Volume 5, Number 1 Winter 1992

Riparian Protection -The Year of OpportunityEva Fatten, Arizona Nature Conservancy

" Arizona is known throughout the

world for its natural beauty. As the

photography in Arizona Highways so

spectacularly portrays , the rivers and

streams of our state define much of our

cultural heritage. Yet, over the decades,

many of these areas have been dramati-

cally altered or have disappeared.

During the last ten years, a number

of study committees have debated this

issue and received public comment.

Now it is time for action. I urge each of

you to seriously consider meaningful

legislation that will protect the rivers,

streams and riparian areas of the state."

This quote could have come fromme, or you, or one of our colleagues,but it didn't. It came from Governorsymington in his State of the Statemessage to the Legislature. Themessage to the rest of us is that thisis a year of opportunity!

The saga of trying to gain protec-tion for riparian areas and to firmlyestablish in stream flow water rightsin statute has been a long one. Afteryears of talk and study, last year theissue was raised in the Legislaturethrough SB 1109 which certainly goteveryone's attention. This year,with the leadership of the Governorand a firm conmritment on the partof the agencies, we have arealchance for success. It is in greatmeasure up to all of us how the lastchap!er will be written.

November. In cooperation withthe Governor's Office, three agen-cies- the Department of Water Re-sources (DWR); the Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ); andthe Game and Fish Department(AGFD) developed a concept paperfor a comprehensive Riparian Pro-tection Act. This was a direct con-sequence of Governor Mofford'stwo earlier Executive Orders direct-ing agencies to emphasize riparian

protection.The proposed plan included.an inventory and assessment

to be carried out by AGFD withinthe next year .

.Oarification and codificationof instream flow rights, establish-ing riparian vegetation as a "bene-ficial use1l equal with other uses

and allowing both public and pri-vate entities who own land adjacentto the stream to hold instream flowwater rights. DWR would have toconsider the impacts on riparianhabitat when permitting a changein use or point of diversion;

.establishment of a study com-mittee to develop a scheme for pro-tecting riparian habitats from theimpacts of pumping groundwater .

.development of a regulatoryprogram for watercourse alteration,including a Watercourse AlterationBoard within DEQ to develop BestManagement Practices (BMPs); and

.establishment of a Watershedand Enhancement Board to grantloans and provide demonstration

projects.-See Year of Opportunity -Page 8

President's

Andy Laurenzi

leading to diminished baseflows and eventualdrying up of the river at the point where the coneof depression hits the river. So once again thepublic is reminded that unregulatedgroundwater pumping will result in the demiseof a significant aquatic and riparian resource inArizona.

There is time however, to reverse thisdestructive trend. Unfortunately, it's not clearwho will take a leadership role in proposingsolutions. The Bureau of Land Management is anobvious choice given their managementresponsibility at the San Pedro Riparian NationalConservation Area and their federal reservedwater rights established by Congress at the timethe NCA was created. However, these waterrights need to be adjudicated in the Arizona StateSupreme Court as a part of the Gila Riveradjudication. This adjudication is likely to takeyears, if not decades, to complete, not to mentionthat several substantive legal issues related togroundwater / surface interactions have yet to beresolved in a manner that will protect surfacewater rights holders from groundwater

pumping.Time, which may be on our side right now,

will soon be against us if little substantive actioncan be taken prior to the adjudicationproceedings. Even if the adjudication proceedsin a timely fashion, it remains to be seen howBLM intends to enforce these water rights andwhat event(s) are likely to trigger BLM action.Clearly at the point where it can be reliablydemonstrated that the groundwater cone isimpacting river flows, it is already too late.

So where does that bring us. Well much toSierra Vista's credit, the variety of water usersand interest groups are meeting within thecontext of the San Pedro Water ManagementCouncil to explore local solutions to the watersupply problem, including the establishment of alocal water management entity. Unfortunately,the myriad of interest groups often paralyze theproceedings while leadership skills within thegroup have yet to emerge. The Water Manage-ment Council remains the only viable option todeveloping solutions that will stem the tide.

On December 11 th the Sierra Vista DailyHerald ran a front page article reporting on theprior day's meeting of the San Pedro WaterManagement Council. This article, (and a similararticle the next day in the Arizona Daily Star inTucson,) called attention to a presentation by Dr.Thomas Maddock on a quantitativegroundwater / surface water model of the upperSan Pedro River basin developed by Dr.Maddock and his doctoral student LeticiaVionnet (see Mary Wallace's related story onpage 3).

This is the third such modeling effort for theupper basin area, and like it predecessors, thismodeling effort pointed out that groundwaterpumping to meet the munidpal needs of SierraVista and the Fort Huachuca Army Base hasproduced a groundwater cone of depression thathas grown at an alarming rate during the past 50years. The shocking aspect of the presentationwas the realization that the outermost edges ofthe cone of depression are now at the edge of theSan Pedro floodplain aquifer. While CochiseCounty instructed Mr. Maddock to limit hismodeling efforts to the present day situation, (i.e.1990 as opposed to 2010), questioning from theaudience elicited a projection from Mr. Maddockthat under present day usage, the cone ofdepression would intersect the floodplain aquiferand in all likelihood cause a hydrologicdisconnection between the floodplain andregional groundwater aquifers, possibly within15 years. It is ironic that on the following day,both of these papers carried a story on theexpansion of the Fort Huachuca Army base thatis likely to add nearly 2000 new employees in thenext four years, which suggests that his 15 yearestimate may be a conservative one.

