, Belmont Mountains (to the west) and from the
Vulture Mountains (to the north). Based on AZGFD recommendations, the City of Surprise is
incorporating these linkage corridors into their 2035 General Plan and into their Village 3 planning
efforts, areas that abut the northern park boundary; the Department strives to do the same.
Among AZGFD’s recommendations is to avoid siting development along the narrowest section of a
linkage and to provide wildlife with a one kilometer wide minimum berth to accommodate their
migration or movement patterns. In developed areas, it should be noted that for approximately 300 feet
26 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.
3-12

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
surrounding a developed feature, wildlife will show sensitivities to noise, light, and other disturbances
and may change their behavior patterns.
What is projected to happen in 20 years and beyond?
If development occurs around the park as is currently projected, the park may become an “island” and
the various species now found within it may be cut off from migration routes and habitats and resources
they have relied on in the past for survival and reproduction. AZGFD reports in its Wildlife Friendly
Guidelines, “[a]s connectivity between wildland blocks is lost, isolation deprives species of their daily,
seasonal, and lifetime needs. Loss of connectivity deprives animals of resources, reduces gene flow, and
prevents animals from re-colonizing areas where extirpations have occurred, and ultimately prevents
animals from contributing to ecosystem functions such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey
numbers, and resistance to invasive species. Maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions requires
habitat connectivity. Connectivity can be established through dedicated corridors of undisturbed lands
or other forms of open spaces (parks/preserves/monuments) that support wildlife and allow wildlife to
move between (permeable) wildland blocks. Disturbed areas (agriculture, flood control areas, low
density residential areas) can also support wildlife and may act as corridors, especially if the disturbance
is managed so as to minimize impacts to wildlife.”27
27 Arizona Game and Fish Department. Wildlife Friendly Guidelines (Feb. 2009), Page 5,
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/WildlifeFriendlyDevelopment.pdf as accessed December 31, 2012.
3-13

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-3: Wildlife Linkages, Arizona Game and Fish Department
3.6.3 Special Status Wildlife
The Federal Register (Register) currently has forty-six federally Threatened or Endangered28 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 F for a listing of these animals that occur within Maricopa County. The park should review this
28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Report,
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingIndividual.jsp?state=AZ&status=listed as accessed April 12, 2012.
3-14

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
list periodically. Of those listed, the following may be found or the park may contain habitat that
supports the species:
• Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) - Endangered
• Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) – Endangered
• Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, Sonoran population) - Threatened and Similarity of
Appearance (Threatened)
The park entered into a Safe Harbor Agreement (March 2008) between AZGFD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis
sonoriensis), desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius), and Quitobaquito pupfish (Cyprinodon eremus).29
Although AZGFD may periodically stock these fish, not all are currently found within the park’s nature
pond.
Figure 3-4: Desert pupfish. Photo credit, John Rinne, USFWS30
3.6.4 Natural Heritage Program – Heritage Data Management System (HDMS)
Additionally, AZGFD tracks animals of state concern through its Natural Heritage Program.31 Of those
listed, the following may be found within the park or habitat may exist to support the species:
• California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus)
• Cave myotis (Myotis velifer)
• Great Basin collared lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores)
• Lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis)
3.6.5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
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
29 Per under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 15389(a)(1)(A). This agreement establishes a population and permits incidental taking
of the specified species.
30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Image Library, Fish, John Rinne,
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/desert_pupfish_Rinne.jpg as accessed
December 31, 2012.
31 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Heritage Program,
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml as accessed April 12, 2012.
3-15

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
as possible in light of development pressures and habitat loss. These species within the park planning
area include: Abert's Towhee (Melozone aberti), 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), and others.
3.6.6 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.
3.6.7 Vegetation
Vegetation is scarce on the upper slopes of the mountain and hillside plant growth is limited to grasses,
perennial shrubs, cacti, and stunted palo verde. Trees, including mesquite, willow, and ironwood are
generally confined to canyon bottoms where there is more moisture and soil. A flora inventory
completed in 197332 showed nearly 300 species and variations occurring within the park; the inventory
and a searchable database are available on the Southwest Environmental Information Network website.
The following plants are commonly found in the park:
• Palo verde (small leaf) • Fairy duster
• Ironwood trees • Brittlebush
• Hedgehog cactus • Creosote
• Prickly-pear cactus • Christmas cactus
• Saguaro cactus • Mesquite
• Pincushion cactus • Cat claw
• Barrel cactus • Elephant tree
• Lupine • Stag-horn cholla
• Poppy • Buckhorn cholla
32 Keil, D. J. 1973. Vegetation and Flora of the White Tank Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 8: 35-48.
http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/checklists/checklist.php?cl=5 as accessed September 4, 2013.
3-16

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-5: Vegetation: cholla, saguaro cacti, brittlebush
Noxious Weeds List
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 buffelgrass (Pennisetum
ciliare (L.)) and may be found along the Waterfall Trail, areas along
Willow Road, and the main park road. Red brome (Bromus rubens L.) is
also found within the park, but to a lesser degree. Bulrush is also found
in the pond and is removed as needed. See Appendix G for description
of these weeds.
3.6.8 Special Status Vegetation
The Federal Register currently has seventeen federally Threatened or
Endangered33 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. The park should review this list periodically. Figure 3-6: Buffelgrass. Photo
credit: Larry Allain, USDA-NRCS
33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Report,
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingIndividual.jsp?state=AZ&status=listed as accessed April 12, 2012.
3-17

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Additionally, AZGFD tracks plants of state concern through its Natural Heritage Program.34 See Appendix
F 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 habitat exists that may support the species:
• Saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea),
• Arid tansyaster (Machaeranthera arida),
• Lobed fleabane (Erigeron lobatus), and
• Melonleaf nightshade (Solanum heterodoxum).
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation
Most of the archaeological sites in the area are concentrated around the White Tanks themselves. Some
tanks probably held water year-round, drawing people to the region. Petroglyphs on rocks indicate that
Indians were more than transients. Pottery sherds along the Agua Fria and Hassayampa Rivers signify
the presence of villages and a good possibility that an Indian trail connected the streams with White
Tank long before Europeans came into the area. The discovery of possible agricultural terraces and
check dams indicates that farming may have been practiced in the various canyons of the White Tank
Mountains by utilizing seasonal runoff and rain water.
Ruggedness of terrain and scarcity of water restricted the prehistoric archaeological sites to large
canyons that lead out of the mountains on the east, north and probably west. In these canyons, of the
eleven confirmed sites in the park, there are seven villages, varying from one to seventy-five acres in
area, a rock shelter in the face of a steep cliff overlooking the white tanks, and several sherd areas.
Several of the villages appear to have been occupied for long periods by sizeable populations, while the
sherd areas may represent temporary camps of hunters and gatherers.
Pottery found in the park include Gila Butte Red-on-buff, Santa Cruz Red-on-buff, Sacaton Red-on-buff,
and Gila Plain. Stone mortars and metates used for grinding corn, seeds, and beans; green river rocks
used as hammerstones; and obsidian imported from other areas have also been found. Lithic material
(or chipped stone) found in some of the sites suggest that stone tools were manufactured here.
3.7.1 Pre-History of Area
It’s thought that Western Archaic People35 inhabited or seasonally hunted and gathered in the White
Tank Mountains from as early as 300 A.D. These people may have left their stories and ideas on the
rocks in a graphical form called petroglyphs.
Surveys conducted by the Arizona State Museum in January 1963 disclosed the presence of eleven
archaeological sites within the park. The archaeological sites inside the park indicate that Hohokam
Native Americans36 lived in the park from about 500 to 1100 A.D. The peak of Hohokam civilization was
around 1250 (with the center of their civilization around what is now the Phoenix Airport area). By 1450,
evidence of the Hohokam halts. The Hohokam left their stories and ideas on the rocks in the form of
petroglyphs. Within the park these petroglyphs can best be seen on the Waterfall Trail.
34 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Heritage Program,
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml as accessed April 12, 2012.
35 Circa 5500 B.C. to A.D. 400.
36 The word Hohokam means those who have vanished.
3-18

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
The White Tanks were apparently abandoned by the Hohokam about 1100 A.D. There is no further
indication of human occupation until the historic period of Western Yavapai control who lived, hunted
and gathered in the park about 200 years ago. They also left petroglyphs on the rocks, examples of
which can be seen on the Black Rock Loop Trail.
About the Petroglyphs
Ancient Arizonans pecked hundreds of figures and symbols on the rock faces of the White Tank
Mountains. Some may approach 5,000 years old having withstood sun, rain, and vandals for centuries;
while others have been lost to nature or vandals. The largest group of rock art panels is along the
Waterfall Canyon Trail at "Petroglyph Plaza." These sites are routinely monitored by the Arizona Site
Steward program.
Figure 3-7: Petroglyph panel (August 2010)
A rock drawing was serious business to its maker. While no one can say precisely what most petroglyphs
mean, we know they had important functions in the lives of their makers. They were not simply stone-
age graffiti. The symbols recorded events and marked locations. Some served as trail markers and maps;
others may have represented religious concepts.
Park rules require that visitors do not try to make "tombstone rubbings" of the petroglyphs; it does not
work and will erode the dark areas, making the petroglyph dimmer. Park staff recommends that visitors
view and photograph these figures and symbols of history without touching the petroglyphs as skin oils
will damage them.
3-19

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.7.2 History of Area
Legend and lore abound within the park. Among those tales include the origin of stone corrals on Goat
Camp Trail and Mesquite Trail that are thought to have been made by Basque (from the Basque region
of Spain) goat and sheep herders who lived in the White Tank mountain range from the late 1800s into
the early 1900s. Other tales include the use of an old mine to hide a bootlegger's still during prohibition
and the rugged mountains serving as a hideout for bank robbers and horse thieves.37
The White Tank Mountains were named for one particular tank located in the northeast end of the
mountain range - a large tank that held water year round. The "White Tank" of the "White Tank
Mountains" predates Phoenix and is referred to in journals as early at 1863 while the mountains or the
tank appear on maps as early as 1865. The original tank was destroyed sometime between 1898 and
1902 and its original location is not known. 38
Before the railroad from Phoenix to Prescott was completed in 1895, the White Tank Wagon Road
served as a freight route until 1863. The road followed a string of wells and waterholes across miles of
dry desert between Maricopa Wells (south of the Gila River), to Wickenburg, and north to the Prescott
area. This road passed along the eastern slope of the mountains and through the northeast corner of
the mountain range.39
Ranching/Herding
A small masonry dam made from river rocks and crude cement can be found on the back side of the
Ford Trail in the Ford Canyon Wash. The dam is filled in with sand on the up-stream side. It is about forty
feet wide and only about four feet tall on the down-stream side. It is believed that this dam was made
either by the Basque goat and sheep herders (late 1800s to early 1900s) or by cattlemen in the early
1900s. Atop the old dam, there is a concrete brick with what appears to be a brand “-PP”. Park staff
discovered that it was a brand used by G & EE Bacon of Globe
up until 1920 before disappearing from the brand registry
(Figure 3-8).
There is a line shack with a small stone corral up on the Willow
Trail by Willow Springs. It appears that at a later date someone
added a galvanized trough and barbwire corral. The stone corral
and line shack are believed to be from the early 1900s. The
added trough and barbwire may have been from cattlemen.40
Concrete tanks were also built at Dripping Springs but the
springs were later buried by a cave-in and are now dry. Figure 3-8: Brand
On Waterfall Trail there is a large galvanized water storage tank, perhaps placed there by the cattle
industry in the early 1900s, up to 1934. In the area where the waterfall flows, there is evidence of a
small dam and large metal buckles. These supported a pipe or trough that carried water over to the
galvanized tank. Periodically, large irons pipes, the remainder of the gravity water transport system are
uncovered in the Waterfall Canyon Wash area. In fact, a number of small earth tanks were set up in
37 Personal communication from Karen Krause, October 30, 2013.
38 Personal communication from Karen Krause, October 30, 2013.
39 Personal communication from Karen Krause, October 30, 2013.
40 Park lore says that the cattle industry used parts of White Tank Regional Park property up to the year 1934.
3-20

