ANNUAL REPORT Fiscal Year 2015 Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2 Arizona Water Protection Fund Creation and Purpose ....................................................... 3 Program Organization ......................................................................................................... 3 Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission ................................................................. 3 Arizona Water Protection Fund Administration ............................................................. 3 Table 1. Arizona Water Protection Fund Commissioners ………………………………..4 Accomplishments FY 2015................................................................................................. 5 FY 2015 Grant Cycle ...................................................................................................... 5 FY 2015 Active Grant Projects ....................................................................................... 6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………22 Appendix A: Map and List of AWPF Projects ................................................................. 23 Appendix B: Financial Statement ..................................................................................... 31 1|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Executive Summary The Arizona Legislature established the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) in 1994 (A.R.S. 45-2101 et seq.) In passing the legislation the Legislature declared that the policy of the state is to provide for a coordinated effort between state funding and locally led solutions for the restoration and conservation of the water resources of the state. The purpose of the AWPF is to provide monies through a competitive public grant process for implementation of measures to protect water of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain, enhance, and restore rivers and streams and associated riparian resources consistent with existing water law and water rights. The Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission (Commission), which oversees the AWPF, is comprised of 9 appointed citizen based voting members, 2 non-voting state agency ex-officio members, and 2 non-voting advisory members from the State Legislature. Commissioners represent a variety of land, water use and riparian perspectives. The AWPF was intended to be a proactive response to possible federal intervention in Arizona’s river and riparian resource issues. The program was partially created to promote the use of incentives emphasizing local implementation rather than regulation to address resource concerns. As such, the Commission’s philosophy has been to utilize a grass roots approach to improving river and riparian resources statewide. The program is operated through a competitive grant process that asks the public to propose local solutions rather than having the State dictate specific measures, priorities or areas of concern. Arizona’s water resources and associated riparian areas are important resources to the people of Arizona for a multiple of uses to include agriculture, recreation, wildlife habitat, residential and industrial uses. Proper land and watershed management strategies can make a profound difference in water quality and quantity, as well as, the economic and environmental values of our rivers and riparian ecosystems. From 1994 to 2014, the Commission has invested in 190 projects and contributed over $37 million toward the restoration, protection and enhancement of river and riparian resources in Arizona. As a result, Arizona citizens have realized many benefits from these investments through improvements in water quality, in-stream flows/water supplies, biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, flood control and overall watershed functionality and sustainability. In addition, important socioeconomic benefits such as jobs and revenue streams are realized by many local communities through the implementation of AWPF projects. In FY 2015 the grant application and manual was reviewed and the guidelines were updated as required in statute. The Commission is interested in drawing more applicants with proposals having a broader impact on the restoration and conservation of water resources in the state through watershed/landscape level projects. 2|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 The Commission is currently reviewing the applications received for FY 2015. A decision as to which applicants will be awarded funding will take place in August of 2015. Arizona Water Protection Fund Creation and Purpose The 1994 Arizona Legislature established the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) and the Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission (Commission) to administer the AWPF (A.R.S. § 45-2101 et seq.). In passing the enabling legislation, the Legislature declared that their policy was to provide for a coordinated effort for the restoration and conservation of the water resources of the state. The policy was designed to allow the people of Arizona to prosper while providing financial resources for the conservation and restoration of this State’s rivers, streams and associated riparian habitats, including dependent fish and wildlife resources. The law mandates that financial resources be available through grants to appropriate public and private entities to assist in water resource management activities that are consistent with that policy (A.R.S. § 45-2101 (A)). The primary purpose of the AWPF by statute is to provide an annual source of funds for the development and implementation of measures to protect water of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain, enhance and restore rivers, streams and associated riparian resources, including fish and wildlife resources that are dependent on these important habitats, consistent with existing water law and water rights. The Commission may also provide funding to develop and protect riparian habitats in conjunction with a man-made water resource project, if the man-made water resource project directly or indirectly benefits a river or stream and includes or creates a riparian habitat. Program Organization Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission The Commission is the main policy making body for the AWPF. The Commission is comprised of 9 voting members who must be Arizona residents and are appointed by various officials who, by statute, represent a variety of land, water use and socioeconomic perspectives. In addition, several of the appointed positions require technical expertise in water, natural resources and riparian ecology. There are also two non-voting ex officio members – the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Commissioner of the Arizona State Land Department and two non-voting advisory members from the Arizona State House of Representatives (1) and Arizona State Senate (1). A list of current Commissioners and vacancies is provided in Table 1. Legislation was introduced during FY 2013 to change the number of Commission members from 15 to 9 as well as a change to the representative categories. Arizona Water Protection Fund Administration The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) provides the primary technical, legal and administrative staff to the Commission. The AWPF is managed by its Executive Director under the direction of the Commission. Staffing for the program 3|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 during FY 2015 included an Executive Director, one legal counsel, and one finance administrator. Commission Member Name Statutory Category Represented – Affiliation Appointing Authority Paradzick, Charles * (1)Agricultural Improvement District -SRP Jacobs, Pat ** (1) Multi-County Water Conservation District – Central Arizona Project (CAP) Brick, Harold Paul (4) Natural Resource Conservation Districts – San Pedro Natural Resource Conservation District Speaker of the House of Rep. Macauley, Michael (4) Natural Resource Conservation Districts – Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District Senate President Pierpoint, Roy (4) Natural Resource Conservation Districts – Gila Bend, Natural Resource Conservation District Senate President Schock, William (1) Representative, AZ Natural Resource Conservation Districts State Association VACANT (4) Natural Resource Conservation Districts – VACANT (1) Indian Tribe Holmes, Mark (1) Member of the Public – B.S. Hydrology- City Service by CAP Buschatzke, Tom Atkins, Lisa Non-Voting Ex Officio Member Non-Voting Ex Officio Member Griffin, Gail Non-voting advisory member (1)AZ State Senate Brophy-McGee, Kate Non-voting advisory member (1)AZ House of Representatives Governor District Governing Board (CAWCD) Governor Speaker of the House of Rep. Intertribal Council of Arizona Governor Director, Department of Water Resources State Land Commissioner Senate President Speaker of the House of Rep. *Commission Chair **Commission ViceChair 4|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Accomplishments FY 2015 The acceptance of grant applications for FY 2015 closed in May of 2015. These applications have been posted on the website for public review, have been distributed to the Commissioners for review, and are currently under review by ADWR staff, outside agencies, natural resource professionals and applicable NRCD’s. In 2015, Arizona Water Protection Fund staff managed 16 active grant projects and provided technical assistance to grantees. Of these projects, four contracts were closed out after project completion (see project descriptions below). To date, the Commission has invested in 190 projects and contributed over $37 