Past research indicates that San Pedro Riverbaseflows are maintained in large part bysub flow from the regional groundwater aquiferinto the floodplain aquifer. A hydrologicdisconnection between these two aquifers wouldreverse this flow of water such that water wouldthen flow from the floodplain aquifer to theregional groundwater aquifer. The end resultwould be less water in the floodplain aquifer,

2

A Study of the Water

Resources of the

San Pedro BasinMary G. WallaceUniversity of Arizona

are based upon a twenty-year peri-ad of analysis, during which timethe long-tem'\ implications of in-creasing pumping from the region-al aquifer have yet to emergestrongly. Pumping will also affectstream flow in the San Pedro River,although it takes more than twentyyears for those effects to be strong-ly felt. Future analyses should in-clude a longer period of analysis,should investigate drought copingpolicy options (such as dry yearleasing of irrigation water), andshould be directed at the analysisof policy options which incorpo-rate many of the elements of the"customized" AMA.

In the Spring of 1990, the UpperSan Pedro Basin Water ResourcesCouncil contracted with a student-faculty team from the University ofArizona to examine the water re-sources of the basin. The universityteam developed four models: 1) arevision of the MODFLOW modelof the U.S. Geological Survey, agroundwater model; 2) MODSIM, abasin-wide model of the surface-groundwater system; 3) WATER-BUD, a spreadsheet model of thehydrology, economics, and institu-tions of the basin; and 4) MA 1'5, aplan evaluation model to representthe values of the people of the ba-sin.

Tonto National Forest

Riparian InventoryHelp NeededLewMyersTanto National Forest

The Tonto National Forest isworking with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service to complete theNational Wetlands Inventory onthe Tonto. Mapping is completeon 90% of the 3 million acres in theTonto. Information is well-developed on 1,300 -1,500 miles ofstreams. The next steps are a coop-erative effort with Arizona GameClnd Fish to digitize the data on theGIS system and to conduct groundsurveys and take photos. The goalis to sample 20% of the areas in themanagement units.

The Tonto is looking for twoqualified botanists with taxonomicexpertise as paid summer employ-ees to conduct ground surveysfrom May 11 -Aug. 30, with a pos-sibility of extension beyond thatdate. Call Lew at 252-5255 for in-formation. Help is also needed inidentifying relatively intact areasthroughout the state, such as exclu-sions or special niches, for compar-ison benchmarks. Call Lew withinformation.

These four models were used todelineate the hydrologic conditionsof the basin, specifically stream-aquifer interactions, and also toevaluate the effects of various man-agement options. These options in-clude the creation of an ActiveManagement Area (AMA) similarto those created for Phoenix andTucson, to create a "customized"Active Management Area whichrelies upon a pump tax rather thanregulation to control water use, wa-ter supply augmentation measures,and conservation measures. In ad-dition, a number of scenarios weredeveloped that had varying as-sumptions about the future climate,population growth and economicactivity of the basin.

The revised MODFLOW modelindicates a progressive decline inthe contents of the regional aquifer,a decline which is expected to accel-erate with continued pumping andhas caused a cone of depression inthe Sierra Vista area. The MODSIMmodel indicates that two factors ex-plain most of the flow variance inthe San Pedro River -surface runoffwhich replenishes the contents ofthe floodplain aquifer and also irri-

gation pumping from the flood-plain aquifer. Irrigation pumpingfrom the floodplain aquifer duringdry periods depletes the contents ofthe aquifer and reduces its contribu-tion to maintaining the base flow ofthe stream.

Irrigation pumping from thefloodplain aquifer is largely andquickly offset by recharge from run-off, so that the net overdraft of thefloodplain aquifer is much smallerthan that of the regional aquifer .However, the stream is intimatelylinked with the floodplain aquifer,and, next to drought, irrigationpumping has the greatest effectupon stream flow. Increased irriga-tion pumping beyond present levelswill result in depletion of the flood-plain aquifer and consequent reduc-tions in stream flows.

WATERBUD analyses indicatethat stabilization of the water levelsin the floodplain aquifer can beachieved by any option which re-stricts agricultural pumping in thesouthern half of the Upper San pe-dro basin. These include both theconventional and "customized"AMAs. No option tested can pro-tect instream flows in the riparianarea during times of drought andhigh agricultural pumping, withoutadditional management tools, suchas the pumping of the regional aq-uifer to enhance flows.

Results of the MA TS model sug-gest that three different, relativelyhomogeneous, groups can be iden-tified in the basin -one groupwhich emphasizes economic factorsin comparing the desirability of dif-ferent water management out-comes, one which emphasizes en-viromental factors, particularly thestatus of theriparian area and athird which prefers local controlover water management decisions.Although, the three groups did notagree on which of the five policyoptions is best, preference was ex-pressed for the "customized" AMAoption and for local control of waterresources.

The projected impacts of theMODSIM and W A TERBUD models

3 ,---

River Corridor Studies

Tanna Thornburg

Arizona State Parks

working toward consensus on nu-merous issues and on a plan of ac-tion. Implementation of that efforthas begun and local and statewideenthusiasm is running high. Thecommunities are working withADWR and the Bureau of Reclama-tion to develop a basinwide watermanagement plan for the'Verde. Atwo day symposium on the VerdeRiver is planned for April or May.

The final report (over 300 pages)and the summary (large fold-outposter) of the VRCP are availablefrom Arizona State Parks, Streamsand Wetlands Program, 800 W.Washington #415, Phoenix AZ85007.