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
strategic locations in the upper range, but none proved capable of storing water for long due to their
small size and soil composition.
In the existing Horse Staging Area of the park, there are remains of a turn of the century (last century)
well. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, water was drawn up about 700 feet by a windmill pump system.
The windmill was destroyed in the 1930s but since the well was still good, the windmill was replaced and
now draws water into a nature pond in the Horse Staging area. (The windmill replacement was made
possible by a Heritage Fund Grant.)
Mining Claims and Mineral Rights
Although the rock types are not generally indicative of mining potential, there is evidence throughout
the park of an attempt at mining (1800s through about 1950). Although the documentation is scant,
there were over 100 mining claims41 filed (with most of the larger claims located south of the park’s
boundaries) and remnant prospect holes are still found throughout the park.
According to the records there was no evidence that minerals or metals of significant value were found
or mined in the White Tank mountain range. Despite a local newspaper touting the White Tank
Mountains as being on the verge of becoming the next great mining district, the mineral wealth was
never enough to warrant large scale mining operations.42 When small amounts of copper were taken
away for assay and identification (circa 1960s), it showed virtually no commercial potential. Likewise, no
records exist indicating that a mining corporation had any interest in the White Tank Mountains,
although one miner, Bert Ford, had some success and sold his mines to a company that sold mining
shares.43
There may have been various attempts to find silver or gold; however, a number of the prospect holes
found in Section 3 show small amounts of copper oxides (malachite and chrysocolla). On the extreme
northern end of the mountain, in the NW ¼ of Section 3, T3N, R3W, is a tunnel that is thought to have
been made by a miner determined to follow a vagrant vein. This claim was either never recorded or it
was not properly described as being in the White Tanks. Additionally, on the U.S. Geological Survey map
N1-12-7, there is a copper mine marked on “Point of Mountain” (the extreme northeast corner of the
White Tanks) yet records in the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources are void of any proof of a
mine or mineral production in the area.44 In the center of Section 6 in the northeast corner of the park,
white granite or granitic gneiss was quarried at one time, presumably for use in decorative masonry or
landscaping. 45
3.7.3 Findings
A cultural resources 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 fence line construction, hiking trail construction, and grazing/range improvements. The surveys
41 Personal communication from Karen Krause, October 30, 2013.
42 Personal communication from Karen Krause, October 30, 2013.
43 Personal communication from Karen Krause, October 30, 2013.
44 Maricopa County Regional Park System Plan, Volume 2, page 11, 1965.
45 Master Development Plan, White Tank Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Commission, page 12, August 1964 quoting report by R.C. Townsend, Consulting Geologist, Preliminary Geology of
the Maricopa County Regional Park System, 1964.
3-21

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
aggregate to a total of approximately 2,904 acres, or about 10% of the park’s total 29,571.59 acres. No
new field surveys were undertaken for this plan update.
However, a cultural resource management program should be established to track and monitor known
sites. A cultural resource survey and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultation is
recommended prior to any new construction or trail project. During future master plan updates,
consultation with representatives of Native American Communities claiming cultural affiliation to the
area should be coordinated through MCPRD headquarters 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 Native American Consultations
Planning staff sought input from potentially interested Native American communities regarding this
master plan update. Consultation letters, dated April 4, 2013, concerning the first phase of the project
were mailed to the following communities: Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community,
and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; no responses were received. Planning staff sent
follow-up letters (dated August 23, 2013) to the same communities for input concerning the final phase
of the master plan update; again, no responses were received.
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
should be taken into consideration with any new development within the park. The park follows general
guidance provided by the Department’s mission statement, management zoning definitions, and BLM
visual resource management classes to protect its scenic views.
3.8.3 Agency Visual Resource Management Classes
The Bradshaw-Harquahala Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (April 22,
2010) (BH-RMP), a BLM document, has designated areas within park boundaries as “Class II” and areas
just outside park boundaries as “Class IV”.
BH-RMP VRM Class Definitions
VRM Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the
landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low.
Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual
observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture
found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
VRM Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that
require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of
change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may
dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer’s attention. Every attempt should
be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal
disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.
3-22

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.8.4 Sensitive Views
Maricopa County has developed scenic overlays along several corridors. These overlays provide for
differentiated development guidelines as specified in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and are
intended to protect the scenic quality along these designated routes. The following plans are meant to
assist in protecting the viewshed of the White Tanks area:
• Olive Ave Scenic Corridor Plan, and
• McMicken Scenic Corridor Plan.
Residential Views
Currently, the closest resident is slightly over one mile away from the entrance of the park on Olive
Avenue. The predominant view within that one mile span is open desert with prominent displays of
saguaro cactus.
Recreation Views
Barry Goldwater Peak is among the highest peaks, and is highly visible from various parts of the
developed area of the park and from many stretches of trails. It has a concentration of communication
towers that can be seen from various places throughout the park. There are a several other towers
scattered on other peaks throughout the park.
The flatlands of the park, where most park development currently is located, are highly visible from
many of the trails, especially the lower portions of Goat Camp, Mesquite Canyon, and Ford Canyon
Trails, since those trails are elevated.
The saddle along the main park road north of Group Picnic Area 3 (Quartz Grove) and the Mule Deer
Trail where it crosses the small mountain east of Group Picnic Area 4 (Black Rock Rest) provides
panoramic views of the cactus-studded bajada to the south. The road saddle, which is currently an
undeveloped pullout, is the only place where visitors can see such a view if they are not hikers or riders.
Backcountry trails include several prominent spots where visitors are likely to stop and admire the
views. These include:
• The ridge above Goat Camp (just past milepost GC-3).
• The ridge around Goat Camp milepost GC-6, where the view opens up to both the east and
west.
• Ford Canyon – Mesquite Canyon – Goat Camp trail junction.
• The saddle at Ford Canyon milepost FD-6, which provides the first extensive views to the south
for those coming up from Ford Canyon.
• The old dam on Ford Canyon Trail.
• The boulder-strewn inner gorge of Ford Canyon.
• The narrow, rocky ledge just below Ford Canyon milepost FD-4.
• The saddle on Willow Canyon Trail, above Mesquite Canyon Trail where uphill climbers will get
their first view of rugged Willow Canyon.
• The switchbacks of Mesquite Canyon Trail up to the saddle at Mesquite Canyon milepost MQ-2.
Transportation Views
Views to the west from the top ridges extend to the flatlands outside the park, across state trust lands,
towards the Sun Valley Parkway. The first mile or so from the park boundary includes prominent, scenic
3-23

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
outcrops. From Sun Valley Parkway at approximately North 211th Avenue, the park is within view by a
quarter mile at its closest point. Other transportation planning documents serve to protect these views:
• White Tanks-Grand Avenue Area Plan (December 2000),
• Olive Ave Scenic Corridor Plan, and
• McMicken Scenic Corridor Plan.
3.9 Recreation Resources
As a result of the abundant natural and cultural resources, the park offers visitors a number of
recreational and educational opportunities:
• Camping (RV, tent, group),
• Picnic,
• Trails (hiking, equestrian, mountain bike),
• Playgrounds,
• Volleyball court,
• Wildlife viewing ,
• Nature photography, and
• 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. OHV use may be permitted by
Department staff for maintenance or emergencies or by authorized first responders for emergency or
rescue purposes only.
3.9.2 Interpretation and Environmental Education
Interpretive rangers at the park lead hundreds of visitors on a variety of educational hikes throughout
the year that incorporate the local geology and cultural artifacts to tell the story of the park. Interpretive
signage, such as along Waterfall Trail, is used to
educate park visitors and draw their attention
to natural or cultural features that might have
been missed otherwise. The park provides other
programs such as:
• Guided nature hikes,
• Guided fitness walks ,
• Youth-oriented events, and
• Star gazing.
Additionally, the park has a 100-seat
amphitheater just behind the library building
where interpretive rangers can present
educational lectures or special event hosts can
perform. Figure 3-9: Interpretive signage along Waterfall Trail
3-24

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.9.3 Hunting46
The park allows hunting of deer (mule, white-tailed), javelina, mountain lion, some small game, reptiles,
and amphibians during specified hunting seasons as regulated by AZGFD. The park currently falls within
Region 6, Game Unit 42 of 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 copy 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.
46 This section was developed through the assistance of D. Warnecke, Habitat Specialist III, Arizona Game and Fish
Department and other Arizona Game and Fish Department staff members.
3-25

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-4: Hunting Map (subject to change)
3-26

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI)
AZGFD considers the park of high value to a number of species. AZGFD has noted that mule deer
populations within the park have declined47 in recent years due to drought and other variable
disturbance factors. However, populations are currently rebounding and will continue to do so if the
area receives sufficient rainfalls. Historically, the White Tank Mountains are within the known
distribution of Desert Bighorn sheep statewide (R. E. Lee, 1993).48 Sheep were last documented in the
White Tank Mountains by an AZGFD Wildlife Manager in 1978 (AZGFD49). There are no imminent plans
by AZGFD to translocate sheep to this area to reestablish a huntable population; however the possibility
remains a viable population management strategy for the future. The primary species of economic and
recreational importance for the White Tank Mountains, as shown by HabiMap™50 SERI data, include:
• Mule deer • Javelina
• Desert bighorn sheep • Cottontail rabbit
• Gambel’s quail • Black-tailed jackrabbit
• White-winged dove • Mountain lion
• Mourning 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.51
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.52
Participation
Hunting is not a large recreational component of the park. The 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study
reported no visitors engaged in hunting during the survey period (down from 2.8% from the 2007-2008
Park Visitor Study).53 Although the Visitor Study did not record any hunters during this time, hunters are
required to check in with the park office and 192 did so during the January 2013 hunting season.
Differences between these statistics make annual comparisons difficult.
47 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Game Management Unit 42,
http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting_units_42.shtml
48 AZGFD staff member, D. Darveau reports that bighorns were referenced within an AZGFD publication, as being
located within the White Tanks, as part of a known distribution within the State The Desert Bighorn Sheep In
Arizona – AZGFD, 1993. Published by Research Branch, edited by Raymond E. Lee.
49 AZGFD staff member D. Warnecke and M. Stewart reports: Sheep did occur in the White Tanks and were last
documented there by AGFD Wildlife Manager Tom Rickel (spelling) in 1978.
50 Arizona Game and Fish Department, HabiMap™, http://www.habimap.org/
51 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Economic Impact, http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/survey_results.shtml as
accessed December 24, 2012.
52 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.
53 2007-2008 ASU Park Visitor Study, 17.4% of respondents believe hunting is an appropriate activity within the
park.
3-27