million toward the restoration, protection and enhancement of river and riparian resources in Arizona. A wide range of projects have been funded including but not limited to channel restoration, riparian revegetation, wetland creation/restoration, fencing and other grazing management improvements, upland restoration, erosion control, conservation education and applied ecological research. Arizona citizens have realized many benefits from these investments through improvements in water quality, in-stream flows/water supplies, biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, flood control and overall watershed health. Not only do communities rely on these watersheds and riparian areas for a general water source, but also for recreation, eco-tourism, fishing/hunting, birdwatching, and agricultural operations. Important socioeconomic benefits such as employment opportunities and increased revenue streams are realized by many local communities through the implementation of AWPF projects. Several of the projects completed and ongoing include the control of invasive species such as Tamarisk which is a fire hazard, effects soil nutrients, and consumes large amounts of water. A complete list of projects and a location map are included in Appendix A. FY 2015 Grant Cycle There were 8 grant applications received for FY 2015 for a total of $1,284,137.42 in funding requests. Of these, one application was eliminated during the screening process because it did not contain all of the required information. Of the remaining 7 applicants, all were categorized as capital improvements. 5|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 FY 2015 Active Grant Projects 07-141WPF: Picture Canyon Rio de Flag Meander Restoration Project Map # Grantee County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date 150 City of Flagstaff Coconino $582,279.00 June 30, 2016 Project Description: Phase I of this project has restored the fluvial processes of the Rio de Flag and enhanced the riparian corridor for habitat, recreation, and aesthetics in the Picture Canyon area. Specific objectives included restoring channel meander and floodplain function, eliminating noxious weeds, restoring native riparian and wetland plant communities, increasing plant species diversity, creating additional wetland habitats, improving water quality, increasing wildlife habitat, and providing recreational benefits. Phase II of this project will complete similar work in the upstream reach. 07-142WPF: Reduction of Erosion and Sedimentation along the Lower San Pedro River through Hydrologic Restoration of Modified Ephemeral Washes Map # 151 Grantee The Nature Conservancy County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Pinal $396,409.00 Completed Project Description: The project involved decommissioning of a ditch and berm, recontouring the transition between the uplands and the terrace, reconstructing two historic washes, and revegetation of native plant communities to stabilize all construction areas. Project implementation consisted of design plan development, channel excavation and filling, agricultural field/upland/terrace re-contouring, native vegetative seeding and irrigation, invasive/exotic species maintenance, and monitoring. Completion Summary & Lessons Learned: Due to drought conditions that persisted throughout the monitoring period, vegetation did not become established and resilient enough to forgo the need for supplemental irrigation. Some seeded species did better than others, notably mesquite, globemallow, sand dropseed, and saltbush. Indian wheat and creosote bush became established in numerous patches throughout the restoration area. However, overall plant cover did not meet expectations. Due to mechanical issues, supplemental irrigation was sporadic through 2013, after which a flood event damaged the supply pipeline from the well and no supplemental irrigation occurred. Grasses did not become established in the floodplain to the extent planned, largely due to drought conditions exacerbated by mechanical issues with supplemental irrigation equipment/ infrastructure. However, vegetation became established in patches, and restoration has resulted in a greater diversity of plant species on the site. Based on 6|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 monitoring results, the reconstructed channels appear to be stable and functioning as intended, with flows remaining confined to the reconstructed channels and natural hydrology restored. One location of primary concern, the culvert under SR 77, appears to be stable and functioning properly. Based on monitoring results, restoration appears to have successfully reduced erosion across the site. Aerial flight and field data show that some erosion and sedimentation have occurred, but erosion and sedimentation have been reduced overall, and no sheet flow events were observed during the monitoring period. Indian wheat did not successfully outcompete Russian thistle over the restoration site as a whole, primarily due to lack of establishment of this seeded species related to drought conditions and problems with the supplemental irrigation system. However, Indian wheat 15 became established in localized patches throughout the restoration site, and, in these patches, Russian thistle was absent or reduced in abundance. Due to lack of more widespread establishment of Indian wheat, the monitoring data are insufficient to assess whether this species can successfully outcompete Russian thistle on restoration sites. Additional monitoring may provide more conclusive data on long-term establishment of Indian wheat and its potential role in limiting the establishment or abundance of Russian thistle. There are elements of success associated with this restoration model and elements that warrant some changes in approach with regard to implementation. From an engineering standpoint, the project was successful because it restored natural hydrology to the site and reduced erosion and sedimentation. At the end of the monitoring period, there was no indication of any design failure in this regard. From the standpoint of vegetation establishment, success was limited due to drought conditions and problems with the supplemental irrigation system. Furthermore, the irrigation design used was not extensive enough to adequately cover the site, and the equipment was not sufficiently reliable to provide supplemental irrigation when needed. Future restoration projects should implement irrigation systems with these limitations in mind. The seed mix developed for the site appears to have been effective, with most seeded species becoming established to some extent. For future restoration projects, it is recommended that less mesquite be included in the seed mix because this species is pervasive throughout the area. It is further recommended that soil alkalinity be considered and that more alkaline tolerant species (e.g., saltbush, creosote bush, alkali sacaton) be included in the seed mix (or be more prominent in the seed mix). This should improve vegetation establishment in restoration sites with alkaline, gypsiferous soils. Overall, the project was successful in achieving the stated objectives. Restoration of the natural washes has prevented large-scale failure and further erosion of the berm and ditch system, has reduced erosion and sedimentation in the project area, and has restored the natural hydrology and geomorphology of the North and South Wash. Restoration of these 7|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 two washes has resulted in the creation of approximately 10 acres of riparian habitat within the low flow channel and overbank areas of these drainages, where flows were previously cut off by the irrigation ditch and berm system. Though vegetation establishment was limited at the end of the monitoring period, restoration of natural hydrology is expected to result in reestablishment of riparian vegetation over time along these washes. A final recommendation is to continue monitoring the restoration site, but on a less frequent (e.g., annual) basis. This would allow a better assessment of restoration success over the longer term, especially under more normal rainfall conditions. 08-155WPF: Restoration of the Gila River at Apache Grove Map # 164 Grantee Larry Barney County Greenlee AWPF Funding $771,048.00 Estimated Completion Date Completed Project Description: This project restored natural floodplain function by removing an existing partially breached levee, reducing the risks of lateral erosion and land loss, managing salt cedar, and improving riparian habitats and stream function along 1.6-miles of the Gila River in the Apache Grove area near Duncan. Proper stream geomorphology/channel characteristics were restored by allowing the main channel to reattach to its former floodplain thereby restoring floodplain conditions within the project area. The project also included mechanically excavating 3,000 feet of earthen levee and returning the ground to natural grade to restore natural flooding to the floodplain. A series of overbank hedgerows were designed and constructed in agricultural fields to allow for efficient harvesting of crops. Other project components included implementation of bank stabilization measures, invasive vegetative species management, native species revegetation, monitoring, fencing, livestock management, and public outreach. Waiting on Final Report. 