Santa Cruz RiverCorridor Planning to Begin

Verde River CorridorProject Report Available

The Verde River Corridor Project<VRCP) was Arizona State Park'sfirst venture at facilitating a broad-based multi-community planningeffort for a major river corridor. Theoverall vision statement developedby the project participants is as fol-lows: "The Verde River Corridor isan invaluable resource to the peopleof the Verde Valley affecting eachresident, landowner, business, andtourist in some way. Planning forthe wise use, protection, and en-hancement of the Verde River andits associated natural, cultural, sce-nic, agricultural, economic, and rec-reational resources should be a pri-ority for everyone."

The VRCP began in 1989 as a lo-cally directed effort with the goalsof examining all the uses and valuesof the river corridor, agreeing on acommon vision, and developing aplan of action that could be support-ed by the public and managingagencies alike. The planning phaseof the project culminated in June1991 with the publication of the fi-nal report and plan of action.

The local communities are nowworking on implementation of thepriority recommendations. TheVRCP has been an extremely suc-cessful project, bringing togethermany individuals and groups whonormally avoid each other and

The upper Santa Cruz River is aninternational treasure that deservesprotection and careful planning topreserve its rural character, naturaland cultural resources and the eco-nomic opportunities it represents.To accomplish these goals, manygroups and individuals have beenexploring ways of dealing with thenumerous issues involved in pro-tecting the Santa Cruz.

To help coordinate the planningand consensus building that needsto occur, Arizona State Parks willbe facilitating a multi-objective riv-er corridor planning project on theupper Santa Cruz River. This plan-ning process looks at a wide varietyof issues -including economic, so-

cial, cultural, legal, recreational, andenvironmental -that can affect theSanta Cruz River and its riparianlands. This process acknowledgestwo simple yet essential ideas aboutriver management:

.no public action can replacewise use of a river by those livingalong it, and

.effective river managementcannot succeed without local con-sensus and support.

Some of the objectives that needto be discussed are water qualityand quantity issues, riparian protec-tion, private property rights and re-sponsibilities, and economic devel-opment.

A public workshop to addressthe issues will be held on February22 (See calendar, page 11). Theproject will involve anyone whowishe to participate, includinglandowners, communities,organizations and all levels ofgovernment. Any recommen-dations and decisions resultingfrom the process will be developedby the local communities and thegeneral public. For moreinformation, contact TannaThornburg or Pamela Hyde,Arizona State Parks, Resource ste-wardship, 800 W Washington, #415,Phoenix AZ 85007- (602) 542-4174.

4

"Guidance for Modifying WaterQuality Standards and ProtectingEffluent-Dependent Ecosystems."Changes discussed reflect EP A re-sponse to public comment on thedraft policy .The changes werewell-received and a final policy isdue out soon. They should assistdischarge applicants interested inmaintaining streamflows in efflu-ent-dominated streams whilemeeting water quality standards inNPDES permits.

Aquatic Biology for

TeachersPat Ellsworth

An important function of theArizona Riparian Council is to takeaction on issues affecting riparianareas. Brief descriptions of ourmost significant actions follow.

Planet RanchA letter of support was sent to

members of Arizona's Congression-al delegation and Rep. George Mill-er (Chair of the House Committeeon Interior and Insular Affairs) con-cerning the San Carlos Indian Wa-ter Rights Settlement (SB 291 andHR 748). While ARC did not takea position on the settlement itself,we strongly supported a small com-ponent of the bill which authorizesthe Secretary of Interior to acquirethe Planet Ranch from the City ofScottsdale. We supported U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service acquisition ofthe property for inclusion in the BillWilliams Unit of the Havasu Na-tional Wildlife Refuge. PlanetRanch, on the Bill Williams River, iscurrently being extensively farmedby Scottsdale to maintain surfacewater rights. Scottsdale purchasedthe ranch almost a decade ago withthe idea of transferring the water toScottsdale. Protection of the ranchis considered critical to long-tennmaintenance of the extensive Fre-

montcottonwood-Gooddingwillow riparian forests in the BillWilliams Unit.

Tres RiGs ProjectVice-president Marty Jakle at-

tended a field trip sponsored bythe City of Phoenix to tour theTres Rios project area. This projectwill utilize some of the effluentcurrently discharged from the 91stA venue Wastewater TreatmentPlant to create an engineered wet-land and linear park to substitutefor the riparian habitat now in theriver. Marty also had the pleas-ure of speaking at the AnnualMeeting of the Soil and Hydrologi-cal Society on IValues and Func-tions of Riparian Habitats."

Maricopa CountyFlood Control District -

ARC nominated Russ Haugheyfor the Maricopa County FloodControl District Advisory Board, acitizen's advisory group whose in-put is used to assist in formulatingFlood Control District policies

Riparian LegislationWe also submitted comments to

ADWR and the Governor on theproposed "Concepts for InstrearnFlowand Riparian Protection" leg-islation. See Eva Patten's article onpage 1.

In June 1990, EnvironmentalEducation House Bill 2675 wassigned into law, requiring thatenvironmental education beintegrated into Arizona's publiceducation system. Many classroomteachers feel that they lack thescientific background and theexperience necessary to fulfill thismandate. A new course, AquaticBiology for Teachers (NAU Bio 571),has been designed to provide suchbackground and experience in adiscipline that is both criticallyimportant from an ecologicalstandpoint, and ripe withoportunities to fascinate youngminds.

