Arizona's 2012 Nonpoint Source Annual Report Nonpoint Source Program July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012 Prepared by Water Quality Division, Surface Water Section Publication # EQR 12-02 Table of Contents Report Section List of Figures and Tables Acronym List Page iii iii I. Executive Summary II. Arizona’s Nonpoint Source Management Program Background Arizona’s Primary Nonpoint Source Pollutants Funding Allocations Nonpoint Source Program Goals Determining Nonpoint Source Priorities Partnerships and Support Measures of Success III. Nonpoint Source Strategic Plan 1 3 3 3 4 6 6 8 8 11 Appendix A: Strategic Planning Table Appendix B: Impaired Waters Table Appendix C: Map of WQIG Projects and Targeted Watersheds Appendix D: Active WQIG Projects and Budget Reporting Appendix E: WQIG Grants and Contracts Awarded During FY12 Appendix F: Project Highlight: Coyote Creek Watershed Education and Training Project 12 23 37 41 43 45 i ii List of Tables and Figures     Table 1: List of 10-digit HUC Watershed Based Plans Figure 1: ADEQ Cycle of Identifying and Addressing Water Quality Concerns Table 2: Draft 2010 Status of Impaired Waters Figure 2: ADEQ’s Use of Base and Incremental Funding to Support Nonpoint Source Activities Table 3: Load Reduction Estimates Reported to EPA for State FY12  Page Page Page Page Page 9 Acronym List                        ADEM ADEQ ADOA ADOT ADWR AGWA ASLD AZPDES BLM CGP CWA DO EPA MSGP NRCS PGP TMDL USDA USFS WBP WIP WLA WQIG 1 3 4 5 Arizona Division of Emergency Management Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Administration Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Water Resources Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Arizona State Land Department Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Bureau of Land Management Construction General Permit Clean Water Act Dissolved Oxygen Environmental Protection Agency Multi Sector General Permit Natural Resource Conservation Service Pesticide General Permit Total Maximum Daily Load United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Watershed Based Plan Watershed Implementation Plan Waste Load Allocation Water Quality Improvement Grant iii iv I. Executive Summary Arizona’s Nonpoint Source (NPS) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012 presents a synopsis of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) NPS Program activities for fiscal year 2012 (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012). The majority of work performed by ADEQ’s NPS Program is funded by Clean Water Act Section 319(h) grant monies, awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Section 319(h)(11) requires states to report annually on progress in meeting the schedule of milestones contained in their Nonpoint Source Management Plans, and, to the extent that appropriate information is available, report reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loadings and improvements in water quality resulting from program implementation. Arizona’s current Five –Year Management Plan (NPS Management Plan) is available for viewing and download on the ADEQ Web site. This report summarizes activities carried out during year three of the current five-year plan. o o o Overall, ADEQ is on track to complete the majority of the goals set forth in the current NPS Management Plan. State programs have made significant progress in the following areas: o Development of broad-based watershed plans for Arizona’s 10 major watersheds o Creation of a “BMP Toolbox”, in conjunction with the University of Arizona, with a focus on best management practices that apply to arid environments o Development of an Interactive Mapping Service (IMS) that gives the public access to a wide variety of GIS layers and allows them to create their own maps for grant applications and other watershed planning purposes o Ensuring that ADEQ’s sampling methods and protocols are up to date and readily available to the public via the ADEQ website Developing AZPDES permit language requiring that surface water quality monitoring meet ADEQ’s credible data requirements Adapting and completing EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) for Arizona Training watershed stakeholders in ADEQ’s Targeted Watersheds to perform watershed surveys, water quality sampling and data analysis ADEQ has seen a 25 percent staffing decrease in water programs since the original writing of the existing NPS plan. This has had an effect on progress rates toward achieving certain goals. Strategies that have been impacted include grant-specific effectiveness monitoring, TMDL/TIP development, and outreach and education activities. In addition, the state moratorium on rule making has prevented progress in developing and implementing new water quality standards to support water quality assessments and impairment identification. ADEQ has funded the development of plans for each of the state’s 10 major watersheds: Colorado River/Grand Canyon Little Colorado (and the San Juan watershed) Colorado River/Lower Gila Bill Williams Verde Middle Gila (and the Agua Fria sub-watershed) Salt Santa Cruz San Pedro Upper Gila Table 1: Watershed plans have developed for ADEQ’s 10 major watersheds 1 ADEQ has strived to adapt and find new ways to meet its NPS management goals in recent years. Increased emphasis has been made on finding common priorities both across internal programs and with external partners to maximize the potential of our combined resources. Some examples of this include coordination with:  Coordination with US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to identify annual shared monitoring and implementation priorities  Coordination with Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) to update GIS coverage for Arizona lakes  Coordination with Arizona Department of Emergency Management (ADEM) to address post-fire erosion control needs in the Wallow Fire burn area  Coordination between Grants and Outreach (G&O) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) staff to identify and support Targeted Watershed projects  Partnership with the University of Arizona to provide technical support to Targeted Watershed projects  Partnership with local groups such as the Upper Gila Watershed Partnership, Prescott Creeks Preservation Association, Oak Creek Watershed Council, Little Colorado River Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) council, and Coronado RC&D council to develop community-driven watershed based plans While ADEQ’s NPS Program has faced staffing and budget challenges in recent years, there is an ongoing, demonstrable commitment to achieving the goals set out in the current NPS Management Plan. The Program continues to be successful in adapting current strategies and coordinating resources both internally and externally in order to maximize effectiveness. During the remaining two years covered by the current NPS Management Plan, staff will focus on increased coordination with state and local entities to address pollutants in impaired and non-attaining water bodies. Additional efforts will also be made to assess the effectiveness of WQIG projects and report to EPA on CWA Section 319-leveraged watershed improvements in order to better communicate the continued success and relevance of nonpoint source efforts in Arizona. 2 II. Arizona’s Nonpoint Source Management Program Background ADEQ’s NPS Program uses a combination of tools to protect the state’s water resources from nonpoint source pollution. Identifying and addressing water quality concerns are part of an ongoing cycle that includes water quality standards development, surface and groundwater monitoring, water quality assessment reports, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies, TMDL implementation plans (TIPs), watershed inventories and characterizations, watershed-based plans, and Water Quality Improvement Grant (WQIG) projects. Figure 1: Identifying and addressing water quality concerns are part of an ongoing cycle. Arizona’s Primary Nonpoint Source Pollutants Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and humanmade pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even groundwater. Today, nonpoint source pollution remains the nation's largest source of water quality problems. It is the main reason that approximately 40 percent of our surveyed streams and lakes are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming. The primary nonpoint source pollutants causing impairments in Arizona’s most recent assessment (draft 2010) are:        Suspended sediment Nutrients or related parameters (nitrogen, phosphorus, low dissolved oxygen, high pH) E. coli bacteria Metals and low pH Selenium Boron Historic pesticides 3 Sources of these pollutants include livestock grazing, recreation, crop production, mining, forestry, and wildlife. Some lakes and streams are listed as impaired for more than one of these pollutants. The draft 2010 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona (Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Listing Report) indicates that Arizona has 21 lakes listed as impaired for 32 pollutants and 64 streams reaches for 118 pollutants. These numbers may change prior to finalizing the current draft document, as EPA will have the opportunity to list additional water bodies and/or pollutants. Although in a few drainages point sources may be contributing, these impairments are primarily the result of nonpoint source contributions. Use Support Category # Lakes Acres # Reaches Miles Category 1 (Attaining all uses) 0 0 25 292.6 Category 2 (Attaining some uses) 6 23609.38 78 976 Category 3 (Inconclusive) 29 14229.14 154 1458.36 Categories 4A, 4B, 4A/5 (Not attaining) 12 2732.1 42 308.95 Category 5 (Impaired) 21 59892.7 64 919.87 Total Assessed 68 100463.3 367 3955.78 Total Attaining or Impaired 39 86234.18 213 2497.42 Table 2: Draft 2010 Status of Assessed Waters Funding Allocations ADEQ receives two types of nonpoint source funding, base and incremental, from EPA pursuant to CWA Section 319. The total amount of Section 319 funding available nationally in given year is determined by Congressional appropriation. State shares of that total are determined by a state-by-state allocation formula developed by EPA in conjunction with the states. In FY12, the total nonpoint source award of $2,756,000 was divided equally into the base and incremental categories. Figure 2 demonstrates the allowable use of each type of funding, and how that funding is allocated by ADEQ to manage and implement the state nonpoint source program. Half of the overall funding was committed to funding on-the-ground implementation, watershed planning, and stakeholder education and training projects via the Water Quality Improvement Grant (WQIG) program. The remaining was utilized internally to fund NPS Program and supporting staff and TMDL development. 4 Arizona’s CWA Section 319 Funding for FY12 Arizona received a total of $2,756,000, separated into two types of funding: Base and Incremental. Incremental (50% Total Award) Base (50% Total Award) Can be used to implement all aspects of the state’s NPS program, including protection and restoration of non-impaired waters and effectiveness monitoring. A 20% cap is placed on planning activities, which include:  Development of NPS TMDLs and watershed based plans (WBPs) to implement NPS TMDLs  Development of WBPs in the absence of/prior to completion of TMDLs  Development of WBPs that focus on the protection of threatened waters, source water, or other high priority unimpaired waters  Other NPS monitoring and program assessment/development activities. Must be used to develop and implement watershed based plans that address NPS impairments in watersheds that contain 303(d)-listed waters. Region may authorize state to use Incremental funds in watershed w/o impaired waters in special circumstances to protect uniquely high-priority waters from becoming impaired (ex: Fossil Creek) Up to 20% may be used to develop NPS TMDLs, WBPs to implement TMDLs, and WBPs in the absence of/prior to a TMDL in 303(d)-listed waters. Region may authorize state to use >20% for plan development related to 303(d)-listed waters (ex: current Watershed Improvement Plan/WIP grants), but a proper balance must exist between funding plan development and plan implementation. NPS Implementation (25% Total Incremental) PPG (25% Total Base) ADEQ Staff Project Money (50% Total Base, 50% Total Incremental) Sub-awarded via the Water Quality Improvement Grant Program via competitive grants and non-competitive contracts TMDL Development ADEQ Staff Figure 2: ADEQ’s Use of Base and Incremental Funding to Support Nonpoint Source Activities. 5 Nonpoint Source Program Goals ADEQ’s NPS Program operates primarily under the direction of the NPS Management Plan. The current State Management Plan identifies nonpoint source goals and strategies for 2010-2014, and identifies four broad goals (identified below). Goals Identified in the 2010-2014 Arizona Nonpoint Source Five-Year Management Plan 1. Prevent and reduce nonpoint source pollution discharges to protect surface or groundwater resources. 2. Coordinate efforts of various programs within ADEQ and with other agencies and partners to reduce nonpoint source pollution impacts to surface and groundwater. 3. Identify and mitigate impairments to surface water or groundwater quality. 4. Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the nonpoint source pollution program and communicate success. The state’s progress in meeting these goals and the specific objectives, strategies, and milestones defined therein is detailed in Section III: Nonpoint Source Strategic Plan and in Appendix A: Strategic Planning Table Update. Determining Nonpoint Source Priorities The Impaired Waters Strategy Arizona’s NPS Program has promoted and facilitated statewide efforts to manage the impact that nonpoint source pollution has on our surface and groundwater. ADEQ continues to focus efforts on restoring waters that have been listed as impaired on the Arizona Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report, as well as protecting waters that are attaining their designated uses. In order to identify the highest priority NPS activities for a given year, ADEQ considers each water quality impairment that is influenced by nonpoint source pollution and the different factors that influence the ability to mitigate the impairment (pollutant of concern, land ownership, potential local watershed partners/local interest in the impairment). One tool for assessing this information is the Impaired Waters Table. An abridged version of this table is included in Appendix B of this document, titled “The Impaired Waters Table Update.” Detailed information Arizona’s impaired water bodies can be found on the ADEQ website. Measure W Watersheds EPA’s “Measure W” is another tool utilized by the state when determining nonpoint source priorities. “Measure W” (also known as the Watershed Improvement Measure (WIM) and SP-12) is a key performance measure in EPA’s Strategic Plan. The measure tracks watersheds where water quality conditions have improved by utilizing a watershed approach. One of the primary purposes of this measure is to model and demonstrate the effectiveness of the watershed approach. EPA has a nation wide goal to improve water quality conditions in 250 watersheds for 2012. EPA Region 9 and our state water quality agency partners have agreed to track the following watersheds for purposes of reporting on this measure and documenting environmental results, and to better focus our water quality restoration activities by identifying needs, sharing information, providing assistance and learning more about the related challenges. ADEQ anticipates that all of these watersheds with the exception of Boulder Creek will show improvement by 2012 for the identified pollutant. ADEQ is currently coordinating with EPA and other partners to initiate project implementation on Boulder Creek during FY12. Additional watersheds may be added and/or substituted.  