08-157 WPF: Paria River Exotic Removal Project: Phase I Map # 166 Grantee Grand Canyon Trust County Coconino AWPF Funding $293,960.10 Estimated Completion Date Completed Project Description: This project is reducing non-native shrubs and trees along an 11mile reach of the Paria River to enhance native plant/animal communities. The project is 8|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 restoring and preserving natural conditions by decreasing the negative impacts of nonnative shrubs and trees such as tamarisk and Russian olive; as well as enhancing wildlife habitat by protecting and restoring native riparian vegetation through natural recruitment following treatment. Through volunteer removal efforts and outreach activities, the public is being educated about the importance of native vegetation to Arizona’s stream systems. Completion Summary & Lessons Learned: From March through May 2008, a site assessment and baseline monitoring transects were established over three one-week backpacking trips. Vegetation, soils, and active channel width measurements were collected at 32 transects in 2008 and 19 transects in 2013 and 2014. Ultimately, nine reference transects, seven treatment transects (tamarisk and/or Russian olive present) and three “beetle” transects (tamarisk and/or Russian olive present but not treated) were sampled post-treatment. Although the transects were originally further stratified according to whether the transect was located on a riparian terrace vs. the floodplain, we pooled these together for this analysis, since most (15) of the transects 1 The original grant proposal stated that Phase I of the project included “17 miles from the Arizona state line to 4 that were sampled were on the terraces and there are too few floodplain transects to consider them separately in the statistical analysis. In addition to the transect data, photopoints were installed in March 2008 and were retaken on a semiannual to annual basis throughout the project period. In total, GCT crews removed 28,030 tamarisk trees including 7532 seedlings, 16,049 saplings, and 4449 mature trees over the 5-year exotic removal phase of the project. Crews also removed 1601 Russian olive trees including 496 seedlings, 731 saplings and 374 mature trees. Crews removed 12,085 square meters of tamarisk canopy cover and 2430 square meters of Russian olive canopy cover for a total of 3.66 acres of exotic canopy. Crews removed 5877 exotic trees from the flood zone and 23,666 exotic trees from the terraces, for a total of 92.47 riparian acres. The vast majority of trees – over 91 percent – were treated via the cut stump method. Overall, tamarisk was completely removed from 6 miles of the Paria River project area and intermittently from transects along an additional 3.5 miles of project area, and Russian olive has been removed from over 10.5 miles of the project area. Site monitoring and maintenance will continue on an as needed basis. This site was extremely isolated and potentially hazardous. The weight and bulk of tools, herbicides, food, human waste, and other gear made logistics difficult. Risk management is very important to consider for a project such as this and should be carefully considered when undertaking restoration work in any remote environment. Thorough plans and protocols for communication and emergency response must be in place. We learned midway through the project that the Environmental Assessment approved herbicide, Triclopyr-based, is not as effective as Imazapyr-based products. Imazapyr is lighter in overall weight because it can be used in smaller concentration than Triclopyr. It is less toxic and does not pose the threat of irreversible eye damage that certain 9|Page Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Triclopyr-based herbicides do. Imazapyr is widely reported to be more effective at treating exotics, although we did not test that in the field. This data suggests that Triclopyr was effective with follow-up treatments. Herbicide applicator trainings for backcountry hand application projects could be improved to provide backcountry-specific information and hands-on training. This would make them more appropriate and costeffective. We observed substantial regrowth following initial treatments in many of the treatment areas but regrowth was considerably less following retreatment. Initial treatments in the flood zone were less effective than on benches and terraces. This could have been due to a number of factors, including possible differences in effectiveness between Garlon 3a and Garlon 4 Ultra, greater dynamism and resilience within the flood zone, or simply the tiny size of seedlings commonly found in the flood zone and the resulting difficulty in fully eradicating them. Similarly, it was often difficult to distinguish initial vs. retreatment of seedlings and saplings in the floodplain. Despite this, we did not see substantial differences between the two zones following retreatment. Thus, our data suggest that at least one, and more ideally two follow up treatments are necessary for treatment success, especially in the flood zones. In a backcountry setting, it is very important to have an appropriate ratio of herbicide sprayers to tree cutters. This helps assure that every cut stem and stump gets sprayed, and in a timely manner. We found that a 4:1 cutter-to-sprayer ratio was the largest manageable size. Smaller ratios can be even better, helping assure more accurate data collection if the rush to spray all cuts is reduced. It is also important to strike a balance between the amount of time spent digging out stumps buried in soil, litter and debris before cutting and spraying them and simply cutting them and moving on. Too much time spent digging rather than cutting and spraying can be counterproductive. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to tell an individual tamarisk from one that is partially buried with numerous branches above the soil surface. Protocols for making these judgments are difficult to develop and agree upon, but should be sought. It was therefore helpful and ultimately very valuable to quantify removal by both stems and canopy cover. Overall, we felt that cover estimates were more accurate and consistent than individual trees, again related to time-intensiveness and “what constitutes a single 47 plant” issues. These canopy cover estimates were also more accurate for quantifying regrowth percentages. We were not certain burning piles of slash from exotic removal had significant benefits because it also presented significant challenges. It takes greater care and effort to build piles and there was simply not enough room to burn them. There existed potential to burn unwanted areas, damage native vegetation, encourage recruitment of other exotic species (including red brome, cheatgrass, and Russian thistle), or leave unsightly scars. If done in a timely manner, burning in the floodplain was best since the scars wash away and the risk of encouraging the growth of subsequent exotic species was diminished. 10 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Due to the nature of the canyon, we were not able to establish physical benchmarks for our measures of active channel width and this proved problematic in terms of being able to accurately re-measure these features following treatments. Our baseline assessment data analysis highlighted substantial differences in the vegetation communities between flood zones and riparian terraces. Our post-treatment vegetation monitoring data suggest that changes beyond removal of exotics have been small and incremental and it will likely be many years before we can truly assess project success. In retrospect, we would have liked to have built in a longer time interval to conduct post-treatment monitoring into the original proposal and scope of work to ensure that funding was secure to conduct measurements on a time scale in which we can more definitively characterize project success. We learned several lessons establishing and retaking long-term photopoints for this project. More thought should be placed into the contract for the timing of base-line photo monitoring and the growth stage of the trees. Secondly, establishing long-term photopoints with college students was not a great decision. There are several segment photopoints that do not show a significant stand of tamarisk or Russian olive, due to the fact that the volunteers were new to this kind of task that requires careful thought. Another challenge was organizing and storing six years of repeat photography. The format in which we have them organized is not very easy to interpret. It is important to note that in remote backcountry settings, it is possible – even likely – that exotic removal projects will be more expensive and less productive than originally envisioned. Beyond actual exotic removal work, one of the biggest lessons we learned was that wilderness exotic removal projects are very logistically and risk intensive. 08-160WPF: Atturbury Wash Riparian Stewardship Project Map # Grantee 169 Tucson Audubon Society County Pima AWPF Funding $390,839.00 Estimated Completion Date March 31, 2016 Project Description: This project is implementing riparian restoration on an undeveloped .45-mile reach of the Atturbury Wash at Abraham Lincoln Regional Park in the City of Tucson. Atturbury Wash is an ephemeral waterway that flows in a northeasterly direction into Pantano Wash. Native revegetation, rainwater harvesting, and installation of check dams are the central elements of the restoration plans. 11 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 09-162: Middle Fossil Creek Riparian Habitat Protection and Restoration Map # 171 Grantee U.S Forest Service County Yavapai & Gila AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date $250,348.00 June 30,2015 Project Description: This project has restored riparian habitat, reduced sediment, improved water quality and protected cultural resources in Middle Fossil Creek through permanent removal of high-use dispersed campsites; ripping and reseeding of access roads located within the riparian zone; and the development of a communication plan to educate visitors about the importance of riparian resources. The project includes ongoing monitoring of riparian vegetation, water quality and visitor use. Waiting on Final Report. 