Using lecture, lab, and field work,aquatic biology is studied from twoperspectives: that of the scientistseeking an understanding of aquaticorganisms and habitats and that ofthe classroom teacher seekingactivities to help young learnersgrasp ecological concepts.Course objectives include:

1. Appreciation of the uniquenessof water and its importance in

biological systems.2. Realization that an aquatic

system can be used to teach all thebasic concepts of ecology.

3. Skill in identification of aquatic

organisms.4. Ability to read and understand

original research papers in aquaticbiology .

5. Awareness of the secondary lit-erature available for classroom use.

6. Integration of aquatic biologyacross the curriculum.

7. Understanding the need toconserve aquatic ecosystems.

This course has been taught onthe NAU campus (Summer, 1991)and as an extension course inPrescott (Fall, 1991). It has beenwell-received by teachers in gradesK-12, from many parts of the state.It will be offered again at NAUduring Summer Session, 1992.

EP A Guidelines for Effluent-Dominated Ecosystems

President, Andy Laurenzi at-tended a meeting held by staff fromEP A Region IX concerning pro-posed changes to EP A's draft

5

Action U pdatesAndy lAurenzi

A Grazing Controversy:

Problems Near the

Muleshoe

Jeff BurgessArizona State University

The Nature Conservancy , a con-servation organization which takespride in its ability to protect impor-tant natural areas while avoidingmessy confrontations, is embroiledin a protest filed by the ArizonaCattle Growers' Association(ACGA) against the Bureau ofLand Management.

The cattlemen are opposing thefinal draft of the Arizona BLM's re-cently issued Safford District Re-source Management Plan (RMP).This plan will guide the BLM'smanagement of 1.4 million acres ofpublic land in southeastern Arizo-na for approximately the next 15

years.The cattlemen's protest is impor-

tant because it raises questionsabout the suitability of desert ripar-ian areas for livestock grazing and,perhaps more significant, the will-ingness of the BLM to stand behindits decisions to protect publiclyowned natural resources.

The cattlemen want the BLM todelete from the RMP the creation ofa no-grazing buffer zone aroundthe Nature Conservancy's Mule-shoe Ranch riparian preserve, lo-cated at the southern end of the Ga-liuro Mountains.

"We disagree that excluding live-stock will help the area'sriparianresources," ACGA spokespersonJeff Menges said. "In fact, properlymanaged grazing can be a tool thathas beneficial effects."

Menges explained that when cat-tle hooves trample the ground theymake a nice seed bed for plants.Hoof action also helps, he said,break up the crusts which tend toform on the ground and preventrain from soaking into the soil. Headded that grazing also helps stim-ulate new growth on plants "Howdo you get your grass to grow?

You mow it," he said.Local environ-mentalists counter that cattle graz-ing is widely documented as one ofthe major causes of riparian degra-dation in the West and they dis-count the idea that grazing can bebeneficial.

"It's an outright falsehood that theWest's ecosystems must be grazedand trampled to be healthy, espe-cially the riparian areas," Dr. Thom-as Fleischner, Professor of Environ-mental Studies at Prescott College,said.

"Historically, there were no na-tive herds of large ungulates in theSouthwest and even on the Plainsthe bison were not prone to stayingin riparian areas like cattle."

Dr. Fleischner claims that tram-pIing is actually a main cause oferosion. For instance, he said, recentresearch suggests the living crustswhich form on desert soils, calledcryptogams, are vital in preventingerosion.

"These crusts are the primary suc-cessional stage in desert ecosystemsand retain more moisture and makebetter seed beds than bare soil," hesaid.

He explained that erosion nega-tively affects riparian ecosystems bylowering water tables and increas-ing stream sedimentation.

" And new plant growth doesn't

necessarily mean a healthier ecosys-tem," Dr. Fleischner said. "It maymean new shoots for the cattle toeat. But what about the other publiclands management objectives, likewildlife and recreation?"

He said grazing often preventstrees and shrubs from reaching ma-turity. Mature plants, he explained,provide critical habitat for birdsand other wildlife. Mature plantsare also important, he said, for pro-viding the shade that's essential inlowering desert stream water tem-peratures to allow fish and otheraquatic life to thrive.

The Nature Conservancy pur-chased the Muleshoe Ranch baseproperty in 1983 as part of a nation-wide effort to protect rare aquatic

and wetland systems. Five nativefive species are found on the Mule-shoe's six perennial streams wherethey thrive without competitionfrom established exotic fish, a veryuncommon situation in Arizona.

Of Arizona's 32 native fish taxa,one is extinct, four are extirpated,and 21 of the remaining 27 are cur-rently listed or are candidates forlisting. The Muleshoe Ranch rep-resents one of the last strongholdsfor Gila River ichthyofauna.

With the ranch property, theConservancy also obtained theELM grazing permit for the sur-rounding Muleshoe allotment. Themanner in which the allotment ismanaged is important becauseparts of these streams cross publicland.

The Conservancy has nevergrazed the allotment but Mam-moth, Arizona, rancher Virgil Mer-cer and his son Mike want the op-

portunity.According to the ACGA's

protest, one of the reasons they op-pose the ELM's plan is the Mercers'desire to acquire the Muleshoe al-lotment grazing pem'lit. To thisend, the Mercers have filed a separ-ate appeal of their own against theELM. They claim the BLM's regula-tions require the agency to reallo-cate the grazing pem'lit to them be-cause the Nature Conservancy isn'tusing it.

ELM officials admit their regula-tions require them to reallocate agrazing pem'lit when a permitteetakes unauthorized non-use formore than two consecutive years.However, they explain, their regu-lations also allow them to approveany sort of non-use if they deter-mine it's necessary to protect natu-ral resources.