Boulder Creek  Alum Gulch  Turkey Creek  Tonto Creek  Pinto Creek Targeted Watersheds 6 Beginning in FY09 and continuing through FY12 and future fiscal years, the NPS Program has focused Water Quality Improvement Grant (WQIG) funding and technical support resources into formally identified Targeted Watersheds (Appendix B). Targeted watersheds are identified using the Impaired Waters Strategy, and influenced by their potential to satisfy EPA’s “Measure W”. Key criteria for Targeted Watersheds include the presence of a NPS-related impairment as well as local stakeholder interest and ability to effectively address that impairment. As of the close of FY12, ADEQ has seven Target Watersheds, listed below. For ease of reference, watersheds have been grouped into three sets based on grant cycle. Cycle 11 Competitive Targeted Watersheds (State FY 09-10) Granite Creek (WQIG #11-T01) Oak Creek (WQIG #11-T02) San Francisco/Blue Rivers (WQIG #11-T03) Cycle 12 Competitive Targeted Watersheds (State FY 10-11) Little Colorado River Headwaters (WQIG #12-002) San Pedro River (WQIG #12-003) Tonto/Christopher Creeks (WQIG #12-007) Non-Competitive Targeted Watersheds (State FY11) Boulder Creek/Hillside Mine Competitive Targeted Watersheds are awarded funding via a competitive grant cycle; NonCompetitive Targeted Watersheds are allocated funding based on ADEQ priorities and the potential to significantly address the primary NPS source of concern. A primary goal of the Targeted Watershed approach is to provide funding and technical support for the development of locally-led Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). These plans identify the implementation practices and ongoing management measures necessary to address the NPS pollutants that are contributing to impairments in the Targeted Watersheds. The WQIG will use these WIPs to determine future funding priorities in these watersheds. Currently, one WIP (for the San Francisco and Blue rivers) has been completed. Three others are in various stages of development (for the San Pedro River, Oak Creek, and Granite Creek). Boulder Creek from Wilder Creek to the confluence of Butte Creek was identified as a noncompetitive Targeted Watershed during FY10. This reach of Boulder Creek is currently impaired due to elevated levels of arsenic, copper, and zinc. The TMDL for this reach identifies three mine tailings piles (referred to as the upper, middle, and lower piles) as the primary sources contributing to these impairments, as well as an adit discharge located at the middle pile site. Each pile is located on lands managed/owned by different entities (the upper pile is located on BLM land; the middle on private land, and the lower on State Land), making watershed-scale mitigation efforts historically difficult to organize. BLM began work in FY10 to update its assessment of the issues at the upper pile site and develop a plan for mitigation. Around the same time, the EPA Region 9 Superfund program expressed interest in allocating funding toward a project in Arizona. In order to maximize the benefits of these efforts, ADEQ and EPA initiated discussions with the Arizona State Lands Department (ASLD) and the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) Risk Management to develop a plan to address the lower tailings pile. ADEQ, EPA Superfund, and ADOA have committed funding funds to the project. In addition, Freeport McMoRan (whose Bagdad mine is located adjacent to the lower pile but is not a contributor to the Boulder Creek impairments) has agreed to donate rock and fill material to facilitate the capping and stabilization of the pile. As of the writing of this report, ADEQ is awaiting response from EPA regarding the specific terms of use of Superfund dollars in support of this project. If all parties are in agreement with the terms of use of both Superfund and NPS dollars, project design and planning will recommence. 7 The progress that has been achieved to date in each of the Targeted Watersheds will be detailed throughout this report. Partnerships and Support Since Arizona has a large amount of publicly owned lands, partnerships with federal, state and tribal land and resource management agencies are key elements in the program’s success. Arizona achieves these partnerships through a variety of formal and informal agreements, cooperative projects, sharing and combining of funds, and meetings to share information and ideas. Through these partnerships, Arizona works with a variety of entities to incorporate other appropriate water quality controls and further the goals of the Nonpoint Source Program. NPS Program staff work closely with stakeholders in Targeted Watersheds to develop community-led, watershed-based planning efforts. These local planning efforts assist the department in developing WIPs and other programs and outreach activities appropriate to the specific area and current issues. A list of Arizona Watershed Partnerships can be found on ADEQ’s website. Within these watershed partnership structures, ADEQ and its partners are able to more easily identify, assess, and help implement voluntary efforts to control nonpoint source pollution. In FY12, ADEQ focused on updating an existing partnership agreement with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to maximize the potential for collaboration in future years. In addition, NPS Program staff worked closely with the Arizona Department of Emergency Management (ADEM) and local stakeholders to create funding opportunities to mitigate the devastating effects of the Wallow Fire. This fire burned 538,049 acres in eastern Arizona during the spring and summer of 2011, impacting two of ADEQ’s targeted watersheds (the Little Colorado River Headwaters and the San Francisco/Blue Rivers). Staff also coordinated with EPA Region 9 Superfund Staff, the Arizona State Lands Department (ASLD), and the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) to develop a joint effort to address runoff from mine tailings impacting the impaired Boulder Creek in Bagdad, Arizona. Staff also provided recommendations for priority watersheds to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the FY12 National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI). More information about these and other partnership efforts can be found in Appendix A. Measures of Success Each project funded by the WQIG program to implement on-the-ground water quality improvements must describe a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time. Monitoring can include photographic tracking of project progress, vegetative transect data, and/or actual water quality monitoring data. Information on reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment nonpoint source loads are tracked and reported in EPA’s Grant Reporting and Tracking database (GRTS). GRTS enables EPA and states to demonstrate the accomplishments achieved with the use of 319(h) funding. The data entered into GRTS is used by the EPA to respond to inquiries received from Congressional committees, the White House, and various constituent groups. For FY12, ADEQ continued to utilize the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) Tool to estimate pollutant load reductions from projects that did not conduct pre- and postimplementation water quality monitoring. AGWA uses widely available standardized spatial datasets to develop input parameter files for two watershed runoff and erosion models: KINEROS2 and SWAT. ADEQ chose to utilize AGWA beginning in FY11 primarily because it can be calibrated to reflect characteristics unique to arid areas. This is a capability that is not well supported by common GRTS load reduction tools such as the EPA Region 5 and STEP-L models. ADEQ anticipates that the use of AGWA will result in realistic, scientifically defensible load reduction estimates when “real-world” data is not readily available for completed projects. 8 Arizona’s FY12 load reductions were determined based on a combination of AGWA estimates and grantee-provided data. Total load reductions are listed in Table 3 below. Pollutant of Concern Estimated Load Reduction Unit of Measure Nitrogen 96,463.48 lbs/yr Phosphorus 477.64 lbs/yr Sediment 535.91 tons/yr Table 3: Load Reduction Estimates Reported to EPA for State FY12 Not all WQIG projects are able to provide load reduction data. Education-based and technical support projects help ensure the long-term success of NPS Program efforts by broadening public understanding of nonpoint source issues, encouraging public participation, and providing critical support for watershed-based planning and implementation efforts. One example of the many successful education and technical support projects is the Coyote Creek Watershed Education and Training Grant. This project was initiated to educate local ranchers about sediment impairments in the Little Colorado River (to which Coyote Creek is a tributary), determine effectiveness of past BMP implementation, and make recommendations for future BMPs. The project was so successful that it was expanded to include an implementation phase—a step that ADEQ could not have reached so quickly on its own. Please refer to Appendix F for additional information about this project. 9 10 III. Nonpoint Source Strategic Plan The foundation of the 5-year Nonpoint Source Management Plan and subsequently this Annual Report is the strategic plan described in this section and detailed in Appendix A. It contains specific goals, objectives, and strategies that ADEQ will implement to strengthen its Nonpoint Source Program. The strategic plan describes how resources will be allocated to achieve the mission of Arizona’s Nonpoint Source Program, which is to: Achieve and maintain water quality standards through the reduction of nonpoint source pollutant contributions to Arizona’s surface and groundwater. The components of ADEQ’s strategic plan:       Goals – Goals are like Generals. They look at the big picture. Goals show us what the world will look like after we achieve our objectives – the desired outcomes. Goals are broad and inclusive, yet attainable and realistic. Objectives – Objectives are like Sergeants, taking directions from the Generals (goals). They describe the broad changes needed to achieve a goal. Strategies – Strategies are the foot soldiers. Strategies are specific actions needed to accomplish an objective. Milestones – Milestones are steps, stages, or phases of implementing the strategy. They allow us to determine progress in accomplishing the strategies. They may include tactics – the tools that must be developed. Responsible Parties – These are the major players who are committed to implementing the strategy. Measures of Success – Indicators of success must be chosen for each strategy. These need to be quantifiable and directed at achieving the objective or goal. Strategic planning starts with the end in mind by establishing broad goals and objectives. Four broad goals were established for this nonpoint source strategic plan: Goal #1: Prevent and reduce nonpoint source pollution discharges to protect surface or groundwater resources. Goal #2: Coordinate efforts of various programs within ADEQ and with other agencies and partners to reduce nonpoint source pollution impacts to surface and groundwater. Goal #3: Identify and mitigate impairments to surface water or groundwater quality. Goal #4: Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the nonpoint source pollution program and communicate success. Objectives and strategies are then selected to achieve each goal. Definable milestones, responsible parties, and measures of success are then developed for each strategy to direct implementation of the plan and to evaluate success. Measures of success will be monitored and results analyzed to document whether and how well desired outcomes were achieved. Analyses provide the information needed to direct strategic plan changes. Milestone percent completion estimates are based on the completion of the Milestones over the course of the five-year NPS period. Milestones for which work is consistent and ongoing over the five-year period are generally ascribed a completion percentage of 20% per year. Annual reports to EPA will use these milestones and measures of success to report on progress. 11 Appendix A: Arizona Nonpoint Source Strategic Plan (FY 2010 - FY 2014) Goal 1: Prevent and reduce nonpoint source pollution discharges to protect surface or groundwater resources. Objective 1.A Invest in Water Quality Improvement and Education Grants (319(h) Grants) that are likely to provide long-term load reductions and changes in behavior and to achieve watershed-wide improvements in water quality. Strategy 1.A.1 Grant proposals must demonstrate: ►How grant implementation will improve water quality on a watershed-scale basis ►That grantee has sufficient resources, technical skills, and commitments to implement and maintain the grant beyond the grant implementation cycle ►That grantee has sufficient resources, technical skills, and commitments to implement and maintain the grant beyond the grant implementation. Success Indicators 1) Documented long-term grant project success after implementation of this objective 2) More grant proposals fulfill this objective Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 1) The grant manual revised to clarify grant The Grants & Outreach (G&O) Unit began developing revised requirements grant documents for WQIG Cycle 13, which will be finalized in FY13. Cycle 13 documents will focus on the implementation of Watershed Improvement Plans (WIPs). FY13 FY14 Overall Percent Completion ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) 20 20 20 60 2) Grant process revised G&O staff developed a funding opportunity for nonpoint source ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees mitigation projects in the Wallow Fire burn area via an (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) Interagency Service Agreement (ISA) with the Arizona Department of Emergency Management (ADEM). A total of $250,000 was awarded to ADEM to identify, award, and manage erosion control projects in the burn area, with highest priority given to projects that we also within an ADEQ Targeted Watershed. See Appendix E for additional details. Staff also began examining past grant processes and identifying ways to improve upon them for WQIG Cycle 13 (FY13). Opportunities for improvement were identified in relation to project budget justification, maintenance commitments, and internal review time for project applications. These improvements will be a main focus for FY13 activities. 20 20 20 60 3) Technical assistance and training for grantees to improve grant proposals G&O staff reviewed and provided feedback on draft sub-award ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees applications submitted to the Arizona Department of Emergency (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) Management under ISA # EV12-0005 (AZ DEMA Wallow Fire Nonpoint Source Mitigation). 20 20 20 60 Objective 1.B Encourage management practices that mitigate nonpoint source pollutant loadings. Strategy 1.B.1 Develop a “BMP toolbox” of watershed remediation methods applicable to Arizona’s hydrologic and geologic conditions and provide hands-on educational opportunities for target audiences in implementing these practices. Next 5-year focus: homeowner storm water management, recreation, grazing, septic systems, and shallow lake management. Success Indicators 1) Use of website and tools documented 2) Demonstration sites visited 3) New improvement projects associated with website use and demonstration site visits Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 1) BMP toolbox available on website with user-friendly tools This milestone has been completed. ADEQ contracted with the ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) Arizona Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program in FY09 to develop a web-accessible BMP manual. This manual was completed during FY11, and can be found online at http://nemo.srnr.arizona.edu/nemo/index_old.php?page=bmpm anual. 25 75 n/a FY13 FY14 n/a n/a 12 Overall Percent Completion 100 2) Training and education opportunities created where needed In FY10 and 11 the WQIG program funded three projects that ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees focused specificaly on providing education and on-the-ground (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) training regarding proper BMP identification and ►TMDL Program implementation. These projects were #11-007 (Sediment Reduction from Runoff Using BMPs), #12-002 (Coyote Creek Watershed-scale Education and Training Grant), and #12-004 (Community Stewardship Model for Green Streets). *This milestone update was inadvertantly omitted from the FY10 and FY11 reports; please note the updated percents completion reported at right. The majority of the training activities funded under these projects took place during FY12. In addtion, the Coyote Creek project was expanded during FY12 to include onthe-ground implementation of high priority identified BMPs. Strategy 1.B.2 Complete state-wide watershed-based plans for use by local watershed partners that: ►Characterize the watershed ►Identify pollutants of concern ►Determine high-risk sub-watersheds for specific pollutants groups ►Include EPA’s nine key elements for a watershed plan Success Indicators 1) Pollutant loading reductions in watershed because Information in plans used to: a) Initiate new water quality improvement projects b) Institute new land management decisions c) Implement new BMP's Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties 0 20 40 60 Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Plans completed for the last four watersheds: Colorado-Grand Canyon, Colorado-Lower Gila, San Juan (part of the Little Colorado), and the San Pedro. Final plans for each of Arizona’s ten 8-digit watersheds are ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees available on the AZ NEMO Web site at the following location: (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) http://nemo.srnr.arizona.edu/nemo/index_old.php?page=chara ►Watershed Partners cterization 2) Education and training about these watershed-based plans for government leaders, resource managers, and other watershed partners FY12 resources were focused on ADEQ's Targeted Watersheds, ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees which are much more refined in scale than the NEMO-generaged (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) 8-digit HUC plans. Targeted Watershed grantees, however, were educated about and directed toward these watershed based plans as references for subwatershed prioritization and WIP development. Staff plan to update WQIG website in FY13 to improve access to these plans and to better explain the role they play ADEQ's Nonpoint Source Program and how they should be used by the public. Additional formal workshops focusing on the NEMO WBP's will not be conducted as they do not directly pertain to ADEQ's current watershed priorities. However, the content of these plans will be shared and untilized as applicable at the smaller watershed scale. 