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-5: Hunters Present in Park
ASU Visitor Use Survey Park Records
Year Participation Year No.2
Rate1
2012-2013 0.0% 2013 192
2007-2008 2.8% 2012 146
2005-2006 1.7% 2011 235
2002-2003 0.4%
1999-2000 0.0%
Sources:
1. ASU Park Visitor Study for listed year.
2. Actual hunters checking in with park office during January of
listed year. Source: personal communication from R. Schell, Park
Supervisor, July 16, 2013.
When surveyed during the 2007-2008 Visitor Study, 17.4%, system-wide, agreed that hunting was an
appropriate activity for county parks. This question was not asked in the 2012-2013 visitor study.
3.10 Land Use
3.10.1 Ownership & Jurisdiction
Ownership
The bulk of the property now managed by Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department was
acquired through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act54 (R&PP) process in 1966, 1968, and 1972. 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 uses of the land must comply with the R&PP Act55
and the patents as issued. The park has not acquired any additional lands since 2002. The Department
holds these areas as patents:
Table 3-6: R&PP Land Patents
Patent Date Acres
USA Patent # 02-67-0030 Dec. 1966 487.55
USA Patent # 02-67-0031 Dec. 1966 165.13
USA Patent # 02-69-0047 Dec. 1968 640.83
USA Patent # 02-73-0030 Oct. 1972 25,038.09
USA Patent # 02-2002-003 2,880.00
Total patented acres: 29,211.60
Total park acres: 29,571.59
An easement was granted by the Caterpillar Tractor Company to MCPRD in June 1979. This area was a
former proving ground for Caterpillar heavy equipment. The remaining acres are owned by the County
54 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).
55 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.
3-28

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
and when combined, account for the total 29,571.59 park acres. Appendix H details land parcels and
other park assets.
Map 3-5: Surrounding Land Ownership
Jurisdiction
White Tank Mountain Regional Park is located within the following jurisdictions:
3-29

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-7: Jurisdictions
Political Unit District
Legislative 4
Congressional 2
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 4
Maricopa County Parks Commission 4
School Districts
Wickenburg Unified School District
Saddle Mountain Unified School District
Dysart Unified School District
Law Enforcement
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
An intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Maricopa County Library District sets the terms of use for
the newly constructed Nature Center and Library and is kept on file in Department records. As a LEED
Certified building, it also helps fulfill the County’s Green Government Plan goal labeled PR4 for land
use.56
Towers
Atop seven high points in the mountain range are microwave stations and air navigational beacons
installed during World War II. The first beacons were battery-operated and all construction materials
and equipment were transported up the mountain by pack train. Power lines were later installed, one of
which traverses the east end of the park to a beacon on the ridge behind Point-of-Mountain.
This area and access road are governed by the White Tanks Improvement Association (WTIA) and is a
membership of the primary users of the tower area, including Maricopa County,57 to provide a
cooperative forum for disputes and use, fund maintenance land labor, and to provide recommendations
to the BLM, the State of Arizona, and Maricopa County regarding use and occupancy of the tower area.
There is no public access allowed on the road that leads to the towers.
The BLM receives and reviews applications for new communications towers on the peaks of White Tank
Mountains. Applications must comply with the Bradshaw-Harquahala Record of Decision and Approved
Resource Management Plan (April 2010), White Tank Mountains Programmatic Environmental
Assessment EAR AZ-020-8-83 (dated August 27, 1976), and White Tanks Communication Site Plan (dated
August 12, 2005).
3.10.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning
Existing Use
Land use surrounding the park to the north, south, and west is largely agricultural or vacant in nature
and is held in trust and managed by Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) whose mission is to
maximize revenue for Trust beneficiaries through sales and leasing of state land. There is one section
owned by BLM to the south that has been awarded to the Town of Buckeye via the R&PP process in
2010. The Town intends to develop the 8,675 acres into a regional park featuring trails, picnic areas,
56 Green Government, http://www.maricopa.gov/GreenGovernment/pdf/GGP%20Landuse%20Measures.pdf as
accessed September 10, 2012.
57 Maricopa County is represented by the Office of Enterprise Technology for WTIA membership.
3-30

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
camping sites, etc. The Town intends to open the park in 2015 with access off of Watson Road, 2 miles
north of I-10. Another one-half section is also owned by BLM at the southwest corner of the park.
On the east side of the park there are residential areas. A horse riding stable, White Tanks Riding
Stables58 is also located just outside of the park’s east entrance and provides guided horseback rides
through the park. The stable is an independent concessionaire and is allowed access to the park via a
Commercial Management Concession Agreement (CMCA).
Zoning
The area within park boundaries is zoned RU-43 or RU-190 by Maricopa County. The unincorporated
areas parcels immediately outside of park boundaries are also zoned RU-43 or RU-190.
• RU-43 defined as: one acre per dwelling unit59 - protects farm and agricultural uses and permits
recreational and institutional uses.
• RU-190 defined as: 190,000 square feet per dwelling unit60 - protects farm and agricultural uses
and permits recreational and institutional uses.
Other areas outside of park boundaries are currently under ASLD’s jurisdiction and are vacant. However,
areas west of the park fall within the Town of Buckeye’s61 planning area and are largely zoned for
planned communities. The City of Surprise62 has approved the Village 3 plans for its areas adjacent to
the park’s northern boundary (zoned rural residential and open space). These areas are discussed
further in the “Future Land Use” section below.
Luke Air Force Base
The park is also within the Luke Air Force Base63 vicinity and sometimes experiences aircraft fly-over’s.
The Luke website describes itself as being the largest and only active-duty F-16 training base in the
world with over 135 F-16s assigned, conducting over 24,500 operations or over flights in its local
airspace annually. Luke Air Force Base flight operations are typically from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, but may also fly outside of this window, to include weekends, depending on
mission requirements.
58 White Tanks Riding Stables, http://www.whitetanksriding.com/ as accessed September 26, 2012.
59 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 Rural Zoning Districts, Chapter 5, Pages 13-15 of 15.
http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Ordinances/pdf/reform_ordinance/mczo1.pdf as accessed April
12, 2012.
60 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 Rural Zoning Districts, Chapter 5, Pages 1-11 of 15.
http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Ordinances/pdf/reform_ordinance/mczo1.pdf as accessed April
12, 2012.
61 Refer to Town of Buckeye for updated information, http://www.buckeyeaz.gov/index.aspx?NID=1127
62 Refer to City of Surprise for updated information, http://www.surpriseaz.gov/index.aspx?NID=317
63 Luke Air Force Base website, http://www.luke.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=6401 as
accessed July 23, 2013.
3-31

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-6: Luke AFB Noise Contours64
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 in the White Tank area.
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 applications.
City of Surprise
The City of Surprise began updating its General Plan in 2012. When surveyed, Surprise citizens
responded that safety, cleanliness, and recreation were the most important community
characteristics.65 A component of the General Plan, is “village” planning and subsequently Village 366
planning is complete and has been approved. The park shares its north and northeast boundaries with
Village 3 and this should be taken into consideration when planning future facilities within the park. The
City has worked with AZGFD to include wildlife linkages into the Village 3 plans. The Village 3 plans
64 Map source: Luke Air Force Base website,
http://www.luke.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=6401 as accessed July 23, 2013.
65 City of Surprise, Surprise General Plan Update, www.surpriseaz.gov/generalplan as accessed December 26, 2012.
66 City of Surprise, Village 3, http://www.surpriseaz.gov/index.aspx?nid=2242 as accessed December 26, 2012.
3-32

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
advocate providing open space, preserving desert ecosystems, habitat linkages, and it also includes a
potential a resort or resort-like development near the park’s northern border.
Map 3-7: Village 3 Plan, City of Surprise, Arizona
Likewise, there are three major planned developments on the east side of the park: Zanjero Trails,
Cortessa, and White Tank Foothills; these projects may add up to 13,000 residential units and
approximately 35,000 people to the area.67
Town of Buckeye
There are opportunities for the Town of Buckeye to develop residential and commercial areas, roads,
and other infrastructure to the west of the park. Another development, Verrado, may include up to
9,000 dwelling units. Also, within the Town of Buckeye’s planning area, Festival Ranch will include up to
24,000 dwelling units. Further west of the park, the proposed or planned developments Belmont,
Douglas Ranch, Trillium, Sun Valley, Tartesso, and Sun Valley Villages I and II may add up to 171,000
dwelling units in addition to commercial development. The Town’s 2007 General Plan lists several
policies that will require coordination with MCPRD and the park itself:
Goal 9.0. Manage Open Space and Recreation 68
67 Olive Ave Scenic Corridor Plan, Page 15-16; and map page 17,
https://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Plans/docs/pdf/Olive_Avenue_Scenic_Corridor_Design_Guideline
s.pdf as accessed December 3, 2012.
68 Town of Buckeye, 2007 General Plan, page 2-8 through 2-10,
http://www.buckeyeaz.gov/DocumentCenter/View/142 as accessed December 3, 2012.
3-33

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Policy 9.12: Develop direct trail access throughout the Town, to the Maricopa County White
Tank Mountains Regional Park, and to parks south of I-10.
Policy 9.16: Coordinate with the Bureau of Land Management, Flood Control District of
Maricopa County, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department, Arizona State Land
Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and other agencies to identify sites for open
space or recreational amenities that could be mutually beneficial.
Policy 9.19: Prohibit new land uses or developments that eliminate connections to the Town
of Buckeye’s trail plan and linkages to the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Department’s regional trail system.
Policy 9.21: Maximize land use compatibility with the Sonoran National Monument and White
Tanks Regional Park to enhance community recreational opportunities.
Policy 9.22: Make Buckeye the recreational gateway to the National Monument and the White
Tanks. Develop a coordinated strategy with the Bureau of Land Management and Maricopa
County Parks and Recreation Department for tourist traffic, portals, and trailheads to these
important Sonoran Desert environments.
The Town is in an early planning stage to develop their version of a regional park facility south of the
White Tank Mountain Regional Park known as Skyline Regional Park (map 3-8). In November 2010, the
Town and the Bureau of Land Management signed a 25-year lease as part of the R&PP act. A master
plan was created, which was adopted by the Town on September 4, 2012. The park is currently under
design and should be open to the public in 2015.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The BLM began a scoping and EIS (environmental impact statement) process in 2010 to determine the
best sites for renewable energy development in the State of Arizona as a part of The Restoration Design
Energy Project (RDEP), funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The draft EIS
was released to the public on February 17, 2012 for comments. Two potential sites on BLM lands west
and southwest of White Tank Mountain Regional Park may affect views within the park if these
development projects are realized.69
• Belmont Proposed Disposal (site #3, page 84, see footnote 55) – west of park.
• Foothills Proposed Disposal (site #21, page 120, see footnote 55) – southwest of park.
As of March 2012, the BLM is also considering a communications tower application70 that proposes a
new tower near or among the existing towers. This new tower, if constructed, will have additional visual
impacts within the park and on some sections of trails. The Department has submitted its comments
regarding this application to the BLM in April 2012; no further updates are available at the time of this
printing.
69 BLM, Restoration Design Energy Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix C: Arizona
Restoration Design Energy Project, Solar and Wind Energy Assessment of Nominated Sites, February 2012,
http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/arra_solar.html as accessed April 18, 2012.
70 Reference application numbers 2800 (P010), AZA-35918 for GovNET, Inc.
3-34

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-8: Skyline Regional Park (Skyline Regional Park Master Plan, p28)1
3-35

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)
The Westside Study Area Conceptual Plan for Arizona State Trust Land (May 5, 2004) shows areas
neighboring the park that are planned for development including low to medium density residential and
commercial near the parks eastern corners. It is important to note that Map 3-9 is a draft version of a
conceptual plan and was never adopted and therefore is subject to change.
Map 3-9: ASLD Westside Study Area Conceptual Plan (draft)
3.10.4 Access / Transportation
Existing Roads
Several major roadways encircle the White Tank Mountain range:
• Loop 303 (east side of park) – a 39-mile freeway stretching from Interstate 10 in Goodyear to
Interstate 17 in Phoenix; frequent road closures are expected for construction activities
anticipated through 2014.
• Sun Valley Parkway (north and west sides of park) – between Beardsley Canal and I-10, the
parkway is about 28 miles long, curving around the White Tank Mountain range and into Bell
Road at an east-west alignment.
• Interstate 10 (south side of mountain range) - a major transcontinental highway, running east
from the California border and through the central core of the Valley before it meets Interstate
17, eventually turning south to Tucson.
Olive Avenue, on the east side of park, serves as the park’s main entrance point and is recognized as a
scenic transportation corridor. Although old dirt roads or trails may exist into the park, Olive Avenue
provides the only authorized access into the park.
3-36