"The justification for non-use onthis allotment is documented in our1985 Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS,"ELM area manager Meg Jensensaid.

ELM staff say one of the reasonsthe Conservancy was able to obtainthe ranch in the first place was the

6

f~?"

and presented in detail because ofthe diversity of existing recreationuses and the need to address boat-ing-related resources and.

The Assessment should be com-plete by late-1992. A report will bepublished and a data base madeavailable for public use. For infor-mation, call me at (602) 542-1474.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

ProposalGail Peters, American Rivers

allotment was so overgrazed it was

relatively unprofitable.Nature Conservancy officials

point out that they have no argu-ment with the state's ranchers. 'Thecattlegrowers filed the protestagainst the BLM, not us," Conser-vancy spokesperson Tom Collazosaid. "We are not aligned with thosegroups advocating no grazing onpublic lands."

For example, Collazo said, theConservancy does not oppose theBLM's proposal in the RMP to au-thorize the resumption of grazingon a portion of the Muleshoe allot-ment. The BLM proposes that thissmaller area, to be called the SozaMesa allotment, will replace theMuleshoe allotment. 'The SozaMesa area is not critical in regardsto protection of the riparian areas,"he said. "We have no policy onpublic lands grazing in non-criticalhabitats."

Collazo said the Conservancy isrelying on local BLM staff to defendthe management decisions in theRMP. "We're not actively prepar-ing a response to the cattlegrowers'protest," he said. "We're counting onthe BLM to do the right thing."

The BLM's Jensen explained theprotest is being handled by BLM Di-rector Cy Jamison's office in Wash-ington, D.C. She said her office isbusy preparing an informa-tion packet for him.

"We always put a lot of effort intomaking good land management de-cisions. I think we need to defendtheir soundness."

The Arizona Rivers

Assessment

Pamela Hyde

Arizona State Parks

The Arizona Rivers Assessmentwas begun in 1989 by the Streamsand Wetlands Program of ArizonaState Parks in cooperation with theRivers, Trails and Conservation As-sistance Program of the NationalPark Service. This is a statewidecomprehensive inventory and eval-uation of river and ripanan-relatedresource information. Its purposesare to determine the relative signifi-cance of each river segment basedon all its environmental values, andto compile of data to support thisdetermina tion.

At the heart of this project is thefact that it is a cooperative, multi-group effort. It involves local, stateand federal agencies, tribes, organi-zations and individuals who own,manage, or have regulatory respon-sibilities for riparian areas, or whohave information about rivers andresource uses. The goal of theAssessment is to provide a broad-based planning tool that can beused by resource managers,organizations and decision-makersto plan for the future of Arizona'srivers and riparian areas and tobalance the needs for resourceconservation, recreational use, andeconomic development. With theinput from such a diversity ofsources and experts on rivers andresource uses, the comprehensive,balanced, and usable informationgathered should bea much-neededplanning tool.

The assessment is in two phases..Phase I focuses on natural and

cultural resources associated withrivers and riparian areas, includingfish, wildlife, vegetation, stream hy-drology , geologic features and cul-tural resources. Data is being com-piled and evaluated-

.Phase II is underway and willconcentrate on river resource uses,including recreation, agriculture,timber, mining, utilities, flood con-trol, water supply, urban riverfrontrevitalization, and special manage-ment areas. General informationwill be presented indicating wherethese resource uses occur, however,only recreation will be evaluated

7

As riparian issues continue topush their way to the forefront inArizona, a project, coordinated inpart by Arizona State Parks, isworking to build the informationbase needed to ensure that wise de-cisions can be made concerning thefuture ofriparian areas in the state.

Riparian Council members areaware of the threats facing ourrivers, streams and riparian areas.The legislation proposed by the Gov-ernor (See page 1) is a necessary stepfor cleaning up the instream flowlaw and to start some meaningfulaction on riparian protection in thestate. But with 48% of our state be-ing federal land, the Arizona RiversCoalition believes that another stepis needed for river protection in Ari-zona: federal legislation for protec-tion of some of the most outstandingrivers on Arizona federal lands.

The Arizona Rivers Coalition haswritten a 200 page proposal toprotect at least forty Arizona riversand streams under the Federal Wildand Scenic Rivers Act. A Wild andScenic River does not have to be abig whitewater river. Little creekslike Cave Creek in Portal can be pro-tected b the Act and are included inour proposal. Designation of thesestreams, mostly on feder~llands,will ensure that the best of ourremaining waterways are protectedfrom abuse while allowing forhunting, fishing, and current stream-side private land uses to continue.

Arizona's Congressional delega-tion is now deciding how to respondto the American Rivers proposal.Your letter or phone call to Arizona'ssenators and your representative toForest Service and Bureau of LandManagement District Rangers couldmake a difference. For informationor copies of the proosal, call me at(602) 264-1823.

ConstructedWetlands in ArizonaBarbara TellmanUniversity of Arizona

of the high water table in the area,dewatering the river should not re-sult in a loss of riparian vegetation.

Sierra Vista is converting anoxidation pond to a wetland,primarily vegetated by bulrushes.This project is approximately onemile from the San Pedro River, butwill not discharge to the river.

Pima County is in the veryearly stages of examining thefeasibility of constructed wetlandsin connection with one or both oftheir major treatment facilities.

Verde River. These areas provideexcellent habitat for migrating wa-terfowl and other wildlife.