0 0 20 3) Interactive Mapping Service available on line so interested watershed partners can work with GIS covers used to develop these plans The IMS is accessible on the AZ NEMO Web site ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (www.arizonanemo.org). While GIS layers were updated and will (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) continue to be updated by NEMO as new versions become available, this milestone is considered complete for the purposes of this report. 90 0 10 n/a 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a Overall Percent Completion 100 20 n/a 13 100 Objective 1.C Encourage the use of legal authorities to reduce nonpoint source contributions to surface or groundwater, rather than relying on voluntary actions. Strategy 1.C.1 Educate watershed partners about potential legal authorities to control nonpoint source loadings to surface or groundwater. Examples include, but are not limited to: ►Existing state and federal regulations (aquifer protection (A.A.C. R18-9), nitrogen management areas (A.A.C. R18-9), pesticide use and disposal (A.A.C. R18-6), hazardous waste use and disposal practices (A.A.C. R18-8), underground storage tanks (A.A.C R18-12), solid waste disposal regulations (A.A.C R1813) ►Federal or state land use or permit restrictions (e.g., grazing permits, off-road vehicle use areas, road closures, MS4 permits) ►Local planning and zoning restrictions – existing and potential ordinances Success Indicators Milestones 1) Watershed partners use legal authorities to reduce pollutants of concern Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 1) Education materials and training opportunities for watershed partners (e.g., authorities, process, where best used, and contact for info). G&O staff worked with WIP grantees during FY12 to identify legal authorities that could be utilized to help address water quality impairments, such as local ordinances controling manure pile management. Staff continued to compile resources to aid in future web site updates (included in the FY13 workplan) to include relevant links and contact information for legal authorities that may be utlized to address nonpoint source concerns. Surface Water staff led and/or participated in meetings on the applicability of MSGP's, CGP's, and PGPs to a variety of municipal, federal, state, and special interest groups with a combined total of over 500 attendees. ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards ►Aquifer Protection Permit Program ►Hazardous Waste Program ►Solid Waste Program ►Underground Storage Tanks Program ►Pesticide Program (Arizona Department of Agriculture) ►AZPDES Permits, including Storm Water Management 0 20 FY13 FY14 Overall Percent Completion 40 60 Strategy 1.C.2 Identify methods for using land use management and written agreements to assure long-term load reductions for water quality improvement grants (319(h) Grants). For example, use of conservation easements, deed restrictions, Memorandums of Understanding. Success Indicators 1) Land management restrictions are used to assure load reductions. 2) Grant project evaluations show that written agreements incorporated into grant process have assured project effectiveness well beyond the two year grant period. Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 1) Education materials and training for watershed partners. G&O staff educated interested WIP grantees about cooperative agreements and their potenial use in securing support for projects recommended in WIP documents. Drafts of existing ADEQ agreements were provided as reference. ADEQ will assist in the development of future agreements to support WIP implementation as requested or deemed necessary. FY13 FY14 Overall Percent Completion ►Grants and Outreach, including 319 grants (e.g., NEMO and Master Watershed Stewards) 2) Water Quality Improvement Grant G&O staff began researching options for improved long-term ►Grants and Outreach, including 319 grants agreement procedures modified to maintenance agreements. One option being considered is (e.g., NEMO and Master Watershed Stewards) incorporate written agreements that better developing cooperative agreements for grantees that would last beyond the term of the grant agreement and include language assure long-term load reductions. commiting the grantee to maintain 319-funded BMPs for their estimated service life. Staff will continue to research this option in FY13, with potential to implement the practice during FY13 or FY14 grant cycles. 5 0 45 50 0 0 20 20 14 Goal 2: Coordinate efforts of various programs within ADEQ and with agencies and partners to reduce nonpoint source pollution impacts to surface and groundwater. Objective 2.A Encourage public involvement and locally-driven efforts. Strategy 2.A.1 Empower watershed partners to develop and implement watershed improvement and education projects by providing technical assistance, education, and training. Success Indicators 1) 2) 3) 4) Milestones Increased knowledge results in more effective project implementation, higher load reductions, and more commitment to continue water quality improvements. Grant proposals submitted by watershed partners require less revision and less direct assistance from ADEQ staff to develop or implement. Monitoring data collected by watershed partners meet Credible Data requirements and can be used by ADEQ for assessments. Modeling, mapping, and GIS analyses available at website are used by local watershed partners to support water quality improvement project development. Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Target education grants to provide G&O staff continued to support education-based contracts and needed technical assistance, education, and grant agreements during FY12. This included: training for watershed partners. • Two Watershed-scale Education and Training Grants (#12-002 and #12-007, the latter of which was cancelled due to lack of local activity) to provide nonpoint source impairment-specific education and training to watershed stakeholders. For project #12-007, TMDL and Grants staff meet with Gila County and reviewed basic WQ sampling techniques. The County considered taking over the Tonto Creek targeted grant but later decided not to commit resources to that effort. Additional training will occur on an as requested basis. • Three contracts with the University of Arizona (EV11-0009, EV11-0010, EV11-0011) to fund AZ NEMO Program, Master Watershed Steward (MWS) Program, and Dr. Channah Rock to provide technical support and training services to ADEQidentified targeted watersheds. • One additional contract (EV11-0008) with the U of A to fund Project WET Water Festivals, providing statewide youth education regarding water and water quality. 2) Provide education and training opportunities on water quality topics of concern as requested by watershed partners, such as: sampling, credible data requirements, data tracking, field survey methods to identify pollutant sources and remediation projects, GIS mapping and modeling capabilities, grant writing. Overall Percent Completion ►ADEQ Nonpoint Source Programs ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) G&O and TMDL staff worked closely with watershed stakeholders ►ADEQ Nonpoint Source Programs ►Grants and Outreach Program and throughout FY12 to provide watershed-specific education and training. Efforts were focused on Targeted Watersheds. ADEQ grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) activities included organizing a WIP Leaders Meeting to encourage communication between the WIP watersheds, in-thefield sampling and field survey trainings with the San Pedro, San Francisco, and Oak Creek watershed groups; as well as regular ADEQ data collection and interpretation updates for the Tonto/Christopher Creek group. In addition, the U of A NEMO program worked with targeted groups on GIS mapping, field survey methods, modeling, and data tracking techniques; MWS staff developed targeted watershed education courses and assisted in the development of presentations and educational materials; and Dr. Channah Rock worked extensively with the San Pedro, San Francisco, Granite Creek, Oak Creek, and Tonto Creek groups on E. coli sampling plan development and data interpretation methods. 20 20 20 60 20 20 20 60 15 Encourage land and resource management agencies and tribal authorities to identify and mitigate nonpoint source pollution impacts in Arizona. Objective 2.B Strengthen working relationships with other agencies and tribes to encourage development of effective water quality improvement projects and avoid projects or practices that would contribute to impairment of surface or groundwater quality. Strategy 2.B.1 Success Indicators Milestones 1) 2) 3) 4) New strategies identified and implemented resulting in reduced pollutant loadings. Funds from multiple funding sources used to implement priority water quality improvement projects. More tribal representation in planning and watershed partner meetings. Tribal 319(h) grant proposals reflect a watershed approach to identify priority projects Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 ADEQ worked closely with the BLM during FY12 to update an 1) Memorandums of Understanding with ►ADEQ Nonpoint Source Programs other agencies and tribes updated to better existing cooperative agreement between the two agencies. As of ►Federal and state agencies who have the close of FY12, this agreement is under review by the Attorney signed MOUs with ADEQ support this 5-year strategic plan. General's office. Finalization of the agreement is expected early ►ADEQ and EPA tribal liaisons in FY13. In light of the USDA National Water Quality Initiative ►Grants and Outreach Program and announced during FY12 and its inclusion of enhanced cooperation grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed between Farm Bill and CWA-funded grant programs, the decision Stewards) was made to re-prioritize future MOU updates to focus next on ADEQ's agreement with the NRCS. Updating this agreement will be a focus in FY13. 2) ADEQ participation in coordinated resource planning efforts of federal and state agencies (e.g., planning, federal action reviews). 3) Coordinate with other agencies to leverage funding opportunities, especially for priority projects within impaired watersheds (Objective 3.B.1). 4) Tribal participation in watershed planning, educational opportunities, and priority water quality. The WQD provided comments on approximately 198 ►ADEQ Nonpoint Source Programs environmental reviews received from various federal, state, and ►ADEQ WQD Director's Office local agencies. The Hillside Mine project continues to evolve and ►Grants and Outreach Program and move forward. Multiple teleconferences and site visits were grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed conducted in FY12. ADEQ continues to coordinate efforts Stewards) between the local stakeholders and EPA R9. Currently, if progress continues at its current pace final design work, contracting and construction will take place in FY13. Cooridination continues with the USFS statewide on-scene coordinator and individual forests. Yearly workplans are reviewed for overlapping priorities and activities. Post forest fire monitoring coordination in priority watersheds, like Turkey Creek, occurs when necessary. Grants and Outreach staff coordinated with NRCS to identify ►Grants and Outreach Program and potential priority watersheds for the USDA National Water grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Quality Initiative. The NWQI mandates that states prioritize 5% of Stewards) their available EQIP funded (managed and awarded by NRCS) toward impaired watersheds. In addition, representatives from the USFS, BLM, EPA, AZG&F, ADEM, ASLD, ADOA and ADOT have actively participated in planning and implementing WQIG-funded projects (most specifically the WIP projects, Wallow Fire mitigation projects, and the proposed Hillside Mine project at Boulder Creek). In addition, the TMDL group continues to coordinate annually with USFS to determine where mutual priorities exist across the state. G&O staff provided presentation slides and program information to ADEQ's tribal liaison for the 2012 meeting of the Intertribal Council of Arizona. Staff also met with landowners and managers in the Wallow Fire burn area, including Navajo Nation representatives, to discuss potential uses of 319 funding for postfire mitigation projects. For FY13, staff will focus on including tribal entities whenever possible on WIIP-recommended projects for WQIG Cycle 13. G&O staff has requested that EPA provide a contact list for tribal nonpoint source contacts in Arizona to assist in this activity. Overall Percent Completion 10 5 20 35 20 20 20 60 20 20 20 60 20 0 20 40 ►ADEQ and EPA tribal liaisons ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) 16 Goal 3: Identify and eliminate impairments to surface water or groundwater water quality. Objective 3.A Assess water quality of surface waters and groundwater. Strategy 3.A.1 Perform state-wide surface and groundwater quality monitoring according to ADEQ’s Monitoring Strategy (revised 2007) and analyze data to fulfill requirements of the Clean Water Act and state water statutes. Success Indicators 1) ADEQ continues to submit superior quality assessment and impaired waters identification reports that are approved by EPA. 2) Groundwater basin reports complete at least one report per year. Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) State-wide surface water monitoring is completed in a three year cycle. 50 randomly selected sites were sampled from 2008 to 2010 and ►Ambient Monitoring Program a final report is being drafted. The final report should be available by December 2012. The next cycle of montioring will begin in FY13. 2) Groundwater quality is characterized and A final report for the Ranegras Plain was completed in April ►Ambient Monitoring Program reported for watershed partner use. 2012. An online copy should be available once upper management and communications finishes their review.In addition a comprehensive statewide report was completed that include 15 years worth of data (over 1500 wells). This report provides well owners vital information about their water quality and suggestions on what parameters they should have their well tested for. 3) ADEQ submits assessment report, assessment database, and list of impaired waters every two years to EPA. During FY12, the Assessment Program developed the draft 2010 ►Assessment Program Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Report and released it for public comment. Work on the draft 2012 IR was initiated, as well. ADEQ requested data submissions from statewide external sources in April 2012. Data requests will now be made on an annual basis rather than the previous practice of requesting data only when beginning a new 305(b) Assessment. Targeted Watershed grantee data will also be incorporated for use in future assessments. The 2010 IR will be submitted to EPA during FY13, with the 2012 following in FY14. Overall Percent Completion 20 20 20 60 0 40 30 70 30 60 5 95 20 70 0 90 4) Impaired waters list and supporting GIS maps updated and available on internet. The impaired waters waters list and supporting maps will be updated in FY13 when the 2010 IR is finalized. Strategy 3.A.2 In-stream water quality sampling data submitted to ADEQ to evaluate effectiveness of grants or treatment, ambient conditions, or impacts from potential pollutant sources: ►Is reliable, scientifically based, and meets credible data requirements established for listing impaired waters ►Is formatted so it can easily be loaded into ADEQ’s database ►Includes supporting metadata needed to properly interpret the water quality data ►Is collected using protocols established by ADEQ, if applicable standards would require these protocols Success Indicators 1) Monitoring data submitted to ADEQ meets credible data requirements, contains supporting metadata, and is easily loaded into ADEQ’s database. Milestones Progress Summary ►Assessment Program Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Current ADEQ’s sampling methods and protocols are available over the internet. ►Ambient Monitoring Program ADEQ's current sampling methods and protocols are available online at: ►TMDL Program http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/sa mpling.pdf 2) Components of the Sampling Analyses Plans (SAPs) and Quality Assurance Plans (QAPs) required to meet credible data requirements are either provided in the permit or submitted to ADEQ with all instream surface water quality data. The Permits Unit has developed improved permit language for ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees those AZPDES permits which require ambient surface water (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) ►AZPDES Permit Programs quality monitoring in order to ensure the data collected will meet ADEQ credible data requirements. The Permits Unit will continue to coordinate with the Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Programs to ensure appropriate guidance documents are available to permittees and referenced in the permits. 