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Future Road Expansions
MCDOT and its consultant(s) are actively examining transportation needs and conducting feasibility
studies on the following parkway proposals in the west valley:
• Turner Parkway (a north-south alignment): the preferred alignment spans about 32 miles from
SR-74 to I-10.
• Deer Valley Parkway (an east-west alignment): the preferred alignment spans about 11 miles
and is generally centered on the Deer Valley Road section line, and extends from the planned
future Wild Rose Parkway (approximate 243rd Avenue alignment) to US-60.
• Jackrabbit Trail Parkway (a north-south alignment): the preferred alignment is about 12 miles
long and connects to I-10 along Perryville Road, curves west to Indian School Road and
continues north Bethany Home Road along the Beardsley Canal. Then it curves west to the 199th
Avenue alignment, travels along the west side of McMicken Dam and joins the 191st Avenue
alignment at its intersection with Bell Road.
• Wild Rose Parkway (a north-south alignment): the preferred alignment is about 11 miles long,
beginning at Sun Valley Parkway extending north along the 243rd Avenue section line to just
north of Pinnacle Peak Road to where it transitions northwest to the 251st Avenue section line,
continuing to the Joy Ranch Road alignment, then curving to the northeast to meet US-60 at a
perpendicular angle. This plan also recommends maintaining the viewshed of the White Tank
Mountains.
• Greenway Parkway: the study area is approximately nine miles in length and two miles wide, is
generally centered on the Greenway Road section line, and stretches from one mile west of the
planned future Hassayampa Freeway alignment (approximately 339th Avenue alignment) to one
mile east of the planned future Turner Parkway (approximately 279th Avenue alignment).
• Wintersburg Parkway (a north-south and east-west alignment): the study area stretches
approximately 22 miles from Salome Highway to the proposed Turner Parkway.
• Hassayampa Freeway (a north-south alignment): the study area is approximately 41.2 miles and
extends from the north study boundary to the Gila River. This may also be incorporated into the
I-11 development.
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 corridor connecting the Phoenix area to the Las Vegas, Nevada area. As of this
publication date, draft alternatives are being developed.
3-37

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-10: Existing and Future 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. The
Interstate 10 – Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, a MAG document, provides more detail
regarding these roadways.
3-38

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.11 Drive-time Analysis
As part of the 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PRO’s Consulting71 (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).
They 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 3-8: Drive Time/Acres Analysis for White Tank Mountain Regional Park
Total Population by Time Segment (minutes)
Year 15 30 45
2007* 2,029 160,851 1,133,810
2017 2,782 267,256 1,593,287
Acres by Time Segment (minutes)
26,337 16,704 118,889 391,878
Source: 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PRO’s Consulting, page 25.
*2000 Census Tract estimates for year 2007.
71 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PROs Consulting. Page 45-47.
3-39

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Map 3-11: Drive time analysis. 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, PROs Consulting, page 58.
3.12 Facilities and Infrastructure
3.12.1 Entrance Station
The main entrance, with a contact station, is located off of Olive Avenue on the east side of the park and
is the park’s primary entrance. Other access into the park is by uncontrolled pedestrian or equestrian
trail access.
3.12.2 Regional Library, Nature Center, Amphitheater (combined facility)
All three facilities may be accessed near the park entrance gate at Olive Avenue. The 29,000 square foot
library, when opened, was the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum
library in Arizona, and only one of four in the United States. The BLM reviewed these plans and
concluded this facility was in compliance with the existing master plan and approved its construction on
July 7, 2009 (BLM reference number AZAR-017958).
Maricopa County Library District operates the library and welcomed over 87,000 customers in fiscal year
2013 (table 3-9). The library has a collection capacity of 35,000 items and provides specialty rooms like
quiet study and children’s story time rooms. The Friends of White Tank Library operate a used bookstore
just inside the building entrance.
3-40

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-9: Library Visitation & Programs
(Fiscal Year 2013)
Attendance
Customer count (visits) 87,464
Total circulation 246,794
Kid’s programs (170 programs) 5,051
Adult programs (97 programs) 1,700
Source: personal communication from J. Govern,
Branch Development Administer, MCLD, September 4,
2013.
Attached to the library is the 5,000 square foot Nature Center that houses a reptile exhibit, an area to
purchase retail items and park souvenirs, along with an outdoor patio with a great mountain view. The
Nature Center also has a classroom that can accommodate up to 20 tables or 50 chairs. The
amphitheater, just a short walk from the Nature Center, can seat 100 people and is lighted for evening
use.
Figure 3-10: Amphitheater
3.12.3 Maintenance Compound
Once inside the park, Open Sky Way, to the east, provides access to the maintenance compound. The
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (August 2007) prepared by AMEC Earth &
Environmental, Inc. describes the area in detail:
“The maintenance compound encompasses a fenced area of 0.64 acres and includes a maintenance
building on the southeastern portion of the site. The northeast portion of the site contains the parks
water supply system, consisting of a groundwater extraction well, a 100,000-gallon above-ground water
tank reservoir, water supply pumps and controls, and an above-ground air compressor tank. A temporary
storage shed is located on the northwest corner of the facility and it is used to store traffic cones,
barricades, detergents, and other cleaning supplies. Two mobile home/RV spaces are located on the
southwestern corner of the facility. These spaces are reserved for the Park Hosts. All of these features are
shown in Figure 2.
3-41

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Immediately north of the entrance gate, on the western portion of the site, is a 2,000-gallon split-
chambered gasoline/diesel AST used to fuel County vehicles. A 1,000-gallon propane AST and dispensing
system are located on the north-central portion of the site. A vehicle wash pad is located at the
southeastern corner of the site. The surface of the compound is asphalt-paved and gently slopes to the
east. The perimeter of the site is protected by a 6-foot high chain-link fence.”
Map 3-12: SPCC Plan Site Map (maintenance facility), Figure 2
For maintenance, inspection, and spill control measures for this area, refer to the most recent Spill
Prevention Control & Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan.
3.12.4 Picnic Areas
White Tank Mountain Regional Park offers 231 picnic tables with grills, 35 of which have a small cover,
within its picnic areas (including Willow). Three group areas, with 11 ramadas total are available for
large groups and may be reserved for a fee in four-hour increments. If not marked as reserved, they are
available on a first-come, first-served basis. All picnic sites are considered day-use only; all have
restrooms.
3-42

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-10: Picnic Areas
Area Name Description
Area 1 Petroglyph Point Located off Black Canyon Road. Contains 35 tables and a
restroom. Provides access to South Trail and Goat Camp
Trailheads.
Area 2 Bajada Crossing Contains 13 tables and a restroom. Bajada Trail crosses here.
Area 3 Quartz Grove Two, four-table ramadas, three large barbeque grills, an activity
(group) (a) Gneiss Ramada court, a fire ring, restroom facilities, and parking for
(b) Granite Ramada approximately 20 vehicles.
Area 4 Black Rock Rest Located across the Black Rock Loop Trailhead, this area also
(group) (a) Agate Ramada provides access to Mule Deer Trail. Six, four-table ramadas, seven
(b) Basalt Ramada grills, three activity courts, three fire rings, a playground, and
(c) Cobble Ramada restroom facilities.
(d) Desert Varnish Ramada
(e) Esplanade Ramada
(f) Fool’s Gold Ramada
Area 5 Metate Meeting Contains 16 tables and a restroom.
Area 6 Waterfall Flats Two 2-table ramadas (non-rentals) and 14 tables. Also features
the Waterfall Trailhead, restroom, and playground.
Area 7 Laramide Lookout Located at the Waddell/Mesquite Trailhead. It also offers a stage
(group) (a) Jasper Ramada with four benches; three two-table ramadas; six grills; one fire
(b) Olivine Ramada ring; and restroom facilities.
(c) Gypsum Ramada
Area 8 Hohokam Hideaway 27 tables and restroom. Provides access to Waddell Trailhead.
Area 9 Dry Wash Draw 22 tables and restroom. Provides access to Ford Canyon
Trailhead.
Area 10 Tinaja Tables 20 tables and restroom.
Figure 3-11: Picnic Area 4-D (Desert Varnish Ramada)
3.12.5 Campgrounds
The 1964 Master Plan delegated no special areas for the exclusive use of camper vehicles (travel trailers,
tent trailers, pickup campers, microbuses, etc.) nor did it intend to provide utility hookups for camp
vehicles. This plan update acknowledges the importance of providing campers access to a range of
camping types from basic tent to developed RV camping. Campground amenities include:
• Developed: includes electrical/water hookups, dump station, restrooms, picnic tables, and grills.
• Semi-Developed: includes restrooms, picnic tables, and grills.
3-43

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
• Primitive: Not available.
• RV Host Site: Includes shade, electrical/water hookups, dump station, restrooms, picnic tables,
and grills. (These sites are reserved for camp hosts, but may occasionally be available to rent.)
Campsites are still not considered exclusive to one type of camping; however the various campgrounds
provide various amenities to accommodate differing camping types. All sites in the campgrounds may be
reserved online. All campground restrooms offer flush toilets and showers.
Youth Group (Area 12) - for scout groups and other youth groups under the age of 18 years (up to 100
people). Groups must be adult-supervised. The group area offers 12 sites that accommodate one or two
tents per site, one small grill at each site, a group fire ring, five picnic tables at the fire ring, and
restroom facilities.
Figure 3-12: Youth Campground
Family Campground (Area 13) - to improve the camper’s experience, the 40 sites received water and
electrical hookups in 2013 and a dump station will be constructed in 2014 near the entry to this
campground. This campground will be considered "developed" camping and will also include a picnic
table, barbecue grill, a fire ring, and plenty of room for camping at each site.
Group Campground (Area 14) - two large ramadas with four picnic tables each, two large barbecue
grills, one large fire ring, restrooms with showers, lights/electrical outlets, and parking for approximately
50 RVs.
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.
Other camping areas - Willow (Area 11) and the Competitive Track Parking Area are occasionally used to
provide alternative or overflow camping space when needed.
3.12.6 Playgrounds
The park has a total of three playgrounds (currently located at Family Campground, Picnic Area 4, and
Picnic Area 6). Each is inspected regularly by park staff for obvious signs of disrepair. Additionally, each
playground is inspected annually by a certified playground inspector (via an IGA with the City of Phoenix
3-44

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
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.
3.12.7 Horse Staging Area
White Tank Mountain Road to Wildlife Way provides access to several trails and a horse staging area.
This area features a trailhead area for Mesquite Canyon, Ford Canyon, Mule Deer, and Wildlife Trails
(horses may access all trails from here). The area also has four tables, one of which is covered; hitching
rails; and a watering hole. This area also provides trail access to the pond via Wildlife Trail.
Figure 3-13: Horse staging area
3.12.8 Roads and Parking
All paved and named roads are constructed and maintained by Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) and conform to its standards for park roadway systems. Unnamed roads are
maintained by the park’s maintenance staff or the MCPRD trades crew.
Paved and unpaved parking areas are likewise constructed and maintained the park maintenance staff
or the Departments trades crew, but will often times hire MCDOT to provide these services.
Table 3-11: Roads and Parking
Roads Miles Parking Vehicles
Paved 7.0 Designated 735
Unpaved 4.0 Undesignated 350
Capacity
Physical capacity at the park is limited by the number of parking spaces. There are 1,085 designated and
undesignated parking spaces. Using the park average of 2.9272 people per vehicle, this would put peak
capacity at about 3,168 visitors at any one time based on available parking alone. Further study is
needed to determine the environmental and social capacity of the park.
72 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.20A, page 34.
3-45