09-165WPF: Alpine Ranger District Riparian Improvement Map # 174 Grantee National Wild Turkey Federation County Apache AWPF Funding $372,579.00 Estimated Completion Date September 30, 2015 Project Description: This project is now being implemented and is intended to improve water quality, riparian vegetation, wild turkey nesting and brood habitat, and threatened, endangered and sensitive species habitats on eight riparian sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. This project includes forest thinning, constructing fence exclosures, spring box restoration, and creek crossing modifications working in coordination with the U.S.D.A. Forest Service’s Alpine Ranger District. 11-173WPF: Invasive Weed Control – Gila River Corridor, Greenlee County Map # Grantee County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date 180 Coronado Resource Conservation and Development Area Greenlee $261,995.96 Completed Project Description: The Gila River channel, riparian area and flood plain through Greenlee County have been invaded by Russian knapweed, Hoary cress, Yellow starthistle, Malta starthistle and Bull thistle. Once established, these invasive weeds can create monocultures that significantly alter ecosystems, which degrade wildlife habitat and agricultural lands. Funding for this project is being used to implement a highly aggressive integrated weed management program that will restore and protect thirty miles of the Gila River and its associated riparian habitat in Greenlee County. 12 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 The project is implementing outreach activities to landowners and the general public with the goal of establishing Early Detection – Rapid Response teams that will be key to longterm control through identification, tracking and trending of invasive weeds. This will allow the community to proactively respond and eradicate any further outbreaks. The project compliments efforts by the Southwest New Mexico Weed Management Area, which is implementing a similar effort on their side of the state line. Completion Summary & Lessons Learned Noxious weed management in Greenlee County requires consistent and constant vigilance to maintain energy and attention for an effective program. The program transcends more than just the riverine corridor at this point. Management of uplands, whether farmlands or rangelands, is influencing long-term conditions within the riparian corridor. Consistency in integrating more than a herbicide application program with a more holistic approach is needed where various control practices are supported by expertise and grant funding concurrently. A part time position is warranted for the basic tasks of noxious weed inventory, mapping, and treatment covered in the Gila River Corridor Noxious Weed Control program, not considering effective outreach and communication along with long-term planning and execution of an integrated program. While the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and Coronado RC&D do a quality job in promoting basic education and information sharing about noxious weed identification and management, there is a need to maintain a continual one-on-one relationship between an on-ground person and an integrated program. Leadership at a local or county level is needed with regards to involvement of community (Town of Duncan, Clifton, Morenci) and agency (County, State, BLM and Forest Service) to ensure that integrated management is effective. Access for inventory and mapping requires a significant amount of time, and should be accomplished well in advance of the primary field season if possible. Several cooperators are involved in the eradication or control program for targeted noxious weeds using a variety of practices. While some cooperators have aggressively embraced the program, there exist large blocks of lands owned by separate individuals 51 that have little ongoing effort to manage noxious weeds. Most if not all of these parcels are infested with noxious weed species of concern. Many of these parcels are within the Gila River floodplain riparian corridor. The level of involvement with cooperators and local/county/state governments warrants a part time Greenlee County Noxious Weed position, similar to that funded in Grant County, who is a certified herbicide applicator and will operate separately from primary grant funded inventory/mapping programs. The magnitude and potential of the noxious weed infestation expansion, especially Whitetop, was accomplished for Greenlee County Supervisors in November, 2014. This information and education effort should occur for Graham county, as well as key organizations like Gila Valley Irrigation District, Franklin Irrigation District, and Freeport McMoran Inc. 13 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Given the occupancy of hundreds of acres within a protected riparian corridor, and location and aggressive expansion of Whitetop infestations (under riparian overstory canopy), neither hand nor aerial spraying is environmentally or economically feasible at this time for much of the infested acreages. New populations can be aggressively controlled with direct applications but existing infestations will be difficult if not impossible to control. Containment appears to be the most effective option. Integrated pest management options should be explored for the entire Duncan/Franklin/Sheldon/Apache Grove corridors, including prescribed and closely managed grazing programs to reduce the spread and vigor of Whitetop, and to a lesser extend Russian knapweed. A paradigm shift for the stabilization and re-vegetation of fallow or abandoned farmlands within the Duncan valley corridor should be considered and developed where abandoned farms are replanted into native grasslands, and included into productive but proactive grazing programs to reduce weed infestations including noxious weeds. Other program support for integrated pest management and noxious weed control should be pursued through various opportunities to assist cooperators who want to pursue integrated pest management options (grazing, mowing, and wildlife enhancement projects) for the control of targeted noxious weeds. Expand non-riparian related funding sources for a holistic approach for weed management. Example: Town of Duncan and Duncan Schools (County level) need to aggressively address the 6 acre parcel infected with Russian knapweed in the center of the town. There are substantial opportunities to involve the FFA and local community in integrated management of this noxious weed species, while demonstrating sound, sustainable agricultural practices that can apply to many adjacent farm and fallow lands in the valley. Containment of Whitetop and Russian knapweed will require establishment of a clearly defined line for aggressive control of noxious weeds expanding or potentially leaving Greenlee County. Inventory early in 2014 revealed that neither Whitetop nor Russian knapweed had moved into the York Valley area, though getting close at Apache Grove. Although natural barriers to movement may exist in the closed or box canyon area just north of Apache Grove, before entering York, it is likely that small populations may have been established following bank-full flooding in fall, 2014. It is recommended that the area in York and north should be designated as a “weed free” zone and receive focused inventory and control activities. Collecting data related to riparian corridor conditions using the developed methods for the Gila River Noxious Weed Control project was time consuming both in field work and data assimilation. A revised methodology is needed to address the specific concern about issues related directly to establishment, occupancy, and more importantly options for noxious weed control and/or management with the flood plain riparian corridor. At face value, the actual occupancy of riparian wetlands by Whitetop, for example, does not seem to be affecting the ability or functionality of the riparian ecosystem. The potential for completion with other riparian obligate herbaceous species is of primary concern, but the occupancy of other non-listed weed species like Kochia or Tumbleweed are a significant concern related to increasing the risk of wildfire. 14 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 11-174WPF: Eagle Creek Riparian Restoration at Filleman Crossing Map # Grantee County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date 181 Eagle Creek Riparian Restoration at Filleman Crossing Greenlee $265,776.00 Cancelled Project Description: This project will reduce downstream sedimentation and turbidity; and protect and enhance habitat for federally listed species by armoring a flood-prone road crossing located on the grantee’s private property along US Forest Service Road 217. Greenlee County has agreed, through an easement with the grantee, to maintain the crossing. In recent years the US Forest Service relocated most of the in-stream portion of the road crossing. The crossing is now much shorter, perpendicular to both banks, and typical of most stream crossings. Rock rip-rap, aggregate, geo-textile fabric, and gravel surfacing will be installed and compacted across the stream channel. In addition to containing native species, Eagle Creek at the project site is designated critical habitat for the Gila chub and the loach minnow. 