N ogales is considering use of aconstructed wetland to polish efflu-ent from the International TreatmentPlant in order to maintain flow inthe Santa Cruz River. Water qualityproblems are especially complexhere because the flow contains in-dustrial wastewater from Nogales,Sonora, with many uncontrolledpollutants. They hope to construct apilot plant to test the ability of vari-ous types of vegetation to absorbsuch pollutants as heavy metals andsolvents. The riparian area down-stream of the treatment plant todayis thriving (See page 4) and sup-ports a rich diversity of wildlife.

Phoenix plans to integrate a con-structed wetland into anew linearpark to partially mitigate for the to-tal loss of effluent flow to the SaltRiver from the 91st Avenue Treat-ment Plant. Preliminary proposalscall for much of the water to be sentdirectly to recharge basins. Some ofwater would, under the proposal,flow through a wetland along thebank before being transported to thefarms via pipeline. According to aCity of Phoenix spokesman, because

Constructed wetlands are alsoenvisioned for Sedona, Kingmanand Holbrook. I would appreciatelearning about any others notmentioned here.

Many questions remain aboutwetlands construction in an ariddesert environment, a rich field forresearch. These include suchissues as: which vegetation is mosteffective both in removing nutrientsor other pollutants, while providingoptimum wildlife habitat?

With so much loss of historicalwetlands in Arizona and so littleopporunity to rehabilitate "natural"wetlands, constructed wetlandsoffer us real opportunities.

Constructed wetlands for munici-pal effluent are rapidly becomingpopular in Arizona, largely as a re-sponse to increasingly stringentNPDES permit conditions. Nation-ally, such wetlands have generallyproven to be effective in "polishing"treated wastewater, especially forremoval of nutrients. In some ofthe Arizona cases, the wetlands arebeing designed to take the place ofriparian areas, in others they are de-signed to augment them. Followingare brief descriptions of some con-structed wetlands projects existingor planned in Arizona.

Pinetop-Show Low is Arizona'spioneer in constructed wetlands,with three functioning wetlands(Jacques Marsh, and Pintail andRedhead Lakes.) Highly treated-waste water enters these wetlands,with the wetlands serving efficient-ly to "polish" that effluent. There isno outflow from these wetlands;they are in lieu of a discharge whichwould ultimately have reached the

Year of Opportunity -from page 1

December. Comments were received from all quarters, many of them generally favorable to riparian protection.Some felt that the proposals were too far reaching, while others felt they were not effective enough. The DEQportion was the most controversial as any regulation, of course, is anathema to some. It was difficult for somecommenters to understand specifically what the program would achieve, how it would affect landowners andothers and how it would be funded. The lack of a riparian defintion (to be developed in the study portion of thenew proposal) was pointed out by many as well as the lack of a clear policy statement. Thus, it was back to thedrawing board for the agencies who then developed Concept Paper Two.

January. Concept Paper Two was never circulated to the public. It contained a "riparian area" definition andpostponed action on a regulatory program. It proposed instead a committee of federal and state officials andprivate sector representatives to recommend a structure to regulate activity in riparian areas.

As you read this, there will be a bill incorporting these changes and others, but essentially retaining the rest ofthe concepts from the original paper. As I write this (in mid-January) Senators English, Blanchard and Bartlett arenegotiating for some strenghtening measures. It seems that none of them will introduce a separate bill.

The riparian legislation is also a priority for a number of groups who opposed us last year -the cattlegrowers,mining and some business interests. Unfortunately, each bill like this seems to be a test of will as to who will wineach battle in the war for control and power within the Legislature, rather than an attempt to ensure a sustainablefuture for our state. I'm sure we'll be hearing lots about private property, economic loss, over-regulation and soforth. Thus, although what has happened thus far is a giant step forward, it is still in mid-stride. In large part weare the ones to make sure that the foot actually lands -in the right place.

For the latest information, call Marty Jakle at (602) 870-6747 or Eva Patten at (602) 220-0490.

8

tion actions in the area. As mitiga-tion for the expansion of the RayMine at Hayden, ASARCO will re-store approximately 130 acres offarmland (immediately north ofCook's Lake) to mesquite bosque.Together, both mitigation effortscould result in the protection andrestoration of over 300 acres alongthe San Pedro River. We may soonbe able to enjoy the haunting whis-tIe of the gray hawk while strollingunder a verdant canopy of ash,willow and cottonwood trees.

Cook's Lake is well known for itsunique flora and fauna, and diver-sity of species in general. Waterfern, very uncommon in southernArizona was discovered in 1973and persists today, despite the dryspell that occurred during the 1990drought. Other wetland plants in-clude lizardtail, watercress, duck-weed, sedges, cattails, and button-bush. In addition to plants, Cook'sLake provides excellent birdwatch-ing opportunities. In summer thewetland is alive with vennillion fly-catchers and yellow breasted chats.Zone-tailed and Harris Hawks havenested there and Gray Hawks havebeen observed perching in the cot-tonwoods surrounding the wet-land. In addition to raptors, yel-low-billed cuckoos and south-western willow flycatchers (bothState-listed species) have also beenobserved onsite. The wetland isalso home to the lowland leopardfrog, a species receiving increasingattention due to recent declines inlocal populations. Lastly, Cook'sLake is even home to the southwestern cave bat, a Category 2 spe-des on the Endangered Species list.