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.12.9 Water and Sewer
The park utilizes its own well for running water. Other restrooms within the park utilize
evapotranspiration (ET) beds for waste filtration and are not dependent on a utility service provider.
These areas are built and maintained by Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department.
3.12.10 Electrical
White Tank Mountain Regional Park receives electricity from Arizona Public Service Company (APS). In
June 2012, the park entered into an non-exclusive right, privilege, and easement in, upon, over, under,
through and across White Tank Mountain Regional Park for the purpose of installing, operating and
maintaining electrical lines for the transmission and distribution of electricity in the park campgrounds
with APS.
3.12.11 Asset Inventory
Many park facilities were built in 1973 and are beginning to show 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 large numbers 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 and land inventory.
Building Inventory by Year Built
Figure 3-14: Building Inventory by Year Built
The most visible park assets are the entrance station and monument sign (both constructed in 2007).
Assuming a 50-year useful lifespan for these two structures, it can be estimated that the entrance
station will need replacement or extensive renovation by 2057 and the monument sign by 2032. Of the
17 buildings on the facilities inventory, 14 are restrooms. Seven of those restroom facilities were built in
1973 and may be expected to be replaced by 2023. Note: This is outside of annual maintenance and
general upkeep measures.
3.13 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.
3-46

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.13.1 Population Characteristics
The 2010 Census reveals that the State of Arizona has 6,392,017 people (a 24.6% increase from the 2000
census73) 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 1874 years. County-wide, the median age was 34.6 years compared to 43.43 for
the park.
Table 3-12: Population and Park Visitor Characteristics
Population State of Arizona1 Maricopa County1 White Tank MRP White Tank MRP
by Sex/Age (2007-2008)2 (2012-2013)3
Visitors Visitors
Total 6,392,017 3,817,117 203,852 144,395
Population
Male 3,175,823 (49.6%) 1,888,465 (49.5%) 112,322 (55.1%) 66,854 (46.3%)
Female 3,216,194 (50.0%) 1,928,652 (50.5%) 91,529 (44.9%) 77,540 (53.7%)
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 46,478 (22.8%) 37,253 (25.8%)
50 - 64 1,141,752 640,768 37,182 (18.24%) 27,723 (19.2%)
65 & over 881,831 462,641 31,393 (15.4%) 12,417 (8.6%)
Median 35.9 34.6 47.7 43.43
Age
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: 81.8% of park visitors self-identified as white (down slightly from 82.8% in 2007-
2008); 3.4% as African American (a slight increase from 2.0% in 2007-2008); and 1.5% as American
Indian (an increase from 0.0% in 2007-2008).75
73 As result of the population increase, Arizona gained one member to the House of Representatives, bringing the
number to nine for the state.
74 2010 US Census Bureau, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04 as accessed March 14,
2012.
75 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 17, page 306.
3-47

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Visitor Race/Ethnicity
(2012-2013 ASU Visitor Use Survey)
Figure 3-15: Visitor Race/Ethnicity
3.13.2 Census Tracts
The 2010 Census tracts that immediately surround and include the park (Tracts 506.05 and 405.16) have
a total population estimate of 8,684 persons.
3.13.3 Population Forecast
In the Regional Transportation Plan 2010 Update, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has
forecasted that by 2030 Maricopa County will double in population over the year 2000 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 (MAG, RTP 2010 Update, page 3-3).
Furthermore, over the 25-year period of 2005-2030, seven Municipal Planning Areas (MPA) are
projected to grow by more than 100,000 persons, including the Phoenix, Buckeye, Surprise, Goodyear,
Gilbert, Peoria, and Chandler (MAG, RTP 2010 Update, page 3-5) – 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 3-13.
Table 3-13: Total Resident Population
(July 1, 2005 and Projections July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2030)
Total Resident Total Resident Total Resident Total Resident
Population 2005 Population 2010 Population 2020 Population 2030
Avondale 70,160 83,856 105,989 123,265
Buckeye 32,735 74,906 218,591 419,146
Glendale 257,891 279,807 315,055 322,062
Litchfield Park 6,787 8,587 10,305 10,510
Phoenix 1,510,177 1,695,549 1,990,450 2,201,843
Surprise 93,356 146,890 268,359 401,458
All MPA’s 3,681,025 4,216,499 5,230,300 6,135,000
Source: MAG, RTP, Table 3-2 (modified), page 3-4, http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/RTP_2010-Annual-
Report_Final_v17.pdf as accessed August 8, 2013.
3-48

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.13.4 Employment, Income, and Educational Attainment
The State of Arizona had an unemployment rate of 9.0% in December 2011 according to the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics.76 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 3-14: Employment and Education
Population State of Maricopa White Tank MRP White Tank MRP
Arizona1 County1 (2007-2008)2 (2012-2013)3
Employed n/a 57.2% 44.3% 57.5%
Median household $46,789 $50,410 21.8% of park 17.5% of park
income visitors between visitors between
$45,000 to $60,000 $45,000 to $60,000
Bachelor’s degree 25.9% 28.3% 75.3% 93.6%
or higher
1 Source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04
2 ASU Park Visitor Study, 2007-2008, page 248, Questions 24, 25, and 26.
3 ASU Park Visitor Study, 2012-2023, page 316, Questions 29, 30, and 31.
3.13.5 Housing Value
The median value of an owned home (does not include value of homes that are being rented) was
$180,80077 for the County, a value just over $11,000 higher than the statewide median.
Table 3-15: Median Housing Value
State of Arizona Maricopa County
Median value of owned home $168,800 $180,800
Source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04
3.13.6 Obesity
Maricopa County had an obesity rate 20.9%78 in 2007, ranking it as the fourth lowest obesity rate for a
county within the state; however, the State of Arizona itself ranked 24th in the nation for obesity in the
year 2007.
3.14 Visitation and Tourism Trends
The State of Arizona attracted 36.9 million domestic and international overnight visitors, equal to
roughly 101,000 visitors per day in 2010.79 Of those, 9.7 million overnight visitors were Arizona
residents, representing 26% of the market.80
76 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.az.htm as accessed March 14, 2012.
77 U.S. Census Bureau, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=04 as accessed March 14,
2012.
78 Arizona Department of Health Services, Obesity in Arizona: Prevalence, Hospital Care Utilization, Mortality, Page
6, Figure 4, Average Annual Prevalence of Obesity by County of Residence,
Arizona, 2001-2007. http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/brfs/other%20reports/2007%20Obesity%20Report%20Final.pdf
79 Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona 2010 Tourism Facts brochure, Page 3, http://www.azot.gov/research-and-
statistics/annual.
3-49

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.14.1 Residency81
Almost 86% of park visitors are residents of Arizona with most coming from the metropolitan area
driving an average of 19.07 miles82 to arrive at the park. Just over 14% of the park’s visitors were from
out of state or out of country. The top five metro-area locations include:
• Surprise 16.6%
• Phoenix 11.6%
• Sun City 8.5%
• Glendale 8.0%
• Litchfield Park 7.0%
Figure 3-16: Visitor residency (*new cities denoted with asterisk)
3.14.2 Park Visitation
During fiscal year 2012-2013 the park welcomed 144,395 visitors to the park. Park visitation has
fluctuated over the previous ten fiscal years with a high in FY08-09 a low in FY03-04 with 182,257 as the
ten year average.
80 Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona 2010 Tourism Facts brochure, Page 3, http://www.azot.gov/research-and-
statistics/annual.
81 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, page 32, table 1.18.
82 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 5, page 305.
3-50

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-17: 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. Easter is generally the busiest day of the year when all
or most picnic areas are fully rented. However, in 2012, there were a higher number of ramada rentals
the Saturday before Easter than in previous years. Years with plentiful rain also increase spring visitation
as people flock to the park to view the waterfalls and wildflowers. The months with the lowest visitation
are July or August when temperatures soar.
Notes: The introduction of a new Point of Sale system did not accurately count about 18,000 passes; in
addition, the Nature Center and Library hosted its grand opening and allowed free entry. These two
events may help explain slightly lower visitation numbers in FY10-11.
The Family Campground was closed during parts of FY2012-2013 and FY2013-2014 for electrical
upgrades and perhaps played a role in lower visitation numbers during these times. The Horse Staging
Area was likewise closed for construction in FY2012-2013; parking accommodations were relocated to
the Group Camp Area.
Forecasting future visitation carries with it its own uncertainties, however preliminary trend analysis
indicates a positive upward tendency in future visitation (as shown by dark blue lines in Figure 3-17).
3-51

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-18: Actual (blue) and forecasted (dark blue) visitation per fiscal year
3.15 Park Use
3.15.1 Use83, 84
About 98% of visitors were in the park for a “day use” activity, spending 2.48 hours inside the park. This
is down from 3.06 hours reported in the 2007-2008 visitor use survey. Of the 2% that spent the night
inside the park, they stayed for an average of 3.20 nights (up from 2.54 nights in 2007-2008 but down
from previous years).
3.15.2 Primary Activity85
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 (76.6%)
• Picnicking (10.2%)
• Mountain biking (3.9%)
• Running/jogging (3.4%)
• Walking for pleasure (1.5%)
83 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 4, page 305.
84 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 1, page 305.
85 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 1.9A, page 23.
3-52

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.15.3 Return Visits
Seventy-four percent of those surveyed were return visitors, visiting the park 16 times on average in the
previous twelve months86 (up from 6.2 visits in 2007-2008). When asked what prompts visitors to return
to the park, trail-related responses were most common; other written responses included:87
• Close to home
• Location
• Clean, well-kept
Return visits based on activity, reveals that hikers made over 17 return visits in the previous twelve
months and mountain bikers made over 28 return visits; runners/joggers returned eight times; and
walkers returned over five times. Picnickers made over four return visits to the park.88
3.15.4 Reasons for Use89
Top five reasons visitors come to the park:
• Observe the scenic beauty
• Enjoy physical exercise
• Enjoy the sounds and smells of nature
• Have an inexpensive recreational experience
• Get away from everyday responsibilities
3.15.5 Satisfaction
When asked about their level of satisfaction with the park, 58.7% of those surveyed were extremely
satisfied and 39.1% were very satisfied with the park; 2.2% were fairly satisfied. No visitors expressed
dissatisfaction with the park.90
3.15.6 Attachment to Park
Park visitors often form strong attachments to their favorite park or locations within a park and half of
the parks visitors agree that they are, indeed, very attached to this park. Nearly 72% agreed that the
park means a lot to them; over 56% agreed that this park offers the best settings and facilities for the
activities that they enjoy most.91 Favorite parts of the park included many trail-related responses,
specifically mentioning Waterfall, Mesquite, Willow Canyon, Ford, Goat Camp trails, and the
Competitive Track92 by name.
3.15.7 Visitor Spending93
Visitors reported spending $72.81 (up from $65.33 in 2007-2008) per group during their visit to the park.
This is significantly lower than the system-wide average of $157.63 per visit.
86 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 1, page 305.
87 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 7b, page 322.
88 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Table 3.4 page 88.
89 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 6, page 308.
90 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 1, page 307.
91 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 7, page 309.
92 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 7c, page 323.
93 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 8, page 310 and Table 2.9, page 59.
3-53