11-176WPF: Double Circle Ranch Erosion Control Project, Phase II Map # Grantee County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date 183 Wilma Jenkins Greenlee $36,866.60 Completed Project Description: The Double Circle Ranch is a 37,000-acre ranch located in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. The ranch unit has an eight mile boundary within Eagle Creek. Portions of Eagle Creek have been designated as critical habitat for the Loach minnow and Spikedace, two federally protected native fish. The Grantee has implemented many successful projects on their ranch, including two from the AWPF (one erosion control project - 09-163WPF and one fencing project – 06-135WPF). This project is a continuation of work that was implemented with AWPF funding under Grant Number 09-163WPF, and included restoration of certain drainages that feed into Eagle Creek. Like the previous grant, three hands-on workshops (over two and a half days) are being conducted to utilize and educate volunteers on erosion control and restoration practices. By constructing small rock dams, media lunas, splash aprons, and armoring in eroding gullies to catch silt and soil, this project will reduce channel sediment loading, increase vegetation, and improve channel characteristics of the upland drainages. Completion Summary & Lessons Learned The consistent monitoring methods we used have shown improvement through our measurements and actual photo points at the worksites emphasize these improvements. 15 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 As a result of the enthusiastic participation by our volunteers during 3 workshops, our 4 years of monitoring records have shown a reduction in sediment flow towards Eagle Creek thereby benefiting aquatic habitat, increasing water infiltration with subsequent benefits to the water table, and an increase of productive soil which has improved forage for both livestock and wildlife. Monitoring methods were developed during the previously funded workshops to be easily repeated and consistently performed each year. All sites had permanent photo point locations and permanent measuring stick sites to show the actual changes in depth and width of each monitored site to prove sediment deposition. The final year recordings were a definite improvement across the entire 3 workshop sites, mainly due to an increase in rainfall resulting in increased sediment deposition and vegetation growth. Monitoring methods and procedures were sufficient to record the improvements resulting from our erosion control efforts. Now that we have completed 7 total workshops and constructed over 130 structures, if we were to complete any additional future workshops we would change 3 areas of our monitoring protocol. First we would use much more photography and photo points and less actual measurements to show the improvements. A series of photo points along the entire workshop site would provide “visual” proof of improvements, which people respond to much more positively. Second, monitoring using these photo points would be performed twice a year, after the spring and fall growing seasons. And third, rain gauges would be placed at each workshop site which would help explain variances in improvements between sites resulting from differences in rainfall totals. 11-179WPF: Inventory of Tamarisk Leaf Beetle and Effects on Riparian Habitat in the Colorado, Verde, Salt and Tonto Rivers Map # 185 Grantee Northern Arizona University County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Coconino $141,972.80 Completed Project Description: The use of Tamarisk leaf beetles, Diorhabda spp. as a potential biocontrol agent against tamarisk began in 1999. Beetles were released in Utah and Colorado in 2000 and since then its range has expanded to include Nevada, Texas, New Mexico and along the Colorado River in Arizona. The effect of defoliation by Tamarisk leaf beetles is likely to affect ecosystem processes, wildlife population dynamics and plant community structure. This project is expanding upon existing research currently being conducted along the Colorado River to include the Verde, Tonto and Salt Rivers. Each of these rivers has varying amounts of tamarisk cover, but do provide habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo. The project includes ground surveys to sample for presence and identification of beetle species, measuring microclimate parameters, 16 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 estimating plant cover and identifying plant species, including nonnative plants that may benefit from defoliation. Completion Summary & Lessons Learned In 2011 2012 and 2013, three tamarisk leaf beetle sampling trips were conducted to survey for tamarisk leaf beetle. Sampling results indicate that the beetle is present along the Colorado River from Lee’s Ferry to Glen Canyon Dam, but absent from the sites along Tonto Creek, Verde River, Upper Salt River and Lower Salt River. As noted in 2011, the north rim drainages of Grand Canyon may be a source for these beetle population expansions along the Colorado River sites, particularly the Paria Canyon drainage. The Little Colorado River within the Navajo Reservation, which includes; northern tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) and the Rio Grande River in Texas and New Mexico which includes; Mediterranean tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongata), larger tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda carniata) and subtropical tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda sublineata) may all be the sources of this population expansion into the central and southern Arizona sites. Tamarisk leaf beetle expansion into central and southern Arizona (Verde River, Tonto Creek, upper and lower Salt River), where this study was conducted, is expected for 2017 (Tracy et al. 2014). The reduction in tamarisk cover in riparian areas, by beetle defoliation will pave the way for changes in plant community composition and structure, with consequent effects on wildlife populations and ecosystem processes (such as wildfire, hydrological dynamics, and sediment dynamics). Extensive defoliation of tamarisk caused by tamarisk leaf beetles and the resulting widespread loss of riparian vegetation may have a considerable impact on birds that breed in riparian regions dominated by tamarisk. In St. George, UT, Southwestern Willow Flycatchers demonstrated lowered site fidelity the year after tamarisk defoliation from the tamarisk leaf beetle negatively impacted flycatcher nesting success (Dobbs et al. 2012, Johnson and Nowak 2014). Along the 54 Virgin River at Mesquite, both reduced site fidelity and lower numbers of resident flycatchers were recorded in response to reduced nest success and habitat quality as the result of poor habitat conditions due to the beetle (McLeod and Pellegrini 2013). A similar pattern of reduced site fidelity and lower numbers of breeding flycatchers at Mormon Mesa, Nevada in 2013 was also observed in response to the poor reproductive success and lower habitat quality due to the beetle documented in both 2012 and 2013 (McLeod and Pellegrini 2013). Due to the habitat changes from the tamarisk leaf beetle many bird species may attempt breeding, possibly in reduced quality habitat; or they could spend the breeding season as nonbreeding residents, ultimately affecting overall populations. Many herpetofauna species may decline in tamarisk that are defoliated region-wide as a result of localized changes in microclimate, (i.e. increased maximum active-season temperatures and decreased relative humidity in defoliated stands; Bateman et al. 2013, 2014). The near-term trophic effects on lizard communities in response to defoliation may be mixed, including both positive (expanded diet) and negative (decreased abundance and/or activity) outcomes. Longer term, removal of tamarisk may provide 17 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 opportunities for native re-vegetation (Shafroth et al. 2005, Bateman et al. 2008), so the changes in lizard communities seen as a result of defoliation in areas such as Virgin River drainage may be temporary. If native or non-native forbs, shrubs, and trees recolonize defoliated areas, we would expect corresponding increases in relative humidity and decrease maximum temperatures, potentially increasing habitat suitability for lizards that had previously declined. Continuing monitoring of the established tamarisk leaf beetle vegetation and microclimate plots on the Colorado River, Verde River, Tonto Creek, upper and lower Salt River would be highly recommended. Long term monitoring of these plots will provide valuable data at the Colorado River sites that have been impacted by the beetle and will likely see major changes to riparian habitat. These changes will likely be from repeated defoliation of the tamarisk trees and ultimately mortality. The Verde River, Tonto Creek and Salt River sites do not currently have tamarisk leaf beetles and therefore continued monitoring at these sites will provide valuable baseline data upon the arrival of the beetle. Organisms inhabiting riparian woodlands of the southwest United States are species likely tolerant of habitat changes following decades of tamarisk establishment. Because long-term effects of tamarisk biocontrol (i.e. tamarisk leaf beetle) could depend on geographic extent and on how quickly various species of plants establish after defoliation (Shafroth et al. 2005; Sogge et al. 2008), we also suggest future monitoring the effects of tamarisk leaf beetles include sites in Arizona with greater proportions of native riparian trees and across the geographic range of tamarisk. As other vegetation establishes and increases, foliar cover may recover to prebiocontrol conditions, therefore, long-term studies of flora (vegetation plots) and fauna (avian fauna and herpetofauna) following biocontrol establishment could provide a more complete view of indirect effects of tamarisk biocontrol. Restoration through tamarisk biocontrol can represent an alternative to more costly management efforts, such as mechanical removal or herbicide use. But, the long-term trend for understanding how biocontrol affects ecosystem function (e.g., vegetation growth and structure) will be critical to managing habitats and wildlife impacted by biocontrol. The availability of native habitat and the degree to which wildlife use exotic habitats, such as those dominated by tamarisk, should be considered when managing using biocontrol (Paxton et al. 2011). And therefore we suggest incorporating restoration activities to increase native tree cover in areas likely to be affected by tamarisk biocontrol. 