3) The potential value of in-stream sampling requirements are considered for all AZPDES Permits, especially if the discharge might impact an impaired surface water. Boilerplate permit language has been revised to require permit ►AZPDES Permit Programs writers to consider these issues when processing permit applications. Criteria is being developed to ensure in-stream monitoring requirements are incorporated into new and renewal permits when appropriate. 4) Guidance documents establish credible Most of the guidance document has been drafted; however there ►Assessment Program data and submittal requirements, including area still a few on-going modifications that will be included at at supporting metadata requirements. later time. No additional work on this project was completed in FY12. Overall Percent Completion 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 20 30 50 n/a n/a 100 50 10 40 n/a n/a 100 70 0 0 70 17 Strategy 3.A.3 Develop and implement new tools, water quality standards, and sampling methods to support water quality assessments and identification of impairments, sources, and key projects. Success Indicators 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Milestones Arizona assesses a higher percentage of perennial waters. Fewer surface waters must be added by EPA to Arizona’s 303(d) List of impaired waters. Assessment reports are completed in a timely manner. New methods provide scientifically reliable evidence of source contributions New water quality improvement projects significantly reduce pollutant loading and lead to delisting of water quality impairments Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Water quality standards developed or The revised Surface Water Quality Standards Rules were ►Assessment Program revised in accord with the Triennial Review finalized on January 31, 2009. ADEQ is in the process of ►Rule Development Program Process. identifying proposed changes for the 2012 triennial review. The ►Data Management Program initiation of the formal rule making process is on hold due to the Arizona moratorium on rule making. 2) EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) random monitoring approach is adapted for use in Arizona’s arid environment. 50 random wadeable perennial stream sites were chosen in ►Ambient Monitoring Program FY10; sampling occurred in FY12 to provide a statistically valid assessment of Arizona. 3) Arizona’s Impaired Water Identification Rule is revised to incorporate new water quality standards and better reflect EPA’s impaired waters listing guidance. ►Assessment Program Arizona’s Impaired Water Identification Rule established methods and criteria for identifying impaired waters and developing a Total Maximum Daily Load analysis. This rule was adopted in 2002 and revisions begain in 2010 to incorporate new procedures for identifying impaired waters based on violations of narrative water quality standards.There is no timeframe for new rules because all rule development is on hold due to the Arizona moratorium on rule making. Accordingly, progress on this task has been halted. 4) New components are developed for Arizona’s Assessment Calculator (AZAC) to provide computer assisted data analyses for water quality assessments. AZAC was updated to reflect water quality standards approved by EPA during the 2009 Triennial Review prior to running the 2012 Assessment data. Additional minor updates were made to the program utilizing internal staff. No external contract was sought to perform more extensive programming updates ►Assessment Program 5) A data submittal process is established so G&O staff worked with the U of A NEMO program during to that external data can be readily loaded develop databased for all WIP grantees so that monitoring data into ADEQ’s Water Quality Database. can be easily loaded into ADEQ's database. ►Assessment Program 6) New methods developed to survey watersheds and to identify sources and key project sites that will significantly address impairments. 7) Develop new databases to track field survey data and new methods to interpret field survey data. ►TMDL Program G&O and TMDL staff worked with all WIP grantees to updated ►Grants and Outreach Program watershed shed survey methods as needed. FY12 assistance focused on assisting with the development and review of social surveys for watershed stakeholders. The TMDL Unit has begun using GIS to identify target areas for additional monitoring by looking at perennial waters to see if samples have been collected near potential pollution sources (historic mines, grazing, etc.). In addition, they have also begun looking at the watershed scale at which TMDLs are completed to determine if concentrating at a smaller scale would lead to greater implementation potential. G&O staff worked with the U of A NEMO program during to ►Grants and Outreach Program develop databased for all WIP grantees so that monitoring data can be easily loaded into ADEQ's database. Database development for all current WIP grantees was completed during FY12. ADEQ and U of A staff also assisted WIP groups in the interpretation of their field data and the translation of this data into BMP recommendations for the WIP documents to be finalized in early FY13. Overall Percent Completion 40 0 0 40 90 0 10 100 40 0 0 40 0 15 20 35 30 0 20 50 20 20 20 60 20 10 50 80 18 Objective 3.B Target resources in watersheds with impaired waters to identify sources and implement plans to reduce pollutant loadings. Strategy 3.B.1 Establish an intra-agency team and an external partnership for each impaired surface waters to help identify and implement new strategies to mitigate impairments. Success Indicators Milestones 1) New strategies are developed and implemented that result in water quality improvements. Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) High priority impaired watersheds are identified for targeting resources such as 319(h) Grant resources, educational opportunities, and potential legal authorities. Grants & Outreach and TMDL staff continued to work with EPA ►Grants and Outreach Program Region 9, ADOA Risk Management, and ASLD to initiate an ►TMDL Program implementation plan and secure funding for projects at the ►ADEQ Permit Programs (AZPDES, APP, etc) Boulder Creek/Hillside Mine site. Freeport MacMoRan Bagdad ►Monitoring and Assessment Programs agreed to provide soil cover, rock, and water toward capping the ►Federal and State Agencies with MOUs lower tailings pile. Ongoing activities at this time include scope of work and land access negotions with ASLD and ADOA, project design development, determination of donated materials value for match purposes, planning for biological and historical surveys, and sourcing of additional construction water. 10 15 20 45 10 30 10 50 2) Two types of teams are created to identify resources and potential actions for high priority watersheds: a) A multi-programmatic ADEQ team with a focus on legal authorities. b) A multi-agency team with watershed partners to identify and implement other strategies. ADEQ’s internal team, consisting of TMDL and G&O, continued to ►Grants and Outreach Program focus on project development at the Boulder Creek/Hillside Mine site. In addition to the external team consisting of EPA Region 9 Nonpoint Source and Superfund staff, ASLD, and ADOA formed during FY11, Freeport MacMoRan Bagdad was also included as an external partner (see above for additional details). No additional priority watersheds were selected for FY12. The Impaired Waters table was updated based upon reviewing the draft 2010 303d list Strategy 3.B.2 Assist locally-driven efforts to develop and implement Watershed Improvement Plans (WIPs) in targeted watersheds that identify water quality improvement projects, education and training needs, and other actions needed to mitigate impairments. Success Indicators 1) Watershed plans fulfill EPA’s nine key elements for a watershed plan. 2) Implementation is initiated through locally-driven efforts. 3) Measurable improvements in water quality after implementation of projects. Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Watershed Improvement Council establishment and education. 2) Volunteers trained to conduct field surveys and water quality sampling. WICs have been established for all current Targeted Watersheds. ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees ADEQ and WIC members continue to reach out to watershed (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) stakholders to encourage active participation and input. ADEQ ►TMDL Program aims to increase tribal partcipation in appropriate targeted ►Assessment Program watershed moving into FY13. The Watson Lake/Granite Creek TMDL project manager engaged the WIC throughout the year and gave them periodic project updates. Volunteers have been trained in the Cycle 11 and Cycle 12 ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees Targeted Watersheds. Ongoing FY12 training focused primarily (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) on the San Pedro and Tonto Creek watersheds. ►TMDL Program During FY12, an equipment loan program was developed to allow ►Ambient Monitoring Program grantees to utilize state-owned equipment in lieu of purchasing new equipment with 319 funding. 3) Methods for field surveys and sample Methods for field surveys and sample collection have been collection are developed, approved by ADEQ developed for all Targeted Watersheds. Some plans were staff, and implemented. adapted during FY12 to account for additional sampling needs. 4) Field surveys, sample collections, and other information are analyzed to identify key project sites. ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) ►TMDL Program ►Assessment Program Analysis of field survey and sampling data continued in all WIP- ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees developing watersheds during FY12. The TMDL Unit provided (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) SAP update and data review for all targeted watershed groups in ►TMDL Program FY12. TMDL staff reviewed the Oak Creek and San Francisco River WIPs and made suggestions regarding data interpretation and BMP selection. Overall Percent Completion Overall Percent Completion 20 20 40 80 20 20 40 80 20 20 40 80 20 20 20 60 19 5) Project sites are prioritized and best options for mitigating pollutant loading identified. 6) Planning documents are finalized. 7) 319(h) Grant fund used to implement plans, as appropriate. All WIP-developing watersheds worked toward prioritization of ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees sub-watersheds and specific sites during FY12. It became clear (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) that WIPs would not be able to provide a comprehensive list of specific BMPs at specific locations due to the fact that not all landowners/managers have been willing to participate in WIP development. Instead, WIPs will identify a series of high-priority specific projects, and identify methods for determing sites and BMPs for additional projects to address impairments. Draft WIP documents or portions thereof were submitted to ADEQ review during FY12 for all WIP watersheds, with the San Francisco WIP document finalized at the end of FY12. The remaining WIPs will be finalized early FY13. 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 20 0 20 40 Percent Completion per FY Overall Percent Completion ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) 319(h) grant funding was utlized to implement ADEQ-approved ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees education and outreach portions of the draft WIPs submitted by (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) the San Francisco and Oak Creek grantees. Strategy 3.B.3 Develop and implement TMDLs to identify source contributions and load reductions needed to meet standards. Success Indicators 1) EPA approves ADEQ’s TMDLs. 2) TMDL implementation results in pollutant reductions Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Scientifically-based TMDLs are developed Although only 2 TMDLs were submitted to EPA for approval ►Federal and State Agencies with MOUs according to the TMDL schedule. several additional TMDLs were drafted. TMDLs developed in FY12 ►ADEQ Permit Programs (AZPDES, APP, etc) incorporated new language to include WLAs for general permits. ►Monitoring & Assessment Programs Incorporation of this langauge proved challenging and delayed ►TMDL Program submission of several TMDLs. ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) 0 40 20 60 2) Status of TMDL development and existing Draft and approved TMDLs were posted on the ADEQ TMDL webpage. A TMDL Listserv was developed and used to TMDLs are available for stakeholders. disseminate TMDL and Assessment related information. 20 20 20 60 0 10 40 50 0 0 30 30 ►TMDL Program TIPs were developed for the Gila River and Little Colorado River ►TMDL Program 3) Public involvement in TMDL Implementation Plan (TIP) development and SSC and E.coli TMDLs along with the San Pedro E. coli TMDL. All of these were incorporated into the TMDL document due to the implementation. size of the watershed and lack of interested stakeholders. As these projects move through the public comment process the opportunity for expanded TIP development will be explored. If opportunity presents itself more informative, stand alone TIPs will be developed with stakeholders. WIP development for the San Francisco/Blue, San Pedro, and Granite Creek watersheds is publically driven, and is intended to eliminate the need for TIP development in these areas. While a TIP was included in the Oak Creek TMDL, the WIP for that watershed will serve to update implementation recommendations. 4) Nonpoint Source Grant funds used to implement TIP as appropriate. Nonpoint source funding supported the projects under the LCR ►Grants and Outreach Program and grantees Headwaters targeted watershed grant which are supported by (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed Stewards) the 2002 TMDL for turbidity and the implementation recommedations therein. G&O staff also intiated planning for Grant Cycle 13 during FY12. Projects that are recommended by WIPs, TMDLs, and TIPs will be prioritized for funding during this cycle, which will be announced the fall of FY13. 20 Goal 4: Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the Nonpoint Source Program and communicate success. Evaluate ADEQ’s Water Quality Improvement Grants (319 Grants) and TMDLs to determine their effectiveness at creating long-term reductions in pollutant loadings. Objective 4.A Strategy 4.A.1 Evaluate past grant projects and TMDLs to determine conditions that lead to project success or reasons why pollutant loads have not diminished sufficiently to allow the pollutant of concern to be delisted. Success Indicators 1) Grant evaluations lead to adjustments in grant funding decisions. 2) TMDL evaluations result in adjustments to TMDLs. 3) Water quality improvements are documented. Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) ADEQ staff will evaluate effectiveness of A framework for evaluating closed projects was developed ►Grants and Outreach Program education and on-the-ground improvement during FY09. Staffing shortages have prohibited site visits projects several years after the final project beyond those conducted for active and recently closed out closeout. projects during FY12. G&O staff do not foresee a staffing change in the near future, and began to coordinate with existing monitoring efforts conducted by TMDL effectiveness monitoring staff to aquire data relevant to past projects whenever possible. During FY12, data was collected that ties WQIG projects to water quality improvements in the Verde River, Pinto Creek, and potentially other waters. This date will be further analyzed during FY13, and Success Stories/Measure W reports will be submitted to EPA as appropriate. Overall Percent Completion 10 0 10 20 20 20 20 60 G&O and TMDL staff continued to work with grantees througout ►Grants and Outreach Program and 3) All grant projects have a monitoring FY12 to develop and adapt monitoring plans nd provide component that measures water quality grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed improvements and/or determines long-term mointoring resources, including training and equipment. Stewards) behavioral changes. 20 20 20 60 Load reduction estimates were entered into GRTS for eight ►Grants and Outreach Program and projects during FY12. The load reductions associated with these grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed projects totaled 96463.48 lbs/yr of nitrogen, 477.64 lbs/year of Stewards) phosphorus, and 535.91 tons/year of sediment. 20 20 20 60 20 20 20 60 2) TMDL effectiveness is determined five years after completing the TMDL based on samples collected during critical conditions when past exceedances had occurred. 4) Submit load reduction reports for nutrients and sediment reductions to EPA using their Grant Reporting and Tracking System. TMDL Effectiveness Monitoring (EM) continued on the Tonto and ►TMDL Program Christopher Creek and Turkey Creek TMDLs. Additional samples were collected along the Verde River in conjunction with the ambient monitoring program. The Wallow Fire delayed additional sampling along Nutrioso Creek and LCR. TMDL EM efforts in FY12 were similar in scope and extent as previous efforts in FY11. FY12 efforts focused on the Tonto and Christopher Creek and Turkey Creek projects. However, the main EM staff member left the agency in February 2012 hampering efforts to collect additional EM data through the end of FY12. Data analysis on the Tonto TMDL project is on going and will be completed by the end of FY12. Staff will be reassigned in FY13 to continue EM on priority projects which will include Boulder and Pinto Creeks if remedial projects are completed in FY13 . ►Grants and Outreach Program and 5) Develop better methods for determining ADEQ contracted with AZ NEMO in FY11 to calculate load grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed load reductions of all types of pollutants in reductions for WQIG projects that will reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or sediment and will not be conducting Stewards) arid conditions. monitoring sufficient to provide their own load reduction data. AZ NEMO continued to utlize the AGWA program to calculate loard reduction data in FY12. 