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.15.8 Park Facilities
Park visitors were surveyed about which facilities are most important to them. In the 2012-2013 survey,
park roads, parking availability, restrooms, and trail mileage signs were almost unanimously the most
important features at the park. (The least important facilities were: equestrian facilities, competitive
tracks, playgrounds, and showers.)94
When visitors were surveyed about what facilities they would be likely to use, if provided:
visitor/information center, wildlife viewing areas or blinds, shaded picnic areas, restaurants/snack bars,
outdoor exercise/circuit course. (The facilities that they would not use or don’t know if they would use
were: conference facility; competitive tracks, OHV areas, sports fields/facilities, and RV or trailer hook-
ups.)95
3.16 Local Recreation, Needs, and Opportunities
White Tank Mountain Regional Park has a unique opportunity to offer visitors RV and tent camping, a
competitive track, equestrian and hiking 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 White Tank
Mountain Regional Park an opportunity to fill those needs. Other recreational opportunities near White
Tank Mountain Regional Park can be found in the following table:
94 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 4, page 307. Note: campground closures played a role
in fewer campers staying in the park and likely fewer campers being surveyed and expressing a camper’s
perspective.
95 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, Question 9, page 310. Note: campground closures played a role
in fewer campers staying in the park and likely fewer campers being surveyed and expressing a camper’s
perspective.
3-54

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-16: Local Recreational Opportunities
Facility Distance from Park Acres / Miles of trails Recreational Opportunity
City of Litchfield Park, AZ 13.5 miles Various facilities available Swimming, soccer, basketball,
park facilities etc.
City of El Mirage, AZ park 13.5 miles 18 acres plus various Baseball, basketball, fitness,
facilities facilities available playground, water park, retail,
dog park, picnic, etc.
Town of Youngtown, AZ 13.5 miles Various park locations Fishing, walking, picnic.
park facilities available
City of Surprise, AZ park 15.0 miles Various facilities available Tennis, swimming,
facilities playground, library, soccer,
picnic, pickleball, etc.
Estrella Mountain 19.5 miles 19,840 acres / 33 miles Hiking, rodeo arena, golf,
Regional Park picnic, camping, biking,
baseball.
Town of Buckeye, AZ park 26.5 miles Various facilities available Aquatics, sports, playground,
facilities picnic sites, dog park.
Additional recreational opportunities:
Undeveloped Campgrounds: Camping is allowed on Bureau of Land Management lands throughout the area. Camping on State
Land requires a permit from the State Land Department.
3.17 Park Administration and Special Functions
3.17.1 Staffing
Currently, the park has a staff of five full-time employees. This includes the park supervisor, one
administrative assistant, one interpretive ranger, and two park maintenance workers. The park does not
currently have any part-time employees. See Appendix I for a park 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 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.
3-55

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
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 56 volunteers in FY12-13 who provided over 15,800 hours of service such as camp
hosts, entrance station attendants, nature center hosts, among other roles. The Independent Sector
estimates that the value of volunteer time in Arizona is $20.08 per hour.96 This translates to volunteers
at White Tank Mountain Regional Park providing $318,905.54 worth of services or the equivalent of 7.63
full-time97 employees, providing an enormous economic value to the park.
Table 3-17: Volunteer Hours by Fiscal Year
2011-2012 2012-2013
Volunteer Type Volunteers Hours Volunteers Hours
Park Hosts 24 14,026.0 28 11,511.75
Community 28 4,379.5 28 4,370.0
Volunteers
Total 52 18,405.5 56 15,881.75
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. Each host works a minimum of 20 hours per week and includes those responsibilities agreed
upon between the host and Park Supervisor as a written agreement. Duties may include fee collection,
light maintenance work, clerical tasks, and special projects. The hosts receive free camping and use of
park facilities while they are serving as host.
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 webpage98 for more details on
volunteer roles and responsibilities.
Episodic volunteers may assist in short-term, special projects: for example, a Boy Scout troop may
perform a light building project or park cleanup in order to earn a badge or patch. Hands on Greater
Phoenix volunteers performed trail maintenance on several occasions along the Black Rock Loop during
fiscal year 2012-2013, providing valuable assistance to the park.
3.17.3 Partnerships
White Tank Park has identified several partners or other organizations with a mutual interest in the
park’s operation and success. Table 3-18 specifies existing and potential partners and their roles in the
operation and improvement of the park.
96 Independent Sector, dollar value by state for year 2011, http://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time as
accessed July 1, 2013.
97 FTE = total volunteer hours divided by 2,080 hours (2,080 = 40 hours week * 52 weeks).
98 Website and Volunteer Manual available here: http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/volunteer.aspx
3-56

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Table 3-18: Partners
Partner Potential or existing role
Maricopa County Agencies Parks Commission: Lobby and advocate for Park causes.
Maricopa County Library District (MCLD): Share MC Library and Nature Center
facilities, program cooperation, utilities and facility maintenance.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office: Regularly patrols park, trails and boundaries.
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.
Federal Agencies BLM: Land exchange/purchase.
Cooperative work to serve public recreational needs.
Local cities/towns City of Surprise / Town of Buckeye:
Work with landowners and other agencies to connect White Tank Park trails with
other trail systems.
Cooperative facilities.
Cooperative programs (example Western Heritage Tour Trail for tourist
attraction).
City of Phoenix: Playground inspections.
Friends of White Tank Park Perform fundraising for specific projects.
Lobby elected officials on critical issues and funding.
Voice and advocate for the park.
Site Steward Program (and Volunteers regularly patrol and check on archaeological sites in park.
SHPO)
Equestrian, RV, Special Work with individual groups and park staff on special interest desires when
Interests possible.
3.18 Public Safety
The park relies on 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;
• 911 for emergencies.
MCSO keeps track of all contacts and reports it makes. 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.
Table 3-19: MCSO Statistics
White Tank Mountain Regional Park
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20131
Contacts (all)2 190 117 97 116 107 62
Burglary from vehicle 7 5 0 1 9 10
3-57

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Search & Rescue Operation 4 5 5 4 9 5
Game & Fish Violation 6 0 1 0 0 0
County Parks Violation 27 11 6 3 2 1
Entry Use Violation (R104) 3 0 1 0 0 0
Vehicle & Bicycle Violation (R107) 3 0 1 1 0 0
Fire Violation (R113) 0 0 0 1 0 0
Trails Violation (R118) 1 0 0 0 0 0
Notes:
1. January 1 through April 14, 2013 only.
2. Totals excluding “Patrol/Vacation Watch” category.
Source: personal communication from MCSO Sgt. Fred McCann 4/17/13.
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.
Figure 3-19: MCSO and Rural Metro on call
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
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. The dashboards exhibited below reflect year to year
trends. More detailed budget and financial information may be reviewed in the park business plan.
3-58

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
3.19.2 Park Revenue
Park revenue comes from many sources but primarily from visitor entrance fees, camping and picnic
reservations, souvenir sales, etc. 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 due to improved or additional facilities as well as from improved marketing.
Weather has the biggest impact on park revenue; for example, rainy weather causes the waterfall to
flow and flowers to bloom, which in turn draws many visitors to the park. Conversely, excessively hot
summer days results in decreased park visitation.
FY2010 did well fiscally (as a result of the new nature center and a good wildflower and waterfall year),
but FY2012 surpassed it as the best year since FY2009 (figure 3-20). Despite campground closures and
construction on SR-303, FY2013 maintained strong statistics.
Figure 3-20: Revenue per Fiscal Year
Figure 3-21 demonstrates the monthly breakdown of the fiscal years, noticing that summer months
have improved, as well has December. March remains the overall best month when visitation is
generally at its peak.
Figure 3-21: Revenue by Month
3-59

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
One of the biggest revenue increases appears in the souvenir fund. The park experienced a 178%
increase from FY2010 to FY2011 (figure 3-22). This increase is attributed to the new Nature Center and
Library facility that was completed in October 2010.
Figure 3-22: Souvenir Fund
Camping reflects a decrease in revenue due to campground closures and SR-303 construction in FY2013
(figure 3-23).
Figure 3-23: Camping per Fiscal Year (campground closures and SR-303 construction in FY13)
Facility rentals are remaining fairly strong (figure 3-24). The park sees many return visitors renting
facilities each year.
3-60

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-24: Facility Rental
Annual pass sales show an overall upward trend from year to year (figure 3-25) and is expected to
increase. Park visitors have expressed their satisfaction with the annual pass program.
Figure 3-25: Annual Passes
Despite campground facility additions and road construction, vehicle entries are remaining fairly steady
(figure 3-26).
3-61

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-26: Vehicle Entries (campground closures and SR-303 construction in FY13)
3.19.3 Expenditures
Park expenditures cover everything from park staff wages and benefits, maintenance, as well as general
office supplies and vehicle fueling. Although facilities have increased, staff remains the same. The park
covers the extra need with additional hosts and volunteers.
Table 3-20: Summary of Annual Expenditures*
Expense type FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
(estimated)
Personal Services (wages and benefits) 235,724 251,786 247,367 249,865
General Supplies 17,310 20,660 21,238 25,374
Fuel 11,273 13,486 15,056 12,246
Other supplies 8,323 3,412 0 0
Utilities 42,601 48,257 47,186 30,481
Other costs (postage, education & training,
21,910 11,068 20,841 18,524
repairs & maintenance, other services)
Building and Improvements 0 0 3,129 0
TOTAL EXPENSES 337,141 348,669 354,817 336,490
*Funding sources: 100 General Fund, 241 Park Enhancement Fund.
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. Between 2006 and
2009, the park received just over $29,000 in donations for these purposes (figure 3-27).
3-62

_________________________________________________________________ Resource Analysis
Figure 3-27: Donations per Fiscal Year
3-63

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
CHAPTER 4 – 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 1964 Master Development Plan called for over 36 miles of trails with an
estimated need of well over 250 miles; today that need is not anticipated and the park maintains a more
sustainable trail system. The 1964 plan did not make any special provision for bicycling, instead
reserving trails for hiking or equestrian use only. This plan update acknowledges the importance of
providing mountain bikers access to trails and has designated all trails as shared use (except where
signed otherwise).
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. In areas where this plan update is silent, the Trails Management Manual prevails.
The White Tank Mountain Regional Park Trail System Plan (Appendix J) was adopted in December 2002.
The Trail System Plan 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 (Chapter 6) 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. 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 the
Master Plan update. In areas where this Master
Plan update is silent, the Trail System Plan
prevails.
4.1 Existing Trails
White Tank Mountain Regional Park offers
approximately 31 miles of shared-use trails,
ranging in length from 0.9 mile to 7.9 miles (Map
4-1). Trails are rated from easy to strenuous and
include the only double-diamond rated trails in
the County’s park system (Table 4-3 below). Day
hikes provide breathtaking views of the mountains
and panoramas of the valley below. Horseback
and mountain bike riders are welcomed, although
caution is stressed as some of the trails may be Figure 4-1: Waterfall Trail
extremely difficult.
In addition, there are 2.5 miles of pedestrian-only trails. These include two short trails that are hard-
surfaced and barrier-free. Waterfall Trail is barrier-free to Petroglyph Plaza, about 0.4 miles from the
parking lot (and has since been extended a bit further along the trail). The short loop of Black Rock Trail,
which is about 0.5 mile long, begins at Ramada Area 4 and is also barrier-free.
4-1

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
Map 4-1: Existing Trails
4-2