11-180WPF: Pakoon Wash and Pakoon Springs Restoration and Enhancement Project Map # 186 Grantee USDI Bureau of Land Management County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Mohave $306,353.00 August 31, 2016 18 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Project Description: Pakoon Springs has been identified as one of the largest and most important spring complexes on the Arizona Strip. This project is a continuation of work that was implemented with AWPF funding under Grant Number 06-137WPF, which restored the Pakoon Springs and stream channel complex to natural conditions. The agricultural irrigation conveyances have been removed and the land has been recontoured and revegetated resulting in multiple restored natural spring features. Perennial flows were reestablished into Pakoon Wash after flows were redirected. As a result, the largest perennial stream in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument was recreated. That AWPF funded project was recently selected by the BLM as the most successful conservation partnership of the Conservation Lands System. This project is to continue removal of non-native species, reestablish vegetated historic floodplain conditions, restore proper ecosystem function, enhance project monitoring, collaborate with other habitat and fish and wildlife management agencies, develop strategies for translocation of significant rare native species, and develop a unique field site for education and interpretation efforts in this important area. The channel will be recontoured to restore natural stream function. Bullfrog eradication will continue and translocation of two high priority native species includes the rare native relict leopard frog. 11-181WPF: Hidden Slough and Leopard Frog Marsh Restoration in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, AZ Map # 187 Grantee Grand Canyon Wildlands Council County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Coconino $348,901.00 March 31, 2016 Project Description: This project is a 3 year effort initiated by the grantee to assist the National Park Service (NPS) by undertaking riparian restoration and monitoring in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area downstream from Glen Canyon Dam at two sites. The sites are Hidden Slough, located at river mile 6.5Right, and Leopard Frog Marsh at River Mile 9Left. The grantee has implemented many successful projects in Glen and Grand Canyons including tamarisk control and revegetation of 6 acres at Hidden Slough from 2008 to 2010 and they have constructed a native plant nursery at Lee’s Ferry. This project will quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the recent tamarisk removal and revegetation at Hidden Slough, complete tamarisk control, complete the native revegetation process, phase out the on-site irrigation infrastructure, and develop and test a monitoring program for the NPS. The results of these activities are to guide restoration at Leopard Frog Marsh, which will include habitat restoration planning, tamarisk control, native revegetation and reintroduction of the Northern leopard frog on approximately 1 to 1.5 acres. 19 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 14-182WPF: Arundo Eradication & Riparian Restoration of Sabino and Bear Creek, Tucson, AZ Map # 188 Grantee University of Arizona County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Pima $51,262.00 February 28, 2018 Project Description: This proposal builds upon a six year effort of Arundo donax removal that began in Sabino Canyon Recreation Area in 2007 and that has fully removed the Arundo infestation from the Recreation Area and 1.71 miles of mostly private riparian land downstream from the Forest Service boundary. Arundo donax or giant reed/cane is a non-native plant to the United States that has become invasive along well-watered riparian areas throughout many Western states. Arundo degrades the riparian zone by choking native sycamore and mesquite trees with its rapid rate of growth and vast consumption of water, nutrients, and sunlight. Arundo is a fire hazard and provides no food to riparian dwellers. Previous removal efforts have proven effective, but still 2.58 miles of channel remains to be cleared down to the confluence of the Pantano and Rillito Washes. The three main goals: 1.Remove invasive Arundo donax from Sabino and Bear Creeks; 2.Improve conditions for riparian vegetation and wildlife; 3. Improve transmissions of flood flows. The objectives are: 1.Clear Pima County parcels in Upper and Lower Bear Creek; 2.Clear Canyon Ranch Resort/DeBernardis property along Middle Sabino Creek; 3.Clear Tankersley Estates property along Middle Sabino Creek; 4.Clear infestations in Lower Sabino Creek to the confluence of the Rillito; 5.Monitor previously cleared reaches of Sabino and Bear Creeks. 14-184WPF: Date Creek Riparian Restoration Project Map # 190 Grantee Date Creek Ranch County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Yavapai $147,877.00 February 28, 2018 Project Description: Date Creek is one of Arizona’s unique desert streams with high potential to produce high quality riparian habitats. Date Creek is a tributary to Santa Maria River and part of the Bill Williams River watershed in southwestern Yavapai County, Arizona. Recent habitat assessments have revealed three major problems affecting the functional health of Date Creek: tamarisk, a recent invader, has encroached on many areas and has established to form mature stands; the active channel is unstable as a result of excessive bed load, unrouted flows, and lack of freeboard caused by the invasion of various woody plant and flood debris accumulated over several floods; the native herbaceous aquatic plant composition is impoverished. This project is focused on establishing essential stream functions that lead to having a more stable and productive stream ecosystem. The project consists of four major phases: 20 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 1) Conduct a complete assessment, 2) Removal of invasive and undesirable species, 3) Establishment of channel control structures, 4) Establishment of essential obligate graminoids. This effort will include monitoring to document habitat changes. 14-185WPF: Horseshoe Draw Flood Control, Restoration and Erosion Mitigation Study and Design Project Map # 191 Grantee Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District County AWPF Funding Estimated Completion Date Cochise $198,625.00 March 31, 2016 Project Description: The Horseshoe Draw Project will take place on the Ladd Ranch, located outside of Sierra Vista, Arizona. The project will benefit the San Pedro River, the watershed and aquifer recharge. Head-cutting at Horseshoe Draw has caused severe erosion and therefore masses of sediment to be transferred downstream into the San Pedro River. The project will consist of three phases. Phase I requires an engineering company to perform a feasibility study to determine the best method to prevent further soil erosion, control flooding and runoff, and prevent soil loss on the watershed. A preliminary look at the area determined a berm structure would be most suitable; however, this study is required to determine the proper structure or structures needed, and which would be most suitable, as well as the most effective locations for the construction of the berm(s). A berm structure would control the flow of water runoff, which is especially important during intermittent and intense seasonal flooding. Phase II includes a final project design based on findings from Phase 1. Phase III would be construction, which is not being funded through this grant award. 21 | P a g e Arizona Water Protection Fund – Annual Report FY 2015 Conclusion In the upcoming fiscal year, the Commission and staff will continue to make substantial progress toward the restoration, protection and enhancement of river and riparian resources throughout the State. For the last several years, primary funding for this program has come from CAP in lieu funds pursuant to §48-3715.05. It is anticipated that these funds will no longer be available after 2016 or perhaps before. This funding source has been steadily declining since 2008 and this issue will need to be further addressed in the coming year. The Commission is committed to approving projects that are fiscally responsible and beneficial to the citizens of Arizona. All final reports for funded projects from 2007-2014 can be viewed on the WPF website: www.azwpf.gov. Final reports generated prior to 2007 can be requested from the Executive Director of the Water Protection Fund. 22 | P a g e Appendix A: Map and List of AWPF Projects The Map and List of AWPF Projects contain a compilation of grants awarded between FY 1995 - 2014 that have been implemented through contracts and had expenditures made against the grant award. . 