21 Communicate Nonpoint Source Program successes and lessons learned. Objective 4.B Strategy 4.B.1 Document “success stories” or “lessons learned.” Success Indicators 1) Stories increased public awareness of these programs. 2) Grant proposal methods reflect past successes and lessons learned. Milestones Progress Summary Responsible Parties Percent Completion per FY FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 1) Grantees provide information and graphics in their final reports for these stories. 2) Grant and TMDL effectiveness documented and communicated to the public. All final reports submitted to ADEQ during FY12 were in ►Grants and Outreach Program and accordance with the final report format revised in FY09. This grantees (e.g., NEMO, Master Watershed format follows the EPA 319(h) Success Story format to allow for Stewards) smooth transition between final reports and success story submissions. TMDL EM monitoring results were shared with interested stakeholders in several watersheds. TMDL EM monitoring results were shared with interested stakeholders in the Tonto and Christopher Creek watershed as data became available. While this monitoring reflects the effectiveness of past WQIG projects, direct determinations were not made regarding specific project sites. Results from Turkey Creek and Alum Gulch were shared with the USFS. Overall Percent Completion 20 20 20 60 20 20 20 60 ►TMDL Program 22 Appendix B: Impaired Waters Table Update ADEQ has a comprehensive strategy for improving water quality on Arizona’s impaired waters that will lead to these waters meeting standards. The TMDL and WQIG programs bring together the resources needed to move the surface water through a series of steps or levels until the impairment has been mitigated and the stream or lake is meeting standards for the pollutants of concern. The Impaired Waters Table is tool utilized to track surface waters based on Management Strategy and Priority Level. The following table is a slightly abridged version of the tool utilized by ADEQ. This table has been updated based on Arizona’s Draft 2010 Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. It is primarily organized based on ADEQ’s Priorization Level. Waters are prioritized in one of the following ways:       High priority for attaining standards (color coded blue) Potential for improvement in the near future (color coded green) Explore opportunities (color coded yellow) Federal responsibility to mitigate (color coded orange) Potential de-list (color coded pink) Not an implementation priority/primarily point source in nature (color coded white) In the far left column, the table notes the Management Strategy that applies to each surface water. Since the Management Strategy informs ADEQ’s prioritization scheme, there is some overlap in the six Prioritization Levels and the six Management Strategies. The six Management Strategies (Level A through F) are:     Level A – Investigate and develop TMDL. Most impaired waters start in Level A. The TMDL Program will develop further monitoring data to determine the extent of impairment (e.g., seasonality, area), likely sources, and develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that indicates the load and waste load reductions needed for the surface water to meet standards. Level B – Develop a plan or other strategy that identifies and prioritizes effective water quality improvement projects. This step is key to diminishing the pollutant sources and impacts and may be initiated even before a TMDL has been completed if there is adequate local support for development of a plan or if the land owner wishes to actively remediate the pollution. If the pollutant can be mitigated easily, a formal TMDL may not be necessary. Watershed Improvement Plans, TMDL Implementation Plans, or other formal strategies developed must include EPA’s nine key elements of a watershed plan. These plans include a load or waste load reduction estimation, although not at the level of sophistication of a TMDL. If a TMDL has been completed first, the surface water automatically moves to Level B for development of the TMDL Implementation Plan (i.e., TIP). ADEQ works with watershed groups, other agencies, land owners, and other interested parties in Level B phase, bringing in expertise needed to identify and technically evaluate key projects. Level C – Implement the plan or other strategy.Level C - Surface waters move to Level C when the Watershed Improvement Plans, TMDL Implementation Plan, or other strategy is being implemented. Implementation may take years and require multiple phases. Level D – Re-evaluate impairment due to watershed improvements, new standards, or natural conditions. The impairment decision will be re-evaluated when water quality improvements are implemented, when relevant water quality standards change, or when preliminary data indicates that pollutants are solely due to natural conditions. New data are collected during this stage during critical conditions (conditions when exceedances have occurred in the past). 23   Level E – Request removal from Arizona’s impaired water list. If the data evaluation indicates that the surface water is no longer impaired by the pollutant(s) of concern, the surface water moves to this level for a short time. This level reflects the reality that surface waters must be officially removed from the impaired waters list, and this may take time. Level F – Assign to EPA because ADEQ lacks jurisdiction (e.g. pollutant source are entirely in Mexico). When all pollutant sources are outside of Arizona, particularly in Mexico, EPA will be notified and will be expected to take the lead in implementing pollutant mitigation actions. The spreadsheet shown in this appendix is a tool to coordinate efforts between several of ADEQ’s programs and help focus efforts and funding opportunities with other federal, state, and local agencies. Improving water quality on all surface waters listed as impaired is a high priority for ADEQ, so the level does not infer a priority. 24 Appendix B: Impaired Waters Table Updates KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development Potential Sources Previous Projects and Other Comments Support / Partnerships County Cadmium (1996) Humboldt Canyon (Headwaters to Alum Gulch) 15050301-340 Copper (1996) Zinc (1996) Low pH (1996) Cadmium (1996) Alum Gulch (Headwaters to Tributary 5050301-561A at 312820 / 1104351 ); D High focus for attaining standards Potential Santa Cruz Measure W/SP-12 Alum Gulch (from headwaters to end of intermittent flow and tributaries (e.g.Humboldt Canyon)) Copper (1996) Low pH (1996) Alum Gulch (Tributary at 312820 / 1104351 to Tributary at 312917 / 1104425) Cadmium (1996) 15050301-561B TMDL sources identifed: Remediate mining sources. Zinc (1996) 4a TMDL completed in 2003 4a Completed TMDL in 2004 Completed TIP in 2005 Mine tailings and adit Copper (1996) Zinc (1996) USFS has remediated Worlds Fair Mine and Humboldt Canyon Friends of Sonoita Creek and Mine. Remaining sources are Humboldt Canyon and January adits Friends of Santa Cruz (point sources), and are a low priority for USFS at this time. Tiny subdrainage of Sonoita Creek 15050301-02 Santa Cruz Low pH (1996) Cadmium (1996) Alum Gulch (Tributary at 312917 / 1104425 to Sonoita Creek) 15050301-561C Copper (1996) Zinc (1996) Low pH (1996) Arsenic TMDL identified sources: Remediation at Hillside Mine. C High focus for attaining standards ADEQ NPS Funding Target Bill Williams AND Potential Measure W/SP12 Boulder Creek (from Wilder Creek to Boulder Creek (Wilder Creek - Butte Butte Creek) Creek) AZ15030202-005A Copper Mining Zinc Granite Creek (Headwaters to Willow 15060202-059A Creek) Miller Creek (Headwaters to Granite 15060202-767 Creek) B/C High focus for attaining standards ADEQ NPS Funding Target Verde Granite Creek/Watson Lake DO (2004 - EPA) E. coli (2010) 15060202-1590 Developing a WIP to dentify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. DO listing on Granite may come off in the 2012 assessment. E. coli (2010) Nitrogen Watson Lake Arizona State Lands Dept Identify and prioritize other mining contributions in the drainage. Arizona Risk Management BLM Yavapai ADEQ coordinating with ASLD, EPA, ADOA and Freeport McMoRan Freeport McMorRan to address lower tailings pile. Construction expected in Spring EPA Region 9 2013. BLM currently developing plan to address upper pile. Middle pile under private ownership. 5 TMDLs to be completed in FY13 WQIGs: 1. Retention basin improvement and street sewer Urban, old city infrastructure, eduction program (2007) 2. Granite Creek channel recontouring in hobby farms, recycled Watson Woods. 3. Granite Creek riparian improvement in Watson wastewater, inadequate Woods (Watson Woods is just above Watson Lake) 4. Granite facilities for day workers, etc Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (2009) Low DO Prescott Creeks Preservation Association City of Prescott ADOT Yavapai Other Work completed by watershed group (Prescott Creeks): ambient monitoring to determine sources of nutrients and E. coli bacteria. Other monitoring is proposed. High pH (EPA 2004) Ammonia Low DO D Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Potential Santa Cruz Measure W/SP-12 Lakeside Lake Lakeside Lake 15050302-0760 High pH Cholorophyll-a Nitrogen 4a TMDL completed in 2005 This lake formerly but no longer receives effluent. Wildlife, duck feeding, dog droppings may contribute some nutrients. TMDL identified: Further treatment of effluent (tertiary or constructed wetland); provide more well water (not effluent); reduce storm water entering lake, dredge lake to remove nutrients in sediment; upgrade aeration system in lake; use alum City of Tucson Park and to remove phosphorus from water column; use algaecides; and Recreation. drop lake level in spring to minimize algae growth Arizona Game and Fish Department WQIGs: Treating lake with Alum to remove phosphorus Pima New permit indicates that city will not be discharging effluent to the lake. Phosphorus 25 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Little Colorado River (West Fork Little Colorado River to Water Canyon); 15020001-011; Turbidity D High focus for attaining standards ADEQ NPS Funding Target Little Colorado River (from West Fork Little Colorado River (Water Canyon 15020001-010 Little Colorado to Nutrioso Creek); LCR to to Lyman Lake) (several River reaches) Little Colorado River (Nutrioso Creek 15020001-009 to Carnero Creek); 15020001-005 Turbidity Oak Creek (Dry Creek to Spring Creek); 15060202-017 E. coli (2006) B/C High focus for attaining standards ADEQ NPS Funding Target Verde 15060202-018A Oak Creek (Tributary at 345709 / 1114513 to Slide Rock State Park); 15060202-018B Oak Creek (Slide Rock State Park to Dry Creek); 15060202-018C TMDL Development Potential Sources 4a TMDL, including TIP completed in 2002. Need to reevaluate using SSC standards, so will sample for SSC and turbidity in 2009sampling continues Grazing, recreation, silviculture (forestry), roads smaller urban areas. Stream bank and channel degradation. Turbidity Little Colorado River (Coyote Creek to Lyman Lake) Oak Creek (West Fork Oak Creek to Tributary at 345709 / 1114513); Oak Creek (from headwaters to Spring Creek - 5 reaches) and Spring Creek (from headwaters to Oak Creek) Turbidity Assessment Category E. coli (1994) 4a Spring Creek (Coffee Creek to Oak Creek) E. coli (2006) 15060202-022 TMDL completed 2011 Recreation, septic systems, urban runoff, grazing E. coli (2006) E. coli (2006) Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Implementation plan has been developed for the Coyote Creek subwatershed as part of grant #3 listed below. WQIGs: 1. Coyote Creek sediment reduction (1998) 2. Big Ditch project (2000) 3. Coyote Creek Targeted Watershed Improvement Grant (2010) Support / Partnerships County US Forest Service MOU Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council Apache Developing a WIP to dentify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. E. coli (2006) Oak Creek (Headwaters to West Fork 15060202-019 Oak Creek); Previous Projects and Other Comments WQIGs: 1.Sediment traps - Guardian Project 2000. 2. 10 Septic systems 2000-2002 3. Don't trash Slide Rock 4. Sediment catchments 2000-02 5. Slide Rock educaiton and outreach (1997) Oak Creek Watershed Council 6. DNA Genotyping (1999) 7. Septic systems (1998) 8. Outfall pipe Coconino National Forest (2000) 9. Septic survey (2001) 10. Trailhead toilets and riparian improvements (2002) 11. Redrock State Park constructed wetland (2006) 12. Oak Creek WQIG (toilets and campground improvements) (2006) 13. Oak Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (2010) Yavapai Coconino Pinto Creek (Headwaters to Tributary 15060103-018A at 331927 / 1105456) A High focus for attaining standards Potential Salt Measure W/SP-12 Pinto Creek (from headwaters to Roosevelt Lake) Pinto Creek (Tributary at 331927 / 1105456 to West Fork Pinto Creek) Gibson Mine Tributary (Deadwaters to Pinto Creek B/C High focus for attaining standards ADEQ NPS Funding Target Upper Gila 15060103-018B Pinto Creek (West Fork Pinto Creek to Roosevelt Lake) 15060103-018C Copper (1990) Selenium (2004) Blue River (Strayhorse Creek to San Francisco River); 15040004-025B E. coli ( 2006 ) 15040004-003 E. coli ( 2006 ) San Francisco (from Blue River to Limestone Gulch) San Francisco River (Blue River to and Blue River (from Strayhorse Creek to Limestone Gulch); San Francisco River) B/C ADEQ NPS Funding Target San Pedro San Pedro River (from Babocomari Creek to Dragoon Wash) San Pedro River (Babocomari Creek to Dragoon Wash) 4a 15060103-887 San Francisco River (Limestone Gulch 15040004-001 to Gila River) High focus for attaining standards Copper (1990) 15050202-003 Phase 1 completed in 2001. Phase II under development. TMDL waiting for a siteHistoring and current mining specific copper standard. Selenum TMDL not yet completed. WQIG: 1. Gibson Mine remediation (2006) 2. NPS Reduction of Copper to Pinto Creek (2010) Friends of Pinto Creek Gila ADEQ is attempting to set a site specific copper standard 4a (*also 5) 5 On hold due to WQIG/WIP development. E. coli (2010) E. coli (2004) TMDL indicated sources: 1. Mining, especially at Gibson Mine. 2. Survey area to identify other abandoned mining operations and prioritize for remediation. 5 Initiated in 2006. TMDL currenlty on hold due to WQIG/WIP development. Small scale riparian improvements, fencing, and alternative water sources for cattle have been funded peicemeal throughout Grazing, recreation, urban the watershed. Developing a WIP to identify and prioritize runoff, septic systems. sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Upper Gila Watershed Upper Gila Watershed Partnership Partnership and County Health WQIGs: 1. Martinez Ranch riparian improve and grazing BMPs 2. Greenlee County Health Dept Department believe the Kaler Ranch erosion control Phase I (2006) 3. Cole Creek and Friends of the Frisco problem is human recreation White Mule Creek sediment reduction (2004 4. San Francisco/Blue without proper facilities. River Targeted Watershed Improvement Plan (2009) 5. Kaler Ranch erosion control Phase II (2010) Greenlee Developing a WIP to identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Grazing Septic systems and urban WQIGs: 1. San Pedro urban sediment reduction (Sierra Vista, runoff in Fairbank and Benson 1995) 2. San Pedro sediment reduction (1997) 3. Borderlands area upland improvements (2002) 4. Fort Huachuca road closure & crossing improve (2002) 5. San Pedro Watershed Improvement Plan (2010) Coronado RC&D, Clean Water Alliance Cochise 26 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category Tonto Creek (Headwaters to Tributary at 341810 / 1110414 ) 15060103-018B E. coli (1998) Low DO (EPA 2004) Nitrogen (1998) 4a 15060103-018C E. coli (1998) Low DO (EPA 2004) Nitrogen (1998) 4a E. coli (2004) 4a Phosphorus (2006) 5 TMDL not yet scheduled 4a TMDL completed in 2008. ADEQ is doing effectiveness monitoring. Historic mining Completed: US Forest Service has remediated tailings at Golden Belt and Golden Turkey mine sites. Doing effectiveness monitoring. MSGP may address sources from Blue Bell mine. 4a Completed TMDL in 2004 Completed TIP in 2005 Mining See comment above [Boulder Creek (from Wilder Creek to Butte Creek)] . This reach is below Hillside mine; implemenation activities at Hillside should reduce loadings to this reach. B High focus for attaining standards ADEQ NPS Funding Target Salt AND Potential Measure W/SP12 Tonto Creek (from headwaters to Tonto Creek (Tributary at 34180 / unnamed tributary) 1110414 to Haigler Creek) and Christopher Creek (from headwaters to Tonto Creek Christopher Creek (Headwaters to Tonto Creek) D C Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Turkey Creek (from unnamed tributary to Poland Creek) Talk about opportunities 15070102-036B Lead (2004) Arsenic N/A Bill Williams Boulder Creek (from Butte Creek to Boulder Creek (Butte Creek - Copper AZ15030202-005B Copper Creek) Creek) Copper Zinc Gila River (Apache Creek to Skully Creek) A Turkey Creek (Tributary at 341928/1122128 to Polan d Creek) N/A Upper Gila Gila River (from Skully Creek to San Francisco River) Gila River (Apache Creek to Skully Creek) Gila River (Skully Creek to San Francisco River) TMDLs for nitrogen and E. coli were completed in 2005 Potential Sources Previous Projects and Other Comments TMDL identified sources: Inadequate septic tanks and recreational sources. Grazing. Fish hatchery WQIGs: 1. Gila County septic system upgrades (2006) 2. R-Bar-C Inadequate septic systems for Boy Scout septic improvements (2007) 3. Tonto Baptist Camp campgrounds and subdivisions. septic upgrade (2008) 4. Tonto Watershed Improvement Grant (2010) (CANCELLED - lack of organization at the local level) Support / Partnerships County Tonto Watershed Improvement Group Gila County Department of Gila Health Services Arizona Game and Fish Tonto National Forest 15060103-018A Copper (1992) Potential Middle Gila Measure W/SP-12 TMDL Development 15040002-002 15040002-001 E. coli (dissolved) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. Selenium (2004) E. coli (2010) 5 Selenium delisted in 2010 based on recent Crop production, grazing,a g data collection . E. return flows coli TMDL not yet initiated 5 E. coli TMDL Grazing, roads, mining, completed in 2012. Sediment TMDL to be recreation completed FY13. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Selenium from ag return flows is a point source, but these flows are exempt from permit requirements. USFS plans to remediate the mine site believed to be contributing the majority of pollutants. Yavapai Yavapai Upper Gila Watershed Partnership Greenlee Upper Gila Watershed Partnership Graham E coli (2004) B Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity N/A Upper Gila Gila River (from Bonita Creek to Yuma Wash) Gila River (Bonita Creek to Yuma Wash) 15040005-022 Suspended sediment concentration (2004 by EPA) Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Selenium from ag return flows is a point source, but these flows are exempt from permit requirements. WQIGs: Gila River clean up (2006) Lead (total) (2010) B Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity E. coli (draft 2006) N/A Upper Gila Gila River (from New Mexico to Bitter Creek) Gila River (New Mexico border to Bitter Creek) 5 15040002-004 Suspended sediment concentration (2006) 5 E. coli (1988) F Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity N/A Santa Cruz Nogales and East Nogales Wash (from Nogales Wash (Mexico border to Mexico to Portrero Wash) Potrero Creek) 15050301-011 Ammonia (2004) Chlorine (1988) 5 E. coli TMDL completed in 2012. Grazing, agriculture crop Sediment TMDL to be production, septic systems completed FY13. Loss of resources has delayed the development of this TMDL. EPA may fund TMDL in FY13. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Upper Gila Watershed WQIG: 1. Duncan Valley canal replacement (2007), 2. Gila Partnership Watershed Stewards Ph. I (2008), 3. Gila Watershed Stewards Ph. II (2010) Infrastructure deterioration in Mexico, which allows raw Infrastructure (point source) upgrades must be accomplished to sewage to flow into Arizona. properly address primary sources. Chlorine is added to reduce human health risks. Friends of the Santa Cruz Greenlee Santa Cruz Copper (2004) 27 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID D Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Potential Santa Cruz Measure W/SP-12 Pena Blanca Lake Pena Blanca Lake 15050301-1070 Pollutants (First Listed) Mercury in fish Assessment Category 4a Narrative nutrient (weeds) (1992) C Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity N/A Little Colorado Rainbow Lake River Rainbow Lake 15020005-1170 4a High pH (1992) TMDL Development Potential Sources TMDL completed in 1999, included TIP. Three sources identified in TMDL: 1) atmospheric deposition, 2) St. Patrick Mine ball mill site, 3) natural substrates. Previous Projects and Other Comments Support / Partnerships County Friends of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council and Show Low Watershed Enhancement Partnership Apache TMDL identified: Remove tailings at St Patrick Mine Ball Mill site and reduce sediment to lake. USFS has completed the remediation of ST Patrick mine. USFS dredged lake in 2009 to remove mercury recycling in lake sediments. Lake has been refilled and restocked, but it will take several years to determine new fish tissue levels. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources not identified in the TMDL and prioritize implementation. ADEQ conducted preliminary monitoring to determine if dredging Primarily nutrient recycling. would be effective. WQIG funds can't be used for in-lake Implementing many BMPs and treatments until all watershed contributions are addressed. Completed TMDL and sewered area around lake to Stormwater runoff contributions are still a concern. TIP in 2000 mitigate nutrients. Watershed group has focused its efforts on herbicide application May be grazing or urban runoff for the past few years, and is currently pursuing grass-eating carp issues upstream. as an in-lake treatment. Completed: Sewering the area WQIGs: Rainbow Lake Water Qualtiy Improvement Project (2008) -installing buffer strips around lake. Low DO A A/B A/B Talk about opportunities Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Talk about opportunities N/A EQIP Priority Watershed N/A Upper Gila San Pedro San Pedro San Francisco River (Limestone Gulch San Francisco River (Limestone Gulch 15040004-001 to Gila River) to Gila River) San Pedro River (from Aravaipa Creek San Pedro River (Aravaipa Creek to to Gila River) Gila River) San Pedro River (from Dragoon Wash San Pedro River (Dragoon Wash to to Tres Alamos Wash) Tres Alamos Wash) 15050203-001 15050202-002 E. coli (2010) E. coli (2004) Selenium (2004) 5 5 Nitrate (1990) de-listed 2012 5 E. coli (2010) Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. WIP being developed for the middle San Pedro (2010 Targeted Watershed) will likely be able to be used as a guide for identifying sources in this reach. ASARCO land swap taking place to mitigate loss of other riparian corridors may help. TMDL to be completed in FY13 Selenium impairment dropped in 2010 due to a change in the applcation of the standard. Grazing Mining Stream bank and channel destabilization E. coli : Newly listed/not yet initiated This reach is immediately downstream from the 2011awarded San Pedro WIP reach. WQIGs: San Pedro River cleanup near St David (2003) May be able to apply recommended practices to this reach as well. Coronado RC&D, Clean Water Alliance WQIGs: 1. Arivaipa Canyonn riparian restoration (2000) 2. San Pedro riparian improvements (2000) 3. Wildlife habitat restoration (2003) 4. San Pedro cleanup trash (near St David) (2003) 5. 3 Links Farm riparian restoration (2005) 6. S.P Initiative identified sediment controls in The Narrows (2000) 7. Manzanita Erosion control (2006) Community Watershed Alliance (Middle San Pedro) Identified as a priority watershed for WQIP funding by USDA/NRCS under the Nationl Water Quality Initiative for FY12. Pinal Cochise 28 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID F Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity N/A Santa Cruz Santa Cruz River (from Mexico to Nogales WWTP) Santa Cruz River (from Mexico to Nogales WWTP) 15050301-010 Pollutants (First Listed) E. coli (2002) Assessment Category 5 TMDL Development Potential Sources Initiated in 2007TMDL on hold due to Grazing, unknown sources in loss of staff. EPA may Mexico. fund TMDL in FY13. Previous Projects and Other Comments Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. WQIG funds could be used to address grazing issues. . EPA identified this as a national Targeted Watershed in 2008 and granted the Sonoran Institute $858,612 to identify pollutant Friends of Santa Cruz sources in the watershed,develop a plan of action, and implement education and on-the-ground strategies. WQIGs: 1. Sante Fe Ranch riparian area improvement (2000) 2. Riparian improvement and monitoring (2003) 3. SC River sediment control (2006) E. coli (2004) A Talk about opportunities N/A Little Colorado Little Colorado (from Silver Creek to Little Colorado River (Silver Creek to 15020002-004 River Carr Wash) Carr Wash) 5 TMDLs to be completed in FY13 Grazing, small urban areas. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. WQIGs: Silver Creek sediment reduction (1994) Sediment (EPA 2004) High pH (1998) B Talk about opportunities N/A Upper Gila Luna Lake Luna Lake 15040004-0840 Low DO (1998) Support / Partnerships County Santa Cruz Silver Creek Advisory Commission and the Show Low Creek Partnership (Two groups Apache working with the Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council) Eliminate nutrient discharges from Alpine Sanitary District (WIFA?). 4a TMDL completed in 2000, including TIP Grazing, septic systems, sporadic NPDES discharges, recycled nutrients in lake Narrative nutrients (1998) TMDL identified: Upgrade septic systems, grazing BMPs, urban BMPs, filter strips, riparian improvements, weed harvesting, dredging, and raise lake levels (reducing water diversions). Upper Gila Watershed Partnership Apache Upper Gila Watershed Partnership Cochise Friends of the Forest Apache WQIG: Luna Lake septic system upgrades (2001) Ammonia D Delist/Potential Delist N/A Upper Gila Cave Creek (from headwaters to South Fork of Cave Creek) Cave Creek (Headwaters to South Fork Cave Creek) 15040006-852A Selenium (2004) 5 Initated in 2006. New Unknown. This is a pristine monitoring shows no area. exceedances. A Delist/Potential Delist N/A Salt Crescent Lake Crescent Lake 15060101-0420 High pH (2002 - EPA) 5 TMDL de-prioritized based on potential de- Grazing list. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Possible de-list. 5 May be natural low pH values (occuring 4 meters deep in this 7 Unknown. acre lake.) Likely delist. Proposed: Identify, prioritize and implement appropriate nutrient BMPs. 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. A Delist/Potential Delist N/A Santa Cruz Rose Canyon Lake Rose Canyon Lake 15050302-1260 Low pH (2004 by EPA) Pima Chlorine (2010) F EPA responsibility to N/A mitigate? Santa Cruz Portrero Creek (Interstate 19 to Santa Cruz River) Potrero Creek (Interstate 19 to Santa 15050301-500B Cruz River) Low DO (2010) E. coli (2010) A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Agua Fria River (Sycamore Creek to Big Bug Creek) Agua Fria River (Sycamore Creek to Big Bug Creek) 15070102-023 E. coli (2010) 29 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) A Not Categorized N/A Bill Williams Alamo Lake Alamo Lake 15030204-0040 Mercury in fish (2002 by EPA) 5 (ADEQ had it listed prior 2002) 15030204-0040 Ammonia (2004) A Not Categorized N/A Bill Williams Alamo Lake Alamo Lake pH (1996) Assessment Category TMDL Development Potential Sources Previous Projects and Other Comments TMDL to be completed in FY13 Mining Air deposition Proposed: Identify, prioritize, and remediate mining sites in drainage, especially adjacent to streams and washes. Mohave and La Paz No plans to initiate TMDLs at this time. Grazing Recreation Proposed: Identify and prioritize nutrient sources and implement Lake operated by Corps of appropriate BMPs. Engineers. Routine monitoring by USFWS Mohave and La Paz 5 TMDL to be completed in FY13 Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Known source from a landscaping/garden business; considered "exempt point source" and as such ineligible City of Phoenix Parks Urban, duck feeding, unknown for NPS funding. In general for uban lakes: impairments are due to in-lake issues, Department Source of water? so WQIG eligible projects are limited. E. coli impairments may be dropped due to the use of the wrong standard in the original listings. Maricopa 5 Loss of resources has delayed the development of this TMDL Dam operations Wildfires Grazing Forestry Roads Small town urban sources USFS and Friends of the Forests Maricopa TMDL identified primary sources as air deposition and natural deposition from local substrates. Friends of the Forest Pima US Forest Service MOU Coconino 5 Support / Partnerships County DO (2006) A A Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Not Categorized N/A N/A Middle Gila Salt Alvord Park Lake Apache Lake Canyon Lake Salt River just below Saguaro Lake Alvord Lake 15060106B-0050 Ammonia (2004) Apache Lake 15060106A-0070; Dissolved oxygen (2006) Canyon Lake 15060106A-0250 Salt River (Stewart Mountain Dam to 15060106A-003 Verde River) Dissolved oxygen (2004) Dissolved oxygen (2004) Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. WQIGs: Trees for the Rim (after wildfire) C Not Categorized N/A Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Mercury in fish (1992) 4a TMDL completed in 1999, included TIP. A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Arnett Creek (Headwaters to Queen Creek) Arnett Creek (Headwaters to Queen Creek) 15050100-1818 Copper (dissolved) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 5 Originally initated in 2007; de-prioritized Unknown (recreation, based on likelihood of grazing?) naturally-occuring high pH. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. May eventually de-list based on natural conditions. 5 TMDL to be completed in FY13 (combined with Alamo Lake TMDL) Proposed: Identify and prioritize nutrient sources and implement See discussion for Alamo Lake Mohave and La appropriate BMPs. nutrient impairments Paz A A Not Categorized Not Categorized N/A N/A Little Colorado Bear Canyon Lake River Bill Williams Bear Canyon Lake Bill Williams River (from Alamo Lake Bill Williams River (Alamo Lake to to Castaneda Wash) Castaneda Wash) 15020008-0130 Low pH (2004 by EPA) Ammonia (2006) 15030204-003 High pH (2006) A Not Categorized N/A Little Colorado Black Canyon Lake River A Not Categorized N/A Bill Williams A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila See source discussion for Alamo Lake nutrient impairments TMDL sources identifed: Manage lake to reduce production of methylmercury. Possibly dredge lake sediments Black Canyon Lake 15020010-0180 Ammonia (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. Boulder Creek (Tributary at 344114/1131800 to Wilder Creek) Boulder Creek (Tributary at 344114/1131800 to Wilder Creek) 15030202-006B Beryllium (dissolved) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. Chaparral Lake Chaparral Park Lake 15060106B-0300 5 TMDL to be completed in FY13 DO (2004) E. coli (2004) Urban lake. If connected to Indian Bend Wash, it receives urban drainage during storms from an area of Scottsdale. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. City of Scottsdale Parks Dept Maricopa 30 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID A Not Categorized N/A Colorado Lower Gila A Not Categorized N/A A Not Categorized N/A A Not Categorized N/A Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development Colorado River (Bill Williams River to Colorado River (Bill Williams River to 15030104-020 Osborne Wash) Osborne Wash) Selenium (total) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. Colorado Lower Colorado River (from Hoover Dam to Colorado River (from Hoover Dam to 15030101-015 Lake Mohave) Lake Mohave) Selenium (total) (2004) 5 Loss of resources has Natural springs, ag return delayed the flows, and out of state sources development of this most likely. TMDL Colorado Lower Gila Colorado River (Imperial Dam to Gila Colorado River (Imperial Dam to Gila 15030107-003 River) River) Selenium (total) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 5 Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement Loss of resources has Natural springs, ag return appropriate BMPs. Identify source loads contributed from other Same as Colorado reach delayed the flows, and out of state sources states (how remediate these?). Selenium from ag return flows is a above. development of this point source, but these flows are exempt from permit most likely. TMDL requirements. 5 Loss of resources has Agriculture (crop production), delayed the WWTP discharges, septic development of this systems, out-of-state loads TMDL Colorado Grand Colorado River (from Lake Powell to Colorado River (Lake Powell to Paria 14070006-001 Paria River) River) Selenium (total) (2006) Selenium (total) (2006) A Not Categorized N/A Colorado Lower Colorado River (from Main Canal to Mexico) Colorado River (Main Canal to Mexico 15030107-001 border) Low DO (2006) Potential Sources A Not Categorized N/A Colorado River (from Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) Colorado River (from Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) 15010002-003 Not Categorized N/A Bill Williams Coors Lake Coors Lake 15030202-5000 Mercury in fish (EPA listed in 2004) Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Identify source loads contributed from other states. Selenium from ag return flows is a point source, but these flows are exempt from permit requirements. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Identify source loads contributed from other states. Selenium from ag return flows is a point source, but these flows are exempt from permit requirements. County Mohave Coconino California's Colorado River Basin Board has also listed this Yuma portion of the river as impaired due to selenium. Colorado River Salinity Control Natural sandstone formations Program (B of R); WQIGs: 1. Kaibab Ind Moccasin Wash range and crop BMPs (1997) Coconino(SSC) Natural springs (Se) Lower Colorado River Basin 3. Mohave Grazing (SSC) Recreation (SSC) 2. Fredonia (Pratt Tank) riparian improvement Compact (with other states) Milkweed riparian restoration (Hualapai) (2000) Out of state sources (Se) 4. Mohawk Canyon (Hualapai) 2000 5. Red Springs fencing (Hualapai) 1998 6. Bank stabilization at Spencer Beach (2007) 7. Road Stabilization at Diamond Creek (2008) 5 Loss of resources has delayed the development of this TMDL 5 TMDL not yet scheduled 5 Data collection complete TMDL Urban lake. Duck feeding. development ongoing Suspended sediment concentration (2004) A Support / Partnerships Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Identify source loads contributed from other states (how remediate these?). Selenium (2004) Colorado Grand Previous Projects and Other Comments Mining Proposed: Identify and prioritize mercury sources and implement appropriate remediation. Yavapai DO (2004) A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Cortez Park Lake Cortez Park Lake 15060106B-0410 High pH (2004) Arsenic (2006) A Not Categorized N/A Verde East Verde River (from American Gulch to Verde River) East Verde River (From American Gulch to Verde River) 15060203-022C Not Categorized N/A Verde East Verde River (from Ellison Creek East Verde River (Ellison Creek to to American Gulch) American Gulch) 15060203-022B Selenium (2004) Maricopa Verde Watershed Association Gila Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Verde Watershed Association Gila 5 Inititated in 2007; to be completed FY14 Probably natural. Concentration increase when Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement water is not being transferred appropriate BMPs. . into this river from East Clear Recent data shows no exceedances. Creek. 5 TMDL in progress; to be completed FY14 Unknown. May be natural 4a Completed in 2004 Identified in TMDL (still proposed): Remediate mining issues at Mining (primarily Zonia Mine). Zonia Mine Primarily point source. Identify, priortize, and implement appropriate BMPs at other mines. Boron (2006) A City of Phoenix Parks Department Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Copper (1994) B Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. N/A Middle Gila French Gulch (from headwaters to Hassayampa River) French Gulch (Headwaters to Hassayampa River) Zinc (1994) 15070103-239 Cadmium (1994) Yavapai 31 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development 5 TMDL in progress; to be completed FY15 5 TMDL in progress; to be completed FY15 5 Loss of resources has delayed the development of this TMDL Potential Sources Previous Projects and Other Comments Support / Partnerships County Wastewater discharges Agricultural crop production, including canal return flows Natural sources Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Selenium from ag return flows is a point source, but these flows are exempt from permit requirements. Corps of Engineers Mohave Selenium (total) (2004) A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Gila River (from Centennial Wash to Gillespie Dam) Gila River (Centennial Wash Gillespie Dam) 15070101-008 DDT metabolites, toxaphene and chlordane in fish tissue (2002- EPA) Boron (total) (1992) Selenium (2004) A A A Not Categorized Not Categorized Not Categorized N/A N/A N/A Colorado Lower Middle Gila Upper Gila Gila River (from Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) Gila River (San Pedro River to Mineral Creek) Gila River (from Skully Creek to San Francisco River) Gila River (Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) Gila River (San Pedro River to Mineral Creek) 15070201-003 Boron (total) (2004 relist) 15050100-008 Gila River (Skully Creek to San Francisco River) 15040002-001 Unnamed Trib to Harshaw Creek (Headwaters to Harshaw Creek) 15050301-888 SSC (2006) E. coli (2010) Unidentified at this time. Wildfire a few years ago. Grazing Forestry Roads Small town urban sources Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Selenium from ag return flows is a point source, but these flows are exempt from permit requirements. Yuma Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Pinal WQIGs: Trees for the Rim (after wildfire) Unidentified at this time. n/a Upper Gila Watershed Partnership Greenlee TMDL completed in 2003 Mine tailings TMDL sources identifed: Remediate mining area by: removing or filling over mining residue; redirecting runoff away from mining deposits; removing mine wastes in the stream bed or combine with neutralizing materials; and constructing wetlands to treat mine discharges. Friends of Sonoita Creek and Friends of Santa Cruz PARA (Patagonia area landowners' group) Santa Cruz 4a TMDL Completed in 2002 Mines in the upper Hassayampa River area, including, but not limited to McCleur Mine, Senator Mine, Sheldo Mine, and Cash Mine. 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 5 E. coli TMDL not yet initiated 4a Cadmium B Not Categorized N/A Santa Cruz Low pH Harshaw Creek Harshaw Creek (Headwaters to Sonoita Creek) Cadmium 15050301-025 Low pH Cadmium (1992) Hassayampa River (Headwaters to Copper Creek) Copper (1992) 15070103-007A Zinc (1992) Low pH (2006) B Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Hassayampa River (from headwaters Cash Mine Creek (Headwaters to to Copper Creek, including tributaries such as Cash Mine Creek) Hassayampa River) Cadmium (1992) 15070103-349 Copper (1992) Zinc (1992) Cadmium (1992) Unnamed Tributary to Cash Mine Creek (Headwaters to Cash Mine Creek) 15050100212 Lake Mohave 15030101-0960 Selenium (total) (2010) Identified in TMDL and Proposed: Remediate abandoned or inactive mine sites (McCleur Mine) contributing pollutants, including tailings and adits at these sites. Prescott National Forest Yavapai Copper (1992) Zinc (1992) A Not Categorized N/A Colorado Lower Gila B Not Categorized N/A Little Colorado Long Lake (lower) River Long Lake (Lower) 15020008-0820 Mercury in fish (2004 by 4a EPA) TMDL completed 2012; TIP in progress Air deposition Little Colorado River Proposed: Identify and prioritize mercury sources and implement Watershed Coordinating appropriate remediation. Council Coconino A Not Categorized N/A Little Colorado Lyman Lake/Reservoir River Lyman Lake 15020001-0850 Mercury in fish (2004 by 5 EPA) TMDL to be completed in FY13 Air deposition Little Colorado River Proposed: Identify and prioritize mercury sources and implement Watershed Coordinating appropriate BMPs. Council Apache Lake Mohave 32 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development 5 Consent decree requires mine to meet all surface water standards; therefore, TMDL has not been initiated. Potential Sources Previous Projects and Other Comments Support / Partnerships County USFS Pinal Selenium (2004) C Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. N/A Middle Gila Mineral Creek (from Devils Canyon to Mineral Creek (Devil's Canyon to Gila 15050100-012B Gila River) River) Copper (1992) ASARCO is looking at ways to mitigate selenium contamination and low dissolved oxygen occurring in mining tunnel constructed to direct surface water around mining operation. Mining (Ray Mine and Gibson Mine) WQIG - Gibson Mine Mineral Creek - far upstream; not likely to impact this reach. Low DO (2006) A Not Categorized N/A San Pedro Brewery Gulch (Headwaters to Mule Gulch) 15080301-337 Copper (dissolved) (2004) Mule Gulch (Headwaters to above Lavender Pit) 15080301-090A Copper (dissolved) (1990) Mule Gulch (Above Lavender Pit to Mule Gulch and tributaries, including Bisbee WWTP discharge) Brewery Gulch (from headwaters to Highway 80 bridge) (3 reaches) Mule Gulch (Bisbee WWTP discharge to Highway 80 bridge) 15080301-090B Cadmium (dissolved) (1990) 15080301-090C Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Copper (dissolved) (1990) Low pH (EPA 2004) ASARCO has mitigated manganese and the majority of copper pollutants. 5 Developing site specific standards Current and historic mining Cochise Completed: FMI has re-routed stormwater and seeps to minimize impacts to Mule Gulch ADEQ is working on a site-specific copper standard Copper (total and dissolved) (1990) Low pH (1990) Zinc (dissolved) (1990) Nutrioso Creek (Nelson Reservoir to Picnic Creek) D Not Categorized N/A 15020001-017B Turbidity (1992) Little Colorado Nutrioso Creek (from Nelson Reservoir to Little Colorado River) River Completed TMDL in 2000 and TIP in 2002 4a Nutrioso Creek (Picnic Creek to Little 15020001-015 Colorado River) Turbidity (1992) DDT metabolites (EPA 2002) A Not Categorized N/A Colorado Lower Painted Rocks Borrow Pit Lake Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake 15070201-1010 A Not Categorized N/A N/A Colorado Grand Santa Cruz Paria River (from Utah border to Colorado River) Parker Canyon Lake Proposed: (based on diagonistic feasibility study in 1990's) Operate lake in a manner that increases DO levels (e.g. higher levels). . Low priority--borrow pit only fills during flood events. 5 E. coli (2006) Natural sandstone formations (SSC) Natural springs (Se) Loss of resources has Grazing (SSC) Recreation (SSC) delayed the Out of state sources (Se and development of this SSC) Potentially area may TMDL provide data for natural background conditions Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Identify source loads contributed from other states (how remediate these?) . Exceedances possibly primarily due to natural conditions (sandstone) Mercury in fish (2004 by 5 EPA) TMDL to be completed in FY13 Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Colorado River (Lake Powell to Paria 14070006-001 River) Parker Canyon Lake 15050301-1040 WQIGs: 1. EC Bar Ranch grazing projects (pasture and riparain improvements, alternative water (2000-2007), fencing, etc) 2. Rogers Ranch improvements (riparian and upland improvements, alternative water, fencing (2000), 3. Murray-Saffel Canyon sediment controls (2001, 4. Greenwood sediment reduction (2003) 5 Toxaphane and chlordane in fish tissue (EPA 2002) Suspended sediment concentration (2004) Not Categorized Grazing, forestry, roads Stream bank and channel destabilized. Urban, agriculture, grazing, roads, construction. Will initate when lake Prior diagnostic feasibility refills to stable level. study indicated problem is primarily due to lake management and flow. Low DO (1992) A Delisted upper portion (headwaters to Nelson Reservoir). Proposed: Identify, prioritize, and implement sediment sources and implement appropriate BMPs Air deposition. No obvious watershed sources. Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council Apache Maricopa National Parks Service MOU Coconino Cochise Santa Cruz 33 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development Potential Sources 4a TMDL Completed in 2001, including TIP TMDL indicated sources TMDL sources identfied: Improve riparian conditions to remove primarily recycling of nutrients. Watershed is so tiny sediments that might add more nutrient loads. and not developed, so little Lake is on private (Freeport) land; ADEQ has no current samples. would be contributed. Ammonia (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. Copper (dissolved) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 5 Model is being update to include recent data collected, site Historic and current mining. specific standard will likely no be developed 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2015 High pH (1998) B Not Categorized N/A Verde Peck's Lake Peck's Lake 15060202-1060 Low DO (1998) A Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. N/A Little Colorado Pintail Lake River Pintail Lake Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. N/A Little Colorado Puerco River River Puerco River (Dead Wash to Ninemile 15020007-007 Wash) Queen Creek (from headwaters to Superior WWTP) A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Queen Creek and tributaries N/A Salt Salt River (from Pinal Creek to Roosevelt Dam) County Northern Arizona Audubon Society Verde Watershed Association Yavapai Lead (total) (2010) 15050100-014B Queen Creek (Potts Canyon to Whitlow Canyon) 15050100-014C Copper (dissolved) (2010) Tributary to Queen Creek (Headwaters to Queen Creek) 15050100-991 Salt River (Pinal Creek to Roosevelt Lake) Support / Partnerships Copper (dissolved) (2002) Copper (dissolved) (2004) Unnamed tributary to Queen Creek (Headwaters to Queen Creek Not Categorized 15050100-014A Queen Creek (Superior WWTP to Potts Canyon) Unnamed tributary to Queen Creek (Headwaters to Queen Creek) A 15020005-5000 Previous Projects and Other Comments 15050100-1843 15050100-1000 Copper (dissolved) (2010) Arizona Parks Department and friends of Boyce Thompson Pinal Arboretum. Copper (dissolved) (2010) Copper (dissolved) (2010) Suspended sediment (2006) 15060106A-004 Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. E. coli (2010) Nitrogen (2010) Grazing, forestry, roads Stream bank and channel destabilized. Wildfires. Mining. Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. USFS Friends of the Forest Gila WQIG: Trees for the Rim (wildfire) Phosphorus (2010) Salt River (23rd Ave WWTP - Gila River) Hassayampa River (from Buckeye Canal to Gila River) A Not Categorized N/A Middle Gila Salt River /Gila River (including tributaries and reservoirs) DDT metabolites (EPA 2002) 15060106B-001D DDT metabolites (EPA 2002) 15070103-001B 15070101-001; 15070101-005; 15070101-007; Gila River (from Salt River to Painted 15070101-008; Rocks Reservoir) (8 reaches) 15070101-009; 15070101-010; 15070101-014; Painted Rocks Reservoir Toxaphene and chlordane in fish tissue (EPA 2002) 150100-014A Toxaphene and chlordane in fish tissue (EPA 2002) DDT metabolites (EPA 2002) Toxaphene and chlordane in fish tissue (EPA 2002) 5 These are historically used pesticides. Residual pesticides are likely being contributed Loss of resources has from areas where the Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement delayed the pesticides were sprayed appropriate BMPs. Currently collecting fish for fish tissue development of this historically. Some concern analysis. TMDL that banned pesticides may have been dumped or improperly burried. Maricopa DDT metabolites (EPA 2002) Toxaphene and chlordane in fish tissue (EPA 2002) 34 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID A Not Categorized N/A San Pedro San Pedro River San Pedro River (Mexico border to Charleston) 15050202-008 Santa Cruz River (Josephine Canyon to Tubac Bridge) 15050301-008A Santa Cruz River (Canada del Oro to HUC 15050303 Boundary) A Not Categorized B Not Categorized A Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. N/A N/A Santa Cruz Santa Cruz River Little Colorado Soldiers Lake and Soldiers Lake River Annex Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. E. coli (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 15020301-001 Ammonia 4b Santa Cruz River (Nogales WWTP to Josephine Canyon) 15050301-009 Chlorine 4b Santa Cruz River (HUC 150303 Boundary to Baum) 15050303-005A Santa Cruz River (Rover road WWTP Outfall to Intermittent Reach) 15050301-003B Ammonia Soldier Annex Lake 15020008-1430 Mercury in fish (2004 by 4a EPA) Potential Sources N/A Santa Cruz Sonoita Creek Copper (dissolved) (2010) Copper (dissolved) N/A Verde Stoneman Lake Stoneman Lake B N/A Little Colorado Telephone Lake River Telephone Lake Santa Cruz TMDL completed 2011 Air deposition Little Colorado River Proposed: Identify and prioritize mercury sources and implement Watershed Coordinating appropriate remediation. Council Lead (dissolved) 4b 15050301-013C 5 15060202-1490 Narrative Nutrients (1998) 4a ADEQ to extend EDW, which would eliminate the DO impairment Mining in the watershed or wastewater discharges. DO impairment due to ground water upwelling. 