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
4.1.1 Competitive Track
The park offers an approximately 10-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
Cha-Cha, often bring over 400 participants to the event. Other mountain bike events or races may bring
50 to 350 participants to the park. The track also has an oversized parking area where 25 to 30 cars may
be seen on an average springtime Saturday. (The parking area may also be used as overflow camping
when needed.)
Table 4-1: Competitive Track Events and Participants
Fiscal Year Events Participants
2010-11 5 1,039
2011-12 3 735
2012-13 4 875
2013-14 (pre-scheduled as 1 200-300
of 7/24/13)
4.1.2 Maricopa Trail
The Maricopa Trail has a connection north of the park entrance at Mule Deer Trail and extends well into
the park. This segment is 3.4 miles in length and is a shared-use trail (hiking, biking, and equestrian). The
hike offers excellent open views that extend in all directions, especially east towards the city. 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 provide challenging, longer trails for competitive hikers and mountain
bikers seeking back-country experiences outside the urbanized park systems. There are two RV host
sites available near the pond and windmill (or equestrian parking lot) for Maricopa Trail volunteer hosts.
Table 4-2: Designated Trails
Name Miles Kilometers Notes Rating* Management
Classification
Bajada 1.1 1.7 Shared use Primary
Black Rock Long Loop 1.3 2.1 Hike only Primary
Black Rock Short Loop 0.5 0.8 Hike only/barrier- Barrier-free /
free/interpretive Interpretive
Ford Canyon 7.4 11.9 Shared use Primary
Goat Camp 6.3 10.1 Shared use Primary
Ironwood 0.9 1.5 Shared use Primary
Mesquite Canyon 5.0 8.1 Shared use Primary
Mule Deer (Maricopa Trail) 3.4 5.5 Shared use Primary
South 1.0 1.7 Shared use Primary
Waddell 1.0 1.6 Shared use Primary
Waterfall 0.9 1.5 Hike only/first 0.5 barrier- Barrier-free /
4-3

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
free Interpretive
Wildlife 0.2 0.3 Shared use Primary
Willow Canyon 1.6 2.7 Shared use Secondary
Competitive Track Total tread length
Sonoran Loop Competitive 9.3 15.0 Shared use Competitive
Track Track
*Rating symbols are defined in Table 4-3 below or online at http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/trailrating.aspx
Figure 4-2: Mule Deer Trail (Maricopa Trail), looking southwest.
4.2 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 nearly 77% of all park visitors’ primary activity is trail
hiking,1 hiking an average of 3.24 miles2 on that visit. When singled out by activity, other trail uses
include:
• Mountain biking: 8.63 miles,
• Running/jogging: 7.40 miles, and
• Walking for pleasure: 1.23 miles.
Visitors who came primarily to camp or picnic also report using trails:
1 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, page 23.
2 2012-2013 ASU Park Visitor Study Final Report, page 26.
4-4

___________________________________________________________________________ Trails
• RV camping: 2.00 miles,
• Tent camping: 2.50 miles, and
• Picnicking: 3.03 miles.
4.3 Trail Rating
In 2012, a partnership of area park agencies developed a trail rating guide to assist trail users in
assessing what trails are best suited for their abilities. During the hotter months when the temperatures
and/or humidity are high, trails are rated at least one level higher.
Table 4-3: 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
4-5

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
CHAPTER 5 - Management Zoning
The foundation for the management zones is found in the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
Department 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, page 105-116, June 2009 and is presented again here. 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. Today, the park has
about 1.8% of its total acres developed.
Table 5-1: Management Zone and Acreage
Zone Percent of Total Park Acres
Development 1.8% (517.01 acres)
Trail 0.6% (191.02 acres)
Semi-Primitive 18.8% (5,572.33 acres)
Primitive 72.3% (21,349.89 acres)
Perimeter Buffer 6.5% (1,910.41 acres)
Non-Management Zone 0% (0.0 acres)
Source: 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, page 116
5.1 Methodology for Determining Management Zones
The current management zoning descriptions and maps used for White Tank 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 consultant Pros Consulting, LLC. 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 or west side of the park,
the development zone in those areas will require review and possibly changed.
Future revisions of these zones should include, in more detail, descriptions of the desired experience.
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.
5.2 Description of Management Zones
The following chart 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.
Table 5-2: 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
5-1

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
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
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.
5-2

________________________________________________________________ Management Zoning
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.
5.3 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 116) notes that current management zones reflect existing land
uses within the park. As future connectivity and access needs change, these zones will require an
update.
Map 5-1: Development Zones (Source: MCPRD 2009 Strategic System Master Plan, p 116)
5-3

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
CHAPTER 6 – RECOMMENDED PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
This chapter identifies new park improvement options that have been determined through the planning
process that included public input, consultation with neighboring agencies, and Department staff
expertise as described in previous chapters. This master plan update will also continue to uphold the
concept of “maximum use without significant loss of natural character”1 by streamlining the 1964
Master Development Plan objectives by:
Acknowledging existing uses:
This plan update acknowledges and provides space for activities that were not supported by the original
master development plan, such as mountain biking2 and RV-style camping3:
Supporting existing features and amenities:
This plan update provides supporting amenities to existing areas and promotes educational components
of the park.
• Educational opportunities and living laboratories4,
• Equestrian facilities5 by recommending upgrades to existing equestrian amenities,
• Previous objectives regarding encroachment6 by recommending continued efforts to work with
local agencies and neighboring land owners and developers in order to secure park borders,
• Provides additional trail opportunities7, and
• Utilities and basic services and staff support areas8.
Limiting other features:
This plan update streamlines the quantity of built facilities to protect its natural and cultural resources.
• Limit the number of picnic sites and campsites to more sustainable numbers9,
• The master development plan called for two or more entrances10; this plan update will limit that
to two entrances and refine the location and elements of the secondary entrance,
• Limit the size of a grocery store11 to a smaller facility; this update recommends a coffee
shop/cart for visitors to purchase incidental refreshments and serve as a place to enjoy the
scenic beauty of the park; this feature will enhance the existing nature center and library facility,
and
1 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 19.
2 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 18. “No special provisions in the park are
planned for pleasure driving, outdoor games and bicycling.”
3 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 30. “No special areas are planned for the
exclusive use of camper vehicles (travel trailers, tent trailers, pickup campers, microbuses, etc.) nor will utility
hookups for camp vehicles be provided.”
4 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 26, 27.
5 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 36.
6 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 47.
7 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 34.
8 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 38, 43.
9 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 28, 32.
10 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 21.
11 White Tank Mountains Regional Park Master Development Plan, page 36.
6-1

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
• Other developed features outlined in the 1964 master development plan not currently in place
or recommended within this update are not desired facilities for the park.
6.1 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, such as:
Table 6-1: Issues Constraints and Analysis
Issue/Constraint Analysis
Maintain development to under 10% of Currently, 1.75% of land acres are considered developed; park is
land acres well within the 10% limit. Future development actions will need to
take this guideline into account.
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.
Rugged landscape Prevents development or access to many areas.
Communication Towers Ownership issues prohibit park visitor access to these areas.
Drainage/erosion Proposed projects will address drainage and erosion to protect park
resources.
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 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.
Neighboring city/town development The Park Supervisor and/or Park Planner routinely participate with
patterns neighboring agencies regarding development patterns.
Use conflicts Additional study is needed to determine level of use related
conflicts among park visitors.
Biological consequences to development Additional study is needed to determine level of consequence to
development regardless if that development comes from inside or
outside of park boundaries.
6.2 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.
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
(Appendix K). 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;
• Low Priority: desired features; dependent on long-term partnerships or other considerations.
6-2

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
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 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.
Some improvements may cross categories and may be addressed all at once. For example, upgrading a
parking lot with additional facilities (Develop New Facilities) may also address erosion/drainage (Protect
Park Resources) as a component of the project. Similarly, some projects, once complete (Develop New
Facilities, Maintain/Rehabilitate Existing Facilities) will enhance the visitor experience (Programs,
Education/Interpretation).
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 a project.
Additionally, any trail alignments shown in these park improvements are also considered conceptual
only. The locations are general corridors and not intended to be precise; new trails will be located
according to MCPRD trail standards and area topography. 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. These
trails 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:
Table 6-2: Recommended Park Improvements
Develop New Facilities
Location Description Priority Acres
Nature Center Tortoise enclosure (2013) High 0.08
Park staff received Heritage Grant funding through AZGFD in the
summer of 2013 to construct a Desert Tortoise enclosure. This will
add an additional educational element to the park and assist with
conservation of Desert Tortoise.
Family Upgrade/Expand RV Camp Sites High 17.87
The Family campground is being upgraded with electric and water
(FY2012-2013) and a dump station (FY2013-2014) and will require
occasional campground closures while construction is underway.
When complete, this will improve the camping experience for RV
camping and will allow campers to stay in the park longer and more
comfortably, enhancing their experience. One or two RV sites may
be enlarged to accommodate corral space for those who camp with
horses. The playground equipment is in need of updating and could
6-3

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
benefit from additional landscaping to buffer the playground from
other uses.
This area will also be expanded by adding 20 sites. Additional steps
may be taken to level and enlarge existing sites where feasible to
provide more space for campers and flatter surfaces for large rigs.
Competitive
Track New features High 3.78
This area can host large, competitive events with several hundred
participants; a restroom (with showers is preferred) and a bike
wash-rack at the Track's parking lot area will enhance the track
experience and make it a more desirable place to hold events.
A “bike park” will also be included (approx. 2 to 3 acres). A pump
track is one component of a bike park. An accessible water source is
desirable for bike park maintenance.
A separate beginner track (approx. 0.5 to 1.0 mile with multiple
loops) will facilitate youth or those new to competitive events and
provide an additional experience.
A connection from the parking lot to Ironwood Trail will be included
in this update as a conceptual trail corridor (approx. 0.6 miles);
however, the actual alignment will be further defined via a separate
process under the Trail System Plan.
North New facilities and trails (at approx. 243rd Ave. / Wild Rose Pkwy) Medium tbd
In response to the planned development by the City of Surprise on
the northern park boundary and by the Town of Buckeye on the
south and west side of the park, an area will be developed and
constructed to provide access to future residents and visitors.
Conceptual development may include an entrance, trailheads,
trails, cabins, a modest nature center building, amphitheater,
stabling facilities, and other support facilities (restroom, parking,
picnic areas, signage, etc.).
This general area is considered optimal due to its proximity to a
major road alignment and an existing well. It is also a relatively flat
area that has been disturbed in the past. Development in this area
will be compatible with the natural and cultural resources found in
the area and will take wildlife connections into account.
Additionally, facility development in these areas may require a
change in Management Zone type to "Development" and/or "Semi-
Primitive".
All development will be completed in phases as funding and other
resources are available. Final developed features will be determined
at a later date and will be contingent upon cooperation and
partnerships with the City and/or Town, BLM, MCDOT, AZGFD,
MCSO, or other entities, and may also entail private consultants or
developers to assist with the design and implementation.
Coordination with MCDOT is essential for potential signage and
signaling concerns or to determine if a dedicated left-turn lane is
6-4

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
required.
Previously disturbed areas should be used to the extent possible.
The area should be surveyed for sensitive species and habitats prior
to construction.
Trails Connection: Mesquite to Goat Camp Medium 0.68
A connection from Mesquite Trail to Goat Camp Trail will be
included in this Master Plan update as a conceptual trail corridor
(approx. 1.4 miles); however, the actual alignment will be further
defined via a separate process per the Trail System Plan.
Trails Connection: Ford to Willow Medium 0.73
A connection from Ford Canyon Trail to Willow Trail will be included
in this Master Plan update as a conceptual trail corridor (approx. 1.5
miles); however, the actual alignment will be further defined via a
separate process per the Trail System Plan.
Area 3 or Pond Butterfly garden Medium 0.021
The park has design plans to construct a butterfly garden. This
garden will provide educational and interpretive opportunities to
park visitors. The garden will require irrigation for at least two years
to allow the plants to establish themselves.
Nature Center Coffee shop/cart Medium 0.0
A coffee shop or cart will allow visitors to spend more time at the
Library and Nature Center building to enjoy the scenic views thus
creating a leisurely atmosphere.
Development and implementation of this project will be contingent
upon consultation with BLM prior to installation.
TBD camping
site(s) Corral or site(s) with space to assemble own corral Low 0.0118
Campers who bring horses with them require a corral or corral
space to allow horses untethered resting and overnight sleeping
space. The park will identify and provide adequate space (16x16
square foot minimum) at one or two campsites for a camper to
assemble their own corral; based on demand, may include
constructing a permanent corral at the same camp site(s) sized
16x16 square foot minimum. This will allow the park to increase
recreational opportunities to those who prefer to camp with
horses.
Trails Connection to Skyline Regional Park Low 1.94
A connection from Goat Camp to Skyline Regional Park will be
included in this Master Plan update as a conceptual trail corridor
(approx. 3 to 4 miles); however, the actual alignment will be further
defined via a separate process per the Trail System Plan.
Development of this trail or trail connection will be contingent upon
a partnership and an intergovernmental agreement with the Town
of Buckeye.
TBD area Cabins Low 0.9
Cabins may be constructed as a part of the future north
development process, or may be sited in another appropriate area.
The cabins could be but are not limited to such things a yurts,
canvas tents, formal structures, etc. In addition, it would be
evaluated for proper infrastructure such as electric, water, and
6-5