23 | P a g e 24 | P a g e List of AWPF Projects with Map Key Map # Grant # Project Title 1 95-001 Stable Isotope Assessment of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction: Application to the Verde River Headwaters 2 3 95-002 95-003 Partnership for Riparian Conservation in Northeastern Pima County (PROPIMA) Sycamore Creek Riparian Management Area 4 95-004 5 95-005 Road Reclamation to Improve Riparian Habitat Along the Hassayampa and Verde Rivers Preservation of the San Pedro River Utilizing Effluent Recharge 6 7 8 9 95-006 95-007 95-008 95-009 Critical Riparian Habitat Restoration along a Perennial Reach of a Verde River Tributary High Plains Effluent Recharge Project Picacho Reservoir Riparian Enhancement Project Regeneration and survivorship of Arizona Sycamore 10 95-010 Assessment of the Role of Effluent Dominated Rivers in Supporting Riparian Functions 11 12 13 95-012 95-014 95-015 The Comprehensive Plan for the Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Gila Box Riparian and Water Quality Improvement Project San Pedro RNCA Watershed Rehabilitation/Restoration Project 14 15 95-016 95-017 Refinement of Geologic Model, Lower Cienega Basin, Pima County, Arizona Restoration of Fossil Creek Riparian Ecosystem 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 95-018 95-019 95-020 95-021 95-022 95-023 95-024 Autecology and Restoration of Sporobolus Wrightii Riparian Grasslands in Southern Arizona Quantifying Anti-Erosion Traits of Streambank Graminoids Teran Watershed Enhancement Lofer Cienega Restoration Project Gooseberry Watershed Restoration Project Sabino Creek Riparian Ecosystem Protection Project Potrero Creek Wetland Characterization and Management Plan 23 24 25 96-0001 96-0002 96-0003 26 96-0004 27 96-0005 28 29 30 31 96-0006 96-0007 96-0008 96-0009 32 96-0010 San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Watershed Protection and Improvement Project Completion Phase: Hi-Point Well Project Hoxworth Springs Riparian Restoration Project Hydrologic Investigation & Conservation Planning: Pipe Springs Tres Rios-River Management and Constructed Wetlands Project Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Movement and Sources of Base Flow to Sonoita Creek and Implementation of Long-Term Monitoring Program Ash Creek Riparian Protection Project Watson Woods Vegetation Inventory Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Visitor Management Rehabilitating the Puertocito Wash on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Grant Amount County Project Status $21,508.00 YAVAPAI Closed $78,100.00 $115,522.00 PIMA MARICOPA Closed Closed $45,693.00 YAVAPAI Closed $333,863.00 COCHISE Closed $102,535.00 $189,000.00 $2,400,000.00 $34,617.00 COCONINO PIMA PINAL COCHISE Closed Closed Closed Closed $46,750.00 MARICOPA Closed $33,267.34 $157,223.00 $286,000.00 YAVAPAI GREENLEE COCHISE Closed Closed Closed $7,390.00 $59,693.00 PIMA YAVAPAI Closed Closed $53,734.00 $14,910.00 $142,378.38 $161,204.00 $126,406.00 $16,385.00 $75,300.00 COCHISE GILA COCHISE APACHE APACHE PIMA SANTA CRUZ Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed $89,250.00 $77,844.40 $31,545.00 COCHISE COCONINO COCONINO Closed Closed Closed $50,000.00 MOHAVE Closed MARICOPA Closed $155,715.00 $19,248.00 $16,115.00 $8,556.79 SANTA CRUZ YAVAPAI YAVAPAI YAVAPAI Closed Closed Closed Closed $83,432.00 PIMA Closed $1,000,000.00 25 | P a g e List of AWPF Projects with Map Key 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 96-0011 96-0012 96-0013 96-0014 96-0015 96-0016 96-0017 96-0018 96-0019 96-0020 43 96-0021 44 45 46 96-0022 96-0023 96-0025 47 48 96-0026 97-027 49 97-028 50 97-029 51 97-030 52 53 54 55 Lower Colorado River - Imperial Division Restoration Eagle Creek Watershed and Riparian Stabilization Happy Valley Riparian Area Restoration Project Klondyke Tailings Response Strategy Analysis (RSA) Abandonment of an Artesian Geothermal Well 'Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Big Sandy River Riparian Project San Carlos Spring Protection Project Response of Bebb Willow to Riparian Restoration Cienega Creek Stream Restoration Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channel Changes Associated with Water Management along the Bill Williams River Saffell Canyon and Murray Basin Watershed Restoration Project Watershed Restoration at the Yuma Conservation Gardens Tsaile Creek Watershed Restoration Demonstration Riparian Restoration on the San Xavier Indian Reservation Community Lyle Canyon Allotment Riparian Area Restoration Project Creation of a Reference Riparian Area in the Gila Valley – Discovery Park Demonstration Enhancement of Riparian Zone and Stream Channel along stretch of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post $435,928.00 $80,626.00 $64,697.00 $77,614.00 $113,360.00 $1,131,477.00 $92,000.00 $131,540.00 $33,752.00 $210,700.00 YUMA GRAHAM COCHISE GRAHAM GRAHAM LA PAZ MOHAVE GILA COCONINO PIMA Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed $14,788.00 MOHAVE Closed $24,316.00 $31,050.00 $152,775.00 APACHE YUMA APACHE Closed Closed Closed $591,319.00 $60,359.57 PIMA COCHISE Closed Closed $182,000.00 GRAHAM Closed $91,110.00 APACHE Closed $50,580.00 YAVAPAI Closed 97-031 97-032 97-033 97-034 Walnut Creek Center for Education and Research - Biological Inventory Lincoln Park Riparian Habitat Project (f.k.a. Atturbury Wash Project) 'Ahakhav Tribal Preserve - Deer Island Revegetation Proctor Vegetation Modification Oak Tree Gully Stabilization $154,580.00 $228,800.00 $11,487.00 $42,491.00 PIMA LA PAZ PIMA PIMA Closed Closed Closed Closed 56 97-035 Watershed Improvement to Restore Riparian & Aquatic Habitat on the Muleshoe Ranch CMA $128,315.00 COCHISE Closed 57 58 97-036 97-037 Stable Isotopes as Tracers of Water Quality Constituents in the Upper Gila River Talastima (Blue Canyon) Watershed Restoration Project $27,338.00 $310,192.00 GRAHAM COCONINO Closed Closed 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 97-038 97-040 97-041 97-042 97-044 97-045 98-046 98-047 98-049 $117,028.00 $84,679.00 $88,730.00 $207,595.00 $336,127.00 $100,445.00 $20,300.00 $115,300.00 $54,850.00 MARICOPA PIMA PIMA PINAL PINAL SANTA CRUZ APACHE YAVAPAI PIMA Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed 68 69 98-050 98-051 Tres Rios Wetlands Heavy-Metal Bioavailability and Denitrification Investigation Bingham Cienega Riparian Restoration Project Altar Valley Watershed Resource Assessment Queen Creek Restoration & Management Plan San Pedro River Preserve Riparian Habitat Restoration Project Santa Cruz Headwaters Project EC Bar Ranch Water Well Project Upper Verde Adaptive Management Unit Empire/Cienega/Empirita Fencing Project Watershed Restoration Of A High-Elevation Riparian Community Evaluation of Carex Species for Use in Riparian Restoration $304,775.00 $47,907.00 COCONINO COCONINO Closed Closed 70 98-052 Tritium As A Tracer Of Groundwater Sources And Movement In The Upper Gila River Drainage $41,028.00 GRAHAM Closed 26 | P a g e List of AWPF Projects with Map Key 98-054 98-055 98-057 Fluvial Geomorphology Study And Demonstration Projects To Enhance And Restore Riparian Habitat On The Gila River From The New Mexico Border Horseshoe Allotment: Verde Riparian Project II Upper Verde Valley Riparian Area Historical Analysis $449,872.00 $82,561.99 $44,019.00 GRAHAM YAVAPAI YAVAPAI Closed Closed Closed 74 98-058 Effects Of Removal Of Livestock Grazing On Riparian Vegetation And Channel Conditions of Selected Reaches of the Upper Verde River $116,500.00 YAVAPAI Closed 75 76 98-059 98-061 Verde River Headwaters Riparian Restoration Demonstration Project Watershed Enhancement on the Antelope Allotment $204,629.00 $137,307.00 COCONINO MOHAVE Closed Closed 77 78 79 80 98-062 98-066 99-067 99-068 Partnership For Riparian Conservation In Northeastern Pima County II Hay Mountain Watershed Rehabilitation EC Bar Ranch Wildlife Drinker Project Lower Cienega Creek Restoration Evaluation Project $54,734.55 $116,525.00 $30,500.00 $83,272.00 PIMA COCHISE APACHE PIMA Closed Closed Closed Closed 81 99-069 Riparian and Watershed Enhancements On the A7 Ranch Lower San Pedro River $521,197.45 COCHISE Closed 82 99-070 Lyle Canyon Allotment Riparian Area Restoration Project --Phase 2 $214,211.00 SANTA CRUZ Closed 83 99-071 Protection Of Spring and Seep Resources of The South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park By Measuring Water Quality, Flow and Associated Biota $238,953.00 COCONINO Closed 84 85 99-072 99-073 Leopard Frog Habitat and Population Conservation At Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Colorado River Nature Center Backwater ---- Phase 2 $120,485.00 $41,500.00 PIMA MOHAVE Closed Closed 86 87 99-074 99-075 Proposal to Inventory, Assess And Recommend Recovery Priorities For Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps and Natural Ponds Glen and Grand Canyon Riparian Restoration Project $101,856.00 $371,285.00 COCONINO COCONINO Closed Closed 88 89 99-076 99-077 Watson Woods Preserve Herpetological Interpretive Guide and Checklist Blue Box Crossing $31,255.55 $150,000.00 YAVAPAI GREENLEE Closed Closed 90 91 92 93 99-078 99-079 99-080 99-083 Aquifer Framework And Ground-Water Flow Paths In Big and Little Chino Basins Little Colorado River Riparian Restoration Project Cortaro Mesquite Bosque Cherry Creek Enhancement Demonstration Project $188,140.00 $404,587.00 $486,650.00 $263,225.00 YAVAPAI APACHE PIMA GILA Closed Closed Closed Closed 94 95 96 97 98 99-084 99-085 99-086 99-087 99-088 Assessments of Riparian Zones in the Little Colorado River Watershed Kirkland Creek Watershed Resource Assessment Abandonment of Gila Oil Syndicate