There is even more good newson the horizon. In addition to Rec-lamation's activities at Cook's Lake,ASARCO will also perform restora-

Cook's Lake UpdateDiane LauschArizona State University

It looks like the protection ofCook's Lake, a wooded wetland lo-cated on the San Pedro River, maysoon become a reality .The Bureauof Reclamation has spent two yearsworking with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to obtain theirSection 404 permit from the ArmyCorps of Engineers. Reclamationhas proposed buying and restoringCook's Lake as compensation forimpacts to wetlands resulting fromthe construction of New WaddellDam and the modification of CampDyer Dam, both located at LakePleasant. Acquisition of the Section404 permit clears the way for pro-viding protection for Cook's Lakein the form of Federal ownership.

Cook's Lake, located on the SanPedro River, 2 miles downstream ofits confluence with Aravaipa Creek,has long been appreciated by natu-ralists for its unique habitat. It isrecognized as one of only threewooded wetlands in Arizona. Thistype of habitat is typically found inthe southeastern United States andprotection of this unique area willadd another jewel to Arizona'scrown of protected habitats.

Arizona Heritage

Alliance Update

Eva Patten,

Arizona Nature Conservancy

The Heritage Alliance hasproven to be too good an idea tolet die. It is re-energized, about tobe incorporated and receive 501(c)(3) status and has a Board ofDirectors. Andy Gordon, anattorney with Lewis and Roca, isthe new chair. The RiparianCouncil has a been a part of thisand was one of the first organi-zations to step forward with asupporting donation. For infor-mation, call me at (602) 220-0490.

Western States Riparian Council

Ron Hooper

Bureau of Land Management

The Western States Council members will include oneindividual from each state riparian group in those stateswhich either contain or are west of the 100th meridian.The goals of the Council include the fostering of ripariangroups in those states where none exist, facilitation of in-fonnation transfer between individual state coalitionsand creation of a layman's handbook of riparian man-agement techniques. Also, the Council will host a work-shop/symposi~m a~ually in conjunction with a stateriparian councIl. ~eetmg.. Andy Laurenzi of the ArizonaRiparian COUJ'\CllI~ workmg on a committee to developthe first such rneetlng to be held sometime in the secondhalf of 1992 or 1993.

The Western States Riparian Council was officiallycreated on Nov. 11-12, 1992 in Las Vegas, Nevada andRon Hooper of the Arizona Riparian Council waselected the first President. The creation of the Councilcumulates a year long effort begun by the Grand Can-yon Trust and the Bureau of Land Management.

The idea for the Council originated from a meetingheld December 4-5, 1990 in Phoenix. Sixty partici-pants representing a wide range of diverse interests,including conservationists, agency representatives,livestock operators, universities and state riparian coa-litions agreed there was need to create such a councilto assist in management of riparian resources.

9

Noteworthy

Publications

Pat Ellsworth, Section editor

tion; river classification according toconservation potential; recovery andrehabilitation; and legal frameworkfor river protection. A general themeof the book is the need for a greaterappreciation of the natural dynamiccharacter of river ecosystems.

ble in the Spring of 1992 andVolume Two will be available inthe Fall of the same year .

Articles and PapersThis new section features recentpublications relating to riparian are-as and wetlands. Anyone withbook or article reviews or sugges-tions for such reviews should sub-mit them to Pat Ellsworth at 202 s.Virginia Street, Prescott AZ 86303.Many thanks to Julie stromberg formost of the reviews in this edition.

Scodari, P.F. 1990. Wetland pro-tection: the role of economics. En-vironmental Law Institute. 89 pp.

Hunter, C.J. 1990. Better Trout Hab-itat: a guide to stream restorationand management. Island Press.320 pp.

Written by a Montana-basedaquatic biologist, this is the firstdetailed, readable book to describethe science and art of trout streamrestoration. Fourteen case studies ofsuccessful trout stream restorationprojects are included.

Books

The author provides a thoroughdiscussion of market economicsapplied to wetland functions andvalues. He includes recommen-dations for congressional remediesand for improved dialoguebetween scientists and economists.National Research Council. 1992.

Restoration of aquatic ecosystems:science, technology and publicpolicy. National Academy Press.-185 pp. Gruntfest, E. 1991. Multi-objective

river corridor planning: proceedingsof the urban stream corridor andstormwater management workshopand the multi-objective managementof river corridors and their restora-tion workshop. Assoc. of StateFloodplain Managers, Madison.234 pp.

Oggins, C.R. and H. M. Ingram.1990. The communityconsequences of rural-to-urbanwater transfers. Udall Center forStudies in Public Policy Issue PaperNo.2. Tucson: University ofArizona. 74 pp.

This document describes theresults of a survey of communityleaders (from water-gaining andwater-losing areas) on rural-to-urban water transfers in theSouthwest. The authors use theresults to develop specific policyproposals, providing an example ofhow survey research can playarole in guiding resourcemanagement decisions.

This book will be released for salein February or March 1992. Thebook provides a thorough review ofcase studies of lake, river andstream, and wetland restoration. Italso contains chapters on planningand evaluating aquatic ecosystemrestoration, and on integratedaquatic ecosystem restoration,recommended as a necessary alter-native to a fragmented restorationapproach that is .'unlikely to pro-duce a self-maintaining aquatic eco-system integrated into the larger ec-ologicallandscape". The finalchapter describes goals and priori-ties for developing a national resto-ration strategy .Contact: the Nation-al Research Council; WST Board;2101 Constitution Ave., WashingtonDC 20418. (203) 334-3422.