15020005-1500 Ammonia (2010) TMDL Completed in 2001, including TIP TMDL indicated sources primarily recycling of nutrients. Septics maybe. Coconino Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Friends of Sonoita Creek and WQIGs: 1. Audobon septic system improvements (2002) 2. Cattle Friends of Santa Cruz exclosure at Audobon research (2002) 3. C6 Ranch grazing BMPs (on Redrock Cyn) (2002) 4. Redrock grazing improvements (2006) TMDL sources identified: Septics. Increase water sources for lake. . Lake is ephemeral; low/fluctuating water levels make it difficult Stoneman Lake Owners to meet standards. Association Santa Cruz Coconino WQIGs: Replace septic systems, create grey water use systems, and construct sediment catchments. High pH (1998) Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Sonoran Institue TMDL completed 4b Low DO (1998) Not Categorized County The Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant has been upgraded and fully operational since 2009. The facility is now capable of meeting all effluent discharge permit limits. Effectiveness of chlorine removal by the new treatment plant will be determined in 2012 assessment. Low DO (2006) D Support / Partnerships E. coli (2010) Zinc (2004) Sonoita Creek (1600 feet below Patagonia WWTP discharge to Patagonia Lake) Previous Projects and Other Comments 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 35 KEY: High focus for attaining standards Potential for improvement in the near future/some activity Explore opportunities Federal responsibility to mitigate Potential Delist Not an implementation priority/primarily point sources. Mngmnt. Strategy Internal Prioritization Targeted Status Watershed Surface Water Assessment Unit WBID Pollutants (First Listed) Assessment Category TMDL Development Potential Sources Previous Projects and Other Comments Support / Partnerships County 4a TMDL completed in 2003 Extensive mining in this small drainage, which includes unnamed tributary and Cox Gulch TMDL sources identifed: Remediate mining area by: removing or filling over mining residue; redirecting runoff away from mining deposits; removing mine wastes in the stream bed or combine with neutralizing materials; and constructing wetlands to treat mine discharges. Friends of Sonoita Creek and Friends of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz TMDL completed 2011. TIP under development. Primarily air deposition Proposed: Identify and prioritize mercury sources and implement US Forest Service MOU City of Flagstaff appropriate remediation. Cadmium (1994) Unnamed Tributary to Cox Gulch (Headwaters to Cox Gulch); 15050301-890 Copper (1994) Zinc (1994) Low pH (1994) Cox Gulch (Headwaters to Three R Canyon) Cadmium (1994) 15050301-560 Zinc (1994) Low pH (1994) Cadmium (1994) Three R Canyon (Headwaters to Tributary at 312819 / 1104556) B Not Categorized N/A Santa Cruz Three R Canyon (from headwaters to Sonoita Creek and tributaries (Cox Unnamed Tributary to Three R Canyon)) Canyon (Headwaters to Three R Canyon) 15050301-558A Zinc (1994) Copper (1994) Low pH (1994) Cadmium (1994) 15050301-889 Zinc (1994) Copper (1994) Low pH (1994) Three R Canyon (Tributary at 312835 / 1104619 to Tributary at 312827 / 15050301-558B 1104712); Cadmium (1994) Zinc (1994) Copper (1994) Low pH (1994) Cadmium (1994) Three R Canyon (Tributary at 312827 15050301-558C / 1104712 to Sonoita Creek) Zinc (1994) Copper (1994) Low pH (1994) A A Not Categorized Not Categorized N/A N/A Little Colorado Lake Mary River Verde Verde River (Bartlett Dam to Camp Creek) Upper Lake Mary 15020015-0900 Mercury in fish (2002 by EPA) Lower Lake Mary 15020015-0890 Mercury in fish (2002 by EPA) Verde River (Bartlatt Dam to Camp Creek ) 15060203-004 Arsenic (total) (2010) 5 Status based on Draft 2010 Integrated Report; addional information to be added once draft is finalized. 5 Loss of resources has delayed the development of this TMDL Selenium (2004) A Not Categorized N/A Colorado Grand Virgin River (from Beaver Dam Wash Colorado River (Lake Powell to Paria 14070006-001 to Bend Wash) River) Suspended sediment concentration (2004); E. coli (2010) Natural sandstone formations (SSC) Natural springs (Se) Grazing (SSC) Out of state sources (Se and SSC) Proposed: Identify and prioritize sources and implement appropriate BMPs. Identify source loads contributed from other states (how remediate these?). ADEQ has very little data on this reach. Coconino Mohave 36 Appendix C: Map of WQIG Projects and Targeted Watersheds 37 38 39 40 Appendix D: Active WQIG Projects and Budget Reporting (As of June 30, 2012) (Expired/Expiring EPA Nonpoint Source Grants) 2002 2005 Title Project End 10-006 Granite Creek Watershed - Water Quality $ 99,062.00 Improvement Phase II Watson Woods Riparian Preserve $ 483,191.00 Restoration Project Phase I Tonto Rim Christian Camp Water Quality $ 260,000.00 Improvement Project 10-007 Sustainable Design for the Southwest Family Services Center Pervious Concrete Demonstration to Mitigate Stormwater 6/30/2012 $ 251,400.00 Pollution 11-004 $ 9-007 9-008 74,145.00 Wenima Wildlife Area Stream Restoration Inc Inc. 3/31/2013 3/31/2013 6/30/2012 $ 4,634.54 Inc. 2009 2010 C9-969984-07-0 C9-989613-08-0 C9-979596-09-0 C9-989613-10-0 Base $ 804,730.00 Inc. $ 792,900.00 Base $ 792,900.00 Inc. 55,064.93 $ 14,996.88 $ 15,907.83 $ 8,092.36 $ 273,426.64 $ 45,531.00 $ 42,226.66 $ 55,616.78 $ 145,569.97 $ 74,430.03 $ 9,156.07 $ $ 24,000.00 9/30/2012 $ 25,999.83 $ 500.00 $ 30,000.00 $ $ 792,900.00 Base $ 6/30/2013 2011 2008 $ 804,731.00 Total Award Open EPA Nonpoint Source Grants 2007 2006 176,396.53 $ 15,623.19 $ 86,295.36 10,000.00 $ 27,452.85 $ 13,491.85 $ 17,367.09 $ 792,900.00 Inc. $ $ 792,900.00 Base $ 792,900.00 Inc. 34,655.04 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 74,145.00 $ 211,825.00 $ 37,452.85 $ 520,500.24 $ 290,894.18 $ 536,545.36 $ 494,087.60 $ 265,551.00 $ 163,396.20 $ 44,200.00 $ 701,470.00 $ 29,261.87 $ 34,021.81 $ 109,262.82 11-T02 6/30/2012 $ 109,159.64 $ 42,873.98 09/30//2012 $ 32,144.65 $ 139,990.71 $ 80,000.00 $ 120,410.00 $ 164,000.00 6/30/2013 $ 26,855.35 $ 83,823.77 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,946.69 $ 136,461.78 $ 88,759.63 $ 51,380.06 $ 125,411.31 11-T03 $ 536,545.36 12-002 $ 494,087.60 12-003 $ 265,551.00 12-004 $ 163,396.20 9/30/2012 10/31/2012 $ 5,355.36 44,200.00 The Upper Gila Watershed Steward Project 6/30/2013 12-006 $ 12-008 $ 701,470.00 NPS Reduction of Copper to Pinto Creek $ $ 133,144.65 $ 50,850.21 $ $ $ 38,138.20 $ 119,381.58 $ 200,000.01 24,896.19 $ $ $ 200,000.00 91,514.87 9,132.37 6/30/2013 483,191.00 251,400.00 78,363.99 29,978.60 $ $ $ $ 99,062.00 75,003.47 San Francisco - Blue River Watershed $ 290,894.18 Improvement Plan Grant (EV09-0035) Oak Creek Targeted Watershed Improvement Plan (EV09-0035) Coyote Creek Watershed-scale Education and Training Grant San Pedro River Watershed Implementation Plan Community Stewardship Model for Green Streets 22,100.34 $ $ 12/31/2012 6,403.01 Total Assigned 260,000.00 Granite Creek - Watson Lake Watershed $ 520,500.24 Improvement Plan (EV09-0035) 12/31/2012 $ Inc. $ 11-T01 12,276.59 $ $1,326,629.00 Base 30,843.93 11-007 $ $689,000.00 Inc. $ Middle Fossil Creek Water Quality $ 211,825.00 Improvement Project Sediment Reduction from Runoff Using $ 37,452.85 Best Management Practices 11-006 $689,000.00 Base 2012 279,826.54 $ 35,067.63 383,505.26 EV11-0009 Arizona Water Festivals - Building on an 9/30/2012 $ 29,261.87 Effective Education Model Arizona Nemo Nonpoint Source Education 6/30/2013 $ 334,183.00 for Municipal Officals $ 30,979.24 $ 50,000.00 $ 161,312.91 $ 60,000.00 $ 31,890.85 $ 334,183.00 EV11-0010 Arizona Master Watershed Stewards (MWS) Educational Outreach and Technical Support Program Continuation $ 210,588.00 (2010-2012) 6/30/2013 $ 24,000.00 $ 15,141.48 $ 75,000.00 $ 40,400.00 $ 56,046.52 $ 210,588.00 EV11-0011 $ 12/31/2012 $ 12,776.37 $ 38,978.38 $ 7,727.25 EV12-0005 $ 250,000.00 DEMA Wallow Fire Mitigation Funding EV11-0008 Arizona NEMO - Training and Analytical 59,482.00 Support Program 2010-2012 $ 29,261.87 8/31/2013 $ 250,000.00 $ 17,631.95 $ 558,015.69 $ 375,184.66 $ 729,128.60 $ 752,085.00 $ 389,369.25 $ 383,505.26 $ 792,899.90 $ - $ 341,481.93 $ - $ - Total of Closed and Open $ 804,731.00 $ 804,730.00 $ 792,900.00 $ 792,900.00 $ 784,111.27 $ 792,900.00 $ 383,505.26 $ 792,899.90 $ - $ 341,481.93 $ - $ - $ 8,788.73 $ $ 409,394.74 $ 0.10 $ $ 347,518.07 $ - $ Unallocated $ - $ - $ - $ - - 689,000.00 $ 59,482.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 5,317,235.30 1,326,629.00 Un-allocated Base Funds $ 1,107,183.47 Un-allocated Incremental Funds $ 1,674,147.17 Total Un-allocated Funding $ 2,781,330.64 Pending Projects Hillside Mine $ 1,200,000.00 Remainder (to be used for WQIG Cycle 13) $ 1,581,330.64 41 42 Appendix E: WQIG Funding Awarded During FY12 EPA Grant Number 97959609 State Project Number EV12-0005 Project Title Contractor Name DEMA Wallow Fire Mitigation Funding Department of Emergency and Military Affars, Arizona Division of Emergency Management Overview Watershed Impairments San Francisco, Blue, and Little Colorado River Sediment watershed areas directly impacted by the Wallow Fire. E. coli Sub-Awards AZ Community Tree Council The recent Wallow Fire impacted two watersheds that have been targeted by ADEQ as priority locations for addressing nonpoint source water quality issues (the Little Colorado River Headwaters, impaired due to sediment; and the San Francisco/Blue, impaired due to E. coli). The goal of this funding is to allow for early implementation of erosion control measures to protect water quality in these and other watersheds impacted by the burn. DEMA is working closely with federal, state, county, and other local stakeholders to coordinate fire mitigation projects in the Wallow and other burn areas throughout the state. This NPS funding was made available to subgrantees via an ADEM request for proposals to support projects with direct ties to protecting water quality by reducing nonpoint source pollution. Plan/Model Support WIP concurrently developed for San Francisco/Blue watershed; AGWA modeling conducted for burn area to target subwatersheds at highest risk for sediment loss post-fire. Sub-Award Funding Sub-Award Match $ 9,822.00 $ 6,548.00 Alpine Domestic Water Aquifer Protection Project $ 15,084.00 $ 10,056.00 Alpine Sanitary District $ 27,348.00 $ 18,232.00 EC Bar Erosion Control $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 EC Bar Willow Planting $ 13,000.00 $ 9,000.00 Fite Farms Pond Project $ 36,120.00 $ 24,080.00 Montlure $ 47,919.60 $ 31,947.00 Sakellar $ 47,340.00 $ 31,560.00 Philip R. Thompson $ 6,585.82 $ 4,390.54 Other (funds/match not yet awarded)* $ 23,158.64 $ 11,629.00 Total Sub-Awarded Funding $ 229,378.06 $ 149,442.54 Administrative Costs $ 20,621.94 $ 13,781.35 Total Grant NPS Award $ 250,000.00 $ 163,223.89 *Funds that are not sub-awarded will be returned to ADEQ at the end of the project period. Match will not be required for returned funds. 43 44 Appendix F: Project Highlight WQIG #12-002- Coyote Creek Watershed-scale Education and Training Grant LOCATION AND WATERBODY IMPROVED Coyote Creek, located in HUC 1502000103 of a 230 square mile sub watershed of the Little Colorado River located in Apache County, Arizona and Cantrell County, New Mexico. Approximately 50 square miles of the watershed are located in New Mexico with the remainder in Arizona. Elevations range from 7,900 feet in the eastern watershed to 6,000 near the confluence with the Little Colorado River. Flows are intermittent along the majority of the 41 miles of Coyote Creek channel. Coyote Creek is a major tributary of the Little Colorado River in eastern Arizona. While the majority of the channel is ephemeral, there is a significant yield of sediment from the watershed to the Little Colorado River. Sediment and turbidity contributions are significant enough to influence the capacity of Lyman Lake, a major irrigation impoundment on the Little Colorado River, and to cause water quality impairment of the Little Colorado River. Coyote Creek has been well documented as having water quality issues related to sediment yield for several decades. Recommendations from several reports have generally agreed upon the source of sediments and types of practices required to alleviate sediment yield from the watershed. But many recommendations have not been implemented due to lack of funding or support from public/private land managers. The approach of this project is to have direct input from land owners and managers as to the types of practices they believe will best benefit the land and their interests. The set of practices was evaluated to assess the potential impact on water quality improvement and a decision-making rubric was established that can be utilized by the watershed improvement group. The prioritization process was somewhat subjective and the decision making process was meant to guide the process and not confine it. PROJECT OVERVIEW In 2010, the WQIG program awarded a Watershed Education and Training (WET) grant to the Little Colorado Plateau RC&D with the objective of establishing a watershed council and identifying effective and appropriate sediment control BMPs for the watershed. WET grants were offered by the WQIG during the FY10 grant cycle to provide a mechanism for raising the level of public awareness and motivation in preparation of future planning and/or implementation grants. These grants were geared 45 towards watersheds where nonpoint source pollution water quality issues exist, but the community as a whole may not yet have a broad enough understanding or interest to participate in the development of a WIP. The original scope of work for the Coyote Creek WET included on the development of a Watershed Improvement Council (WIC) to ensure that a broad spectrum of stakeholder interests were represented and considered as the project developed. The WIC, which consists of local landowners and managers, had an express purpose of bringing together landowners, lessees, managers and technical providers; changing behaviors of permittees in the management of public lands; and establishing BMPs, planning for purpose-designed monitoring, and developing site selection criteria for prioritizing future implementation projects. The goal of the RC&D and the WIC was to foster the connection between ranch management benefits and water quality improvement benefits among local land managers. This understanding is key to ensuring that BMPs are not only implemented, but maintained in the long-term. The WIC worked closely with Flagstaff-based geomorphology firm Natural Channel Design (NCD) to evaluate the effectiveness of past BMPs, as well as make recommendations for future BMP implementation to protect water quality. NCD worked closely with land managers to survey their property and identify erosion control needs that would protect water quality while also benefitting ranch activities by reducing soil loss and improving grazing practices. The NEMO and Master Watershed Steward programs were also contracted to assist with education and training activities and the analysis of potential load reductions from recommended BMPs. One of the main projected outputs of the project was a planning document that would identify and prioritize BMPs in the Coyote Creek drainage, with applicability to other similar drainages in the LCR headwaters. It was anticipated that land managers would apply for funding in subsequent WQIG cycles to implement those BMPs. Actively eroding head cuts such as this have been prioritized for implementation projects in the Coyote Creek watershed. The initial phase of the Coyote Creek WET project was so successful that land managers were found to be in support of on-the-ground water quality improvement projects much sooner than initially anticipated. Due to this success, the WQIG program amended the grant agreement during FY11 to provide additional funding to implement those BMPs identified as highest priority in the Coyote Creek 46 WET Watershed Improvement Plan. BMPs that are currently in various stages of completion include sediment retention basins, off-channel watering troughs and wells, and bank sloping and stabilization. While the Coyote Creek WET plan does not meet all of EPA’s nine key elements for watershed plans (and is therefore not considered an official “WIP” by ADEQ), it does comprehensively address BMP needs in the Coyote Creek drainage. Suggested BMPs were analyzed for cost, acreage protected, time frame for sediment reduction benefits, maintenance efforts to maximize the benefits, and sediment reduction potential due to placement within the watershed. The cost per acre of benefit was weighted by these four factors to provide a means of prioritizing BMP types and locations for implementation. This weighed cost benefit allows for comparison of projects for sediment reduction. Other factors such as habitat enhancement, producers’ requirements and other concerns of the WIC are considered in the prioritization process as well. The Coyote Creek WET Watershed Improvement Plan is currently available for review upon request, and will be made available via the ADEQ website in the near future. Cooperative effort has been key in the success of this project to date. ADEQ Community Liaison Byron James, Little Colorado Plateau RC&D Watershed Projects Director David Newlin, and the WIC members played key roles in communicating nonpoint source goals in a way that paralleled those of rural landowners and local citizens. In addition, the cooperation of the Apache Natural Resource Conservation District (NRCD) has allowed the process to move forward in water quality improvement efforts. The majority of the land managers/stakeholders in the area are also members of the Apache NRCD. Other partners have included:  Meeting and Training Facilitators: Debra Mendelssohn and Suzanne Menges; also Jan Holder, Gila Watershed Partnership; Dr. George Ryle, PhD, University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Arizona NEMO Program and Master Watershed Steward Program headed up by Dr. Phil Guertin and Dr. Channah Rock.  G. Allen Hayden and others, Natural Channel Design; Dr. George Ruyle, PhD, University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  Natural Channel Design, Flagstaff, AZ and/or Bill Zeedyk (New Mexico).  Seventeen identified ranch land owners and lessees. Agencies contributing match for this project include Arizona Department of Water Resources, Arizona State Land Department, and Arizona Game and Fish Department. USDA EQIP funding is also being leveraged to fund a portion of the recommended BMP implementation. The Coyote Creek WET project is an excellent demonstration of how targeted education efforts are often a critical first step toward on-the-ground implementation. There is a common misconception that water quality improvement projects cannot coexist with agricultural and ranching objectives. When agencies take advantage of local partnerships and make connections between water quality and stakeholder goals, great success can be achieved. 47