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
sewer, including any sundries sales to support it.
Development and implementation of this project will be contingent
upon consultation with BLM prior to construction.
TBD area Archery Facilities Low 2.28
AZGFD has approached the park about including an archery range
and walking course(s). Provided that the temporary archery range
recommended for the Competitive Track parking lot is successful, a
permanent facility can continue to fill this need. This would be done
in partnership with AZGFD.
Maintain/Rehabilitate Existing Facilities
Location Description Priority Acres
Area 4 Renovations High 0.0
Demand for this area often exceeds its parking capacity. Multiple
types of visitors use this area and a study is recommended that
investigates if there are any conflicts among use groups and how to
prevent future disruptions by potentially limiting the types of usage
for this area.
After the study is complete, park staff will have a better
understanding on how to address other issues in this area. For
example, parking may be expanded or separated to accommodate
picnic and trail users and will include enhanced emergency
response access.
The heavily used playground requires upgrades and some form of
buffering material (fencing, vegetation, etc.) from vehicles in the
parking lot. Aged ramadas require extensive roof repairs or full
replacement. Drainage issues need to be addressed to prevent
erosion by correcting the slope or installing drainage devices.
Additional landscaping materials, especially shade trees, will
enhance the experience and may also prevent erosion.
Area 7 Renovations High 0.0
Demand for this area often exceeds its parking capacity. Parking will
be expanded to include enhanced emergency response access. A
new kiosk is needed to post informational items. The well-worn
stage/shade structure needs repair work. This area is somewhat
rugged and the effects of erosion are seen throughout the area and
will be addressed to maintain the visual appeal of the area and to
protect park resources; this may include re-grading the area or
installing additional landscaping. The playground equipment is in
need of updating and could benefit from landscaping to buffer the
playground from other uses.
Waterfall Renovations High 0.0
The Waterfall Trail area is the most used area in the park by trail
users and picnickers. This area needs additional parking, a new
kiosk, additional shade and resting areas.
Prior to renovations, this area also will benefit from additional
study for visitor use conflicts and potentially separating uses in this
area to limit conflicts. Separating uses may result in adequate
parking for the remaining uses; however, the other renovations are
6-6

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
still warranted.
Roads Road improvements (MCDOT) High 20.07
MCDOT constructs and repairs the major roads within the park.
Maintenance is on a routine schedule and should be coordinated
with other park upgrades to minimize impacts to park visitors.
Future road improvements may include investigating bicycle lane
feasibility, improving dips, lane width, etc.
Maintenance
Compound Maintenance building improvements Medium 0.0
The maintenance building receives heavy use from park staff, park
hosts, and contractors and is in need of repairs and upgrades such
as additional insulation and parking. These upgrades will allow park
staff to perform their duties more efficiently.
Area 1 Convert to Family RV sites Medium tbd
The area is currently underutilized as a picnic area and could be
redesigned to accommodate up to 80 larger RV campsites by
adjusting the sites size and location, upgrading the restroom,
installing electric, water, sewer or a dump station. This effort will
require some additional study and a CRS. This area is close to the
Nature Center to allow campers to walk over and explore
everything the Nature Center has to offer and to connect to other
trails.
Development and implementation of this project will be contingent
upon consultation with BLM prior to construction.
Horse staging
area Renovations Medium 0.03
Equestrians sometimes have difficulty parking their large horse
trailers; an expansion or redesign will help alleviate the difficulty
with large trailer access. A step-up area will allow riders to mount
horses with ease. A shaded picnic area and restroom will allow
equestrians to rest or eat a lunch as part of their visit and may help
extend the number of hours a rider spends in the park. A 16x16
square foot corral and/or tie bars will allow riders to temporarily
secure their horses while using the area's amenities. Stabling
facilities for horse rentals may also be desired. These upgrades may
require a slight realignment of Mesquite Canyon Trail to make room
for new amenities.
Development and implementation of stabling facilities will be
contingent upon consultation with BLM prior to construction.
Youth Expansion Medium tbd
The Youth area receives a high level of use from scout groups or
other youth groups. Additional parking is needed and would also
benefit from an amphitheater or larger ramada to facilitate large
group activities. Redesigning the fire pit to accommodate these
groups is also needed.
Group Renovations Medium 0.0
Restroom upgrades.
Willow Renovations Low tbd
The Willow area is primarily used for smaller youth groups or
overflow camping. It is also used as a day use area during busy
holidays. This area is also used for tent camping. Additional parking
6-7

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
is needed and adding showers is desired. Making this area into a
one-way road may facilitate travel and parking needs.
Area 4 (north) Gravel and dirt storage lot Low 6.0
The area just north of Area 4 (near the pond and windmill) is
currently used to store landscaping gravel and fill dirt. These
materials should be moved to a more appropriate location closer to
the maintenance compound. The area should then be rehabilitated
and re-vegetated with native plantings.
Education/Interpretation
Location Description Priority Acres
Park-wide Educational and Interpretive Kiosks and Panels High 0.0
Much of the signage, kiosks, and interpretive panels are outdated
or worn. New signage shall be installed as needed throughout the
park and shall comply with the MCPRD Sign Manual. Additional
interpretive panels may be installed along trails or other opportune
areas to highlight unique features.
Pond Wildlife viewing blind Medium 0.018
A wildlife viewing blind near the pond will allow additional
educational opportunities and allow visitors to view wildlife with
minimal disruptions.
Wildlife Trail Convert to Barrier-free Medium 0.0
The scenic Wildlife Trail (0.2 mile) will be converted to barrier-free
or into a sensory trail to provide visitors using mobility assistance
devices or strollers another trail opportunity. Interpretive panels
may also be installed along the trail to highlight unique features.
Area 3 Convert to Kids Discovery Area Medium 0.0
The park has initial designs to renovate the area and improvements
are necessary after the trailer removal; design work includes
installing shade structures and interpretive stations. This will
provide additional educational opportunities for youth.
Competitive
Track Archery Medium tbd
AZGFD has approached the park about including an archery range.
The archery range will be set up within the Competitive Track
parking lot and will be removable for track event parking. Archery
programs in other parks have proven to be extremely successful
and would be done in partnership with AZGFD.
Area 3 “Living Laboratories” educational displays/programs Low 0.0
The area is currently underutilized as a picnic area, and its proximity
to the Nature Center provides a unique opportunity to utilize some
portion of the area as a "living laboratory" that will provide
additional educational opportunities. Utilizing additional signage
and interpretive panels or educational "stations" where educators
or Interpretive Rangers may lead classes will enhance the
educational experience.
Administrative
Location Description Priority Acres
Park-wide New signage, kiosks High 0.0
6-8

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
As signs wear out, they shall be replaced with new signage that
adheres to the MCPRD Sign Manual. Many kiosks are worn and
likewise need replacing.
Park-wide Develop partnership opportunities High n/a
The park shall continue to engage with the Town of Buckeye and
the City of Surprise for potential partnerships as well as with other
appropriate agencies. As adjacent land use changes, it’s critical to
form these partnerships early.
Park-wide Engage Friends group High n/a
Continue to build upon past success with Friends of White Tank to
explore fundraising activities and educational events. The park
should also seek out their assistance for park improvements and
park advocacy when appropriate.
Resource Protection
Location Description Priority Acres
Waterfall, Capacity: social, physical, environmental (requires study);
Area 4 Mixed-use Conflict (requires study) High n/a
As the most popular places in the park, these areas play host to
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.
Research is needed to determine the level of each type of use, the
expectations for that use type, ways the park may lessen those
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 ASU or other knowledgeable entities. Research
methods may include visitor survey, field monitoring, literature
review, aerial photography comparison, or other methods.
Park-wide Species inventory/census High n/a
Develop a plan for conducting a species inventory with 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.
Park-wide Protect wildlife corridor movement High n/a
MCPRD has consulted with AZGFD to identify existing wildlife
corridor areas. Wildlife is a vital component to the park's health and
MCPRD will plan its future park developments to accommodate
known wildlife movement patterns. MCPRD will continue to consult
with AZGFD.
Park-wide Encroachment High n/a
Encroachment was an issue noted in the park's 1964 Master Plan,
and is still an issue today. The park will continue to meet with
agencies and developers as needed to protect and maintain park
borders.
MCPRD has identified the majority of surrounding land as being
under the jurisdiction of Arizona State Land Department and will
work with the agency and future developers to acquire parcels of
6-9

________________________________________________Recommended Park Improvement Projects
land or easements that will strategically buffer the park from
encroachment. Acquisition will be based on a set of criteria that
identifies unique or critical parcels (i.e. rich in archaeological sites;
wildlife corridors; unique topography or assemblages of vegetation;
etc.). Additional fencing and signage may also be required to define
park boundaries or to repair damaged sections.
Waterfall,
Area 4,
Area 7 Landscaping improvements; Address drainage/erosion issues High n/a
As the most popular places in the park, additional landscaping will
offer additional shade, help with erosion, and improve the scenic
quality of the park. Landscaping in key areas will also provide a
natural buffer between picnic areas or playgrounds and parking
lots.
Park-wide Visual/Scenic Resource Protection (requires study) High n/a
As outside development grows closer to the park, it will also grow
increasingly important to protect the viewshed of the park.
Likewise, as the park develops within its own boundaries,
maintaining expansive views and vistas should be considered in all
planning and targeted viewpoints should be protected.
The Bradshaw-Harquahala Record of Decision and Approved
Resource Management Plan (April 22, 2010) (BH-RMP), a BLM
document that describes visual resource management criteria, has
designated areas within park boundaries as “Class II” and areas just
outside park boundaries as “Class IV”.
Research is needed to determine the type and location of key
scenic views within park boundaries. This study may be performed
by MCPRD staff or with the assistance of other knowledgeable
entities. Research methods may include GIS analysis, field
observations, photo monitoring, literature review, or other
methods.
Park-wide Water Plan (requires study) High n/a
AZGFD has suggested the park create a water plan to identify
existing water sources (ephemeral, tanajas, springs, catchments,
etc.) for wildlife and what would happen if those sources were cut
off due to encroachment. Wildlife is a vital component to the park's
health and MCPRD will develop this plan with the advice and
guidance of AZGFD or other knowledgeable entities. This may
include adding wildlife watering tanks at higher elevations.
Park-wide Lightscape Management Plan (LMP) High n/a
MCPRD will develop a Lightscape Management Plan that will
outline the parks 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” as its guideline. Appendix L provides more information.
Percentage Acres
ACRES OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1.750% 517.00
ACRES OF POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT 0.184% 54.41
TOTAL 1.934% 571.41
6-10

{This page intentionally left blank.}