These proceedings contain paperspresented at two conferences, andprovide information on multi-objective river corridor managementfrom national, regional, state and lo-cal perspectives. Copies are availablefor $12 from the Association of StateFloodplain Managers, P. 0. Box 2051,Madison, WI 53701: (608) 266-1926.

Callow, P. and G.E. Petts (Eds) 1992.Rivers Handbook. BlackwellScientific Publications, Cambridge.512 pp (Vol.1)

Am\our, C. L., D. A. Duff, and W.Elmore. 1991. "The effects oflivestock grazing on riparian andstream ecosystems" Fisheries16 (1):7-11.

This article is a draft positionpaper of the American FisheriesSociety. It contains a concisedescription of the effects of live-stock grazing on aquatic eco-systems, and concludes with a listof recommended action that would"contribute to improved livestockmanagement... and maintain habi-tat of streams on the public lands".

In two volumes, the Handbook willform a valuable reference for thoseworking in river ecology and man-agement. Volume One covers gener-al scientific and ecological principlesfor management. Volume Two devel-ops those principles further, organiz-ing them around problems, diagnosisand treatment. Volume One is availa-

Boon, P. J., P. Calow, and G. E.Petts (eds.). 1991. Riverconservation and management.John Wiley and Sons Ltd. WestSussex, England. 488 pp.

This new and expensive book($138.00) provides an internationaltreatment of four aspects of rivermanagement: the need for conserva-

10

The Arizona Riparian Council(ARC) was formed in 1986 as a re-suIt of increasing concern over thealarming rate of loss of the State'sriparian ecosystems. It is estimat-ed that less than 100;0 of the State'soriginal riparian acreage remainsin a natural form. These habitatsare considered Arizona's most rarenatural communities.

The Arizona Riparian Council

Officers:

(602) 622-3861(602) 870-6764(602)870-6763(602) 965-2490

President: Andy LaurenziVice President: Marty JakleSecretary- Treasurer: Diane Laush

Cindy D. ZisnerCommittee Chairs:The purpose of ARC is to provide

for the exchange of information onthe status, protection, and manage-ment of riparian systems in Arizo-na. The term "riparian" includesvegetation, habitats, or ecosystemsthat area associated with bodies ofwater or are dependent on the ex-istence of perennial intermittent orephemeral surface or subsurfacewater drainage. Any person or or-ganization interested in the man-agement, protection, or scientificstudy of riparian systems, or somerelated phase of riparian conserva-tion is eligible for membership.Annual dues are $5.00; additionalcontributions are gratefully accept-ed.

(602) 392-4066(602) 542-1996(602)622-3861(602)392-4072(602) 670-6764(602) 792-9591(602) 778-1597

Classification and Inventory: Sue MonroeEducation: Tanna ThomburgLand Use: Mark HeitlingerProtection/Enhancement: Kris RandallWater Resources: Marty ]akleNewsletter: Barbara Tellman, editor

Pat Ellsworth, assistant editor

Arizona Riparian CouncilCenter for Environmental Studies

Arizona State UniversityTempe AZ 85287-3211

Calendar

This newsletter is published quar-terly to communicate currentevents, issues, problems, andprogress involving Arizona's ri-parian systems, to inform you themembers of ARC about Councilbusiness, andto provides a forumfor you to express your views ornews about riparian topics. TheSpring issue will be mailed inMay, with the deadline for submit-tal, April 7, 1992. Please call orwrite me withsuggestionsand of-fers of articles and/or illustrations.This publication will be as interest-ing and useful as the membersmake it.

Feb 22 9:00 A.M. -1:00 P.M. Rio Rico Swim and Racquet Club. PublicWorkshop/Open House preliminary to the Upper Santa Cruz River Corri-dor Study, Santa Cruz County Planning Dept., 281-4685 x 3071.

Feb. 27-29 Arizona Land and People Conference: Environmental Steward-ship, U. of A. College of Agriculture, Holiday Inn, Tucson. For informationwrite, College of Agriculture, Forbes Room 325, Tucson AZ 85721.

March 21 Friends of the Santa Cruz River tour through Guevabi Ranch 1 :30p.m. Write F05C for information at P.O. Box 154, Tumacacori AZ 85640

April 10 -11 Riparian Council Annual Meeting (See page 12)

May 31-June 6 Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists in NewOrleans. Call Dr. Mary Landin 1-800-LAB-6WES x 2942 for infonnation.

Sept.13-17 INTECOL International Wetlands Conference in Columbus OH.Write William Mitsch, School of Natural Resources, 2021 Coffey Road,

Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210 for information.Barbara Tellman, Editor

Water Resources Research Center,University of Arizona

350 N. Campbell AvenueTucson AZ 85721 or phone (602)

792-9591 FAX (602) 792-8518

Oct. 2-3 Western Regional Instream Flow Conference II in Jackson Hole.For informatio: Suzanne Van Gytenbeek, Trout Unlimited (307) 733-0484.

11

SIXTH ANNUAL MEEnNGOF THE

ARIZONA RIP ARIAN COUNCILAPRIL 10 AND 11, 1992

At the Las Campaiias Inn -CottonwoodRegistration starts at 8:00 a.m. -Program starts promptly at 9:00 a.m.

Ii

II,

Friday Morning General Session -Protecting Riparian Systems:Meeting the Challenge of Urban Needs

Friday Afternoon Technical SessionFriday Evening Barbecue: Dead Horse Ranch State ParkSaturday Field Trips: Verde River, Oak Creek, and Tavasci Marsh, with guides

from government agencies and the local area.

Cost: Preregistration (includes lunch) for members $35