Well #1 Rillito Creek Habitat Restoration Project Wickenburg High School Stream Habitat Creation $79,443.50 $131,430.00 $333,790.00 $293,000.00 $69,100.00 NAVAJO YAVAPAI GRAHAM PIMA MARICOPA Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed 99 100 99-089 99-090 Town of Eagar/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design Redrock Riparian Improvement $320,540.00 $62,350.00 APACHE SANTA CRUZ Closed Closed 101 102 99-091 99-092 Effects of Livestock Use Levels on Riparian Trees on the Verde River Little Colorado River Enhancement Demonstration Project $41,417.00 $348,627.94 YAVAPAI APACHE Closed Closed 71 72 73 27 | P a g e List of AWPF Projects with Map Key 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 99-093 99-094 99-095 99-096 99-097 99-098 00-099 00-100 111 00-101 Coconino Plateau Regional Water Study Santa Cruz River Park Extension Brown Creek Riparian Restoration Upper Santa Cruz Watershed Restoration Dakini Valley Riparian Project Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project Gila Reference Riparian Area, Discovery Park Willow Creek Riparian Restoration Project Murray Basin and Saffell Canyon Watershed Restoration Project 112 113 00-102 00-103 Upper Eagle Creek Restoration on East Eagle Allotment of Four Drag Ranch Riparian Restoration on the Santa Cruz River - Santa Fe Ranch 114 00-104 115 00-105 116 117 118 119 $134,200.00 $434,684.00 $34,037.00 $184,950.00 $66,130.00 $950,408.00 $152,850.80 $33,480.00 COCONINO PIMA APACHE SANTA CRUZ GILA MARICOPA GRAHAM MOHAVE Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed $260,727.83 APACHE Closed $66,330.00 $49,008.00 GREENLEE SANTA CRUZ Closed Closed $69,349.00 APACHE Closed $81,951.00 APACHE Closed 00-106 00-108 00-109 00-110 Continued Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site Hubbell Trading Post Riparian Restoration with Treated Effluent Tres Alamos Ranch Dirt-Tanks-To-Aquatic-Habitat Conversion Lake Mary Watershed Streams Restoration Project Lower San Pedro Watershed Project Upper Fairchild Draw Riparian Restoration $69,220.56 $253,119.00 $249,871.00 $35,515.00 YAVAPAI COCONINO PIMA COCONINO Closed Closed Closed Closed 120 00-111 Cooperative Grazing Management For Riparian Improvement on the San Pedro $228,701.00 PINAL Closed 121 122 123 00-112 00-113 00-114 Town of Eagar/Round Valley Water Users Assoc. - Additional Mapping For Water Quality Improvements in the Watershed Polacca Wash Grazing Management The Papago Park Green Line Project $151,829.00 $267,511.00 $229,152.00 APACHE NAVAJO MARICOPA Closed Closed Closed 124 125 126 127 00-115 03-116 03-117 03-118 Tucson Audubon Society North Simpson Farm Riparian Recovery Project Cottonwood Creek Restoration Lynx Creek Restoration at Sediment Trap #2 Verde River Riparian Area Partnership Project $127,409.30 $185,772.50 $179,771.50 $111,221.00 PIMA COCHISE YAVAPAI YAVAPAI Closed Closed Closed Closed 128 03-119 Wet Meadows for Water Quality and Wildlife - A Riparian Restoration Project $137,027.30 APACHE Closed 129 130 04-120 04-121 $46,634.00 $266,020.00 YAVAPAI YAVAPAI Closed Closed 131 04-122 Verde Headwaters 3-D Hydrogeological Model Framework and Visualization Lynx Creek Restoration Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Restoration Feasibility Project $183,523.80 YAVAPAI Closed 132 133 04-123 04-124 Tucson Audubon Society, Santa Cruz River Habitat Project, North Simpson Site, Phase 2 Yuma East Wetlands Riparian Revegetation Project $130,786.00 $285,878.25 PIMA YUMA Closed Closed 134 135 136 137 138 139 05-125 05-126 05-127 05-128 05-129 05-130 Wilkins' Family Little Colorado River Riparian Enhancement Project X Diamond Ranch LCR Riparian Enhancement Project EC Bar Ranch Reach 8 Water Well and Drinker Project Canyon Creek Riparian Restoration Project, Reach 4-5 Georges Lake Riparian Restoration Project Riparian Restoration on the San Xavier District - Project Two $293,618.00 $352,119.00 $22,235.00 $106,919.00 $168,636.50 $36,353.00 APACHE APACHE APACHE GILA APACHE PIMA Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed 28 | P a g e List of AWPF Projects with Map Key 140 141 142 05-131 05-132 05-133 Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park Esperanza Ranch Riparian Restoration Project Verde Wild and Scenic River Fence Exclosure 143 144 145 146 05-134 06-135 06-136 06-137 Quechan Indian Nation Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project - Phase I Double Circle Ranch Riparian Fencing Project The Arboretum at Flagstaff Wetland Habitat Enhancement Pakoon Springs Restoration Design and Implementation Project $263,803.25 $84,448.00 $116,000.00 $262,103.00 YUMA GREENLEE COCONINO MOHAVE Closed Closed Closed Closed 147 148 06-138 06-139 Management and Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs, and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park - Second Year of Phase II Coal Mine Fence $258,397.00 $187,013.00 COCONINO SANTA CRUZ Closed Closed 149 150 06-140 07-141 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project - Phase I Picture Canyon Rio De Flag Meander Restoration Project $256,790.00 $330,225.00 YUMA COCONINO Closed Active 151 07-142 Reduction of Erosion and Sedimentation along the Lower San Pedro River Through Hydrologic Restoration of Modified Ephemeral Washes $396,409.00 PINAL Closed 152 07-143 Little Colorado River & Nutrioso Creek Riparian Enhancement Project $198,996.00 APACHE Closed 153 154 155 07-144 07-145 07-146 Evaluation of Riparian Habitat and Headcutting on Lower Cienega Creek Kaler Ranch Erosion Control Project, Phase II Little Colorado River Project on H-Y Ranch River Property $23,972.00 $284,332.00 $53,000.00 PIMA GREENLEE NAVAJO Closed Closed Closed 156 157 158 159 07-147 07-148 07-149 07-150 The Effects of Restoration on Wildlife Recovery at the Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project South Channel Phase II Restoration Project Control of Tamarisk on 12 Miles of the Upper Verde River Fairchild Draw Riparian Restoration Project $68,016.00 $603,487.00 $366,390.00 $172,674.00 YUMA YUMA YAVAPAI COCONINO Closed Closed Closed Closed 160 161 08-151 08-152 Test of Riparian Recovery Following Cessation of Groundwater Pumping, Lower San Pedro AWPF Yuma East Wetlands 68-acre Riparian Revegetation $61,795.00 $746,667.60 PINAL YUMA Closed Closed 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 08-153 08-154 08-155 08-156 08-157 08-158 08-159 08-160 08-161 $156,833.40 $248,826.00 $744,747.00 $296,708.00 $293,960.10 $798,988.00 $142,543.20 $390,839.00 $296,155.00 YUMA NAVAJO GREENLEE YUMA COCONINO YAVAPAI COCONINO PIMA YAVAPAI Closed Closed Active Closed Closed Closed Closed Active Closed 171 172 173 174 09-162 09-163 09-164 09-165 $250,348.00 $35,356.00 $118,125.00 $372,579.00 GILA GREENLEE SANTA CRUZ APACHE Active Closed Closed Closed The Effects of Restoration on Herpetofaunal and Mammalian Community Recovery Billy Creek Natural Area Riparian Restoration Project Restoration of the Gila River at Apache Grove Cocopah Colorado River Restoration Paria River Exotic Removal Project - Phase I Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Restoration Project Hoxworth Springs Stream Channel Restoration Project Atturbury Wash Riparian Stewardship Project Montezuma Well Riparian Pasture Restoration Project Middle Fossil Creek Riparian Habitat Protection and Restoration Double Circle Ranch Erosion Control Project Babocomari River Riparian Protection Project Alpine Ranger District Riparian Improvement $245,500.00 $279,411.50 $63,888.50 COCONINO SANTA CRUZ YAVAPAI Closed Closed Closed 29 | P a g e List of AWPF Projects with Map Key 175 176 177 178 09-166 09-167 09-169 09-171 Hunter’s Hole Riparian and Wetland Restoration Project Tavasci Marsh Wetland Restoration Project Gila River Water Conservation Education Program Black Canyon Riparian Restoration Project $683,345.87 $374,838.00 $148,612.80 $291,700.00 YUMA YAVAPAI GRAHAM YAVAPAI Closed Closed Closed Closed 179 180 181 11-172 11-173 11-174 Avifaunal and Butterfly (Lepidoptera) Recovery in Restored Wetland and Riparian Habitats Invasive Weed Control - Gila River Corridor, Greenlee County Eagle Creek Riparian Restoration at Filleman Crossing $100,758.00 $261,995.96 $265,776.00 YUMA GREENLEE GREENLEE Closed Closed Cancelled 182 183 184 11-175 11-176 11-177 E. Coli Reduction on the San Francisco River through Alternative Livestock Water on the Kaler Ranch, Phase II Double Circle Ranch Erosion Control Project Phase II Eagle Creek Riparian Protection Project $137,594.43 $36,866.60 $136,714.11 GREENLEE GREENLEE GREENLEE Closed Closed Closed 185 11-179 Inventory of Tamarisk Leaf Beetle and Effects on Riparian Habitat in the Colorado, Verde, Salt and Tonto Rivers $141,972.80 COCONINO Closed 186 11-180 Pakoon Wash and Pakoon Springs Restoration and Enhancement Project $306,353.00 MOHAVE Active 187 11-181 Hidden Slough and Leopard Frog Marsh Restoration in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area , AZ $348,901.00 MOHAVE Active 188 14-182 Arundo Eradication & Riparian Restoration of Sabino and Bear Creek, Tucson, AZ $51,262.00 PIMA Active 190 14-184 Date Creek Riparian Restoration Project $147,877.00 YAVAPAI Active 191 14-185 Horseshoe Draw Flood Control, Restoration and Erosion Mitigation Study and Design Project $198,625.00 COCHISE Active * The “Grant Amount” column represents the full grant awarded for each project and will total more than the grant disbursements and grant obligations sections on the financial page. Some grants have been completed for less money than the amount budgeted while others have terminated prior to expenditure of the full grant amount. This column has not been changed to reflect these situations. 30 | P a g e Appendix B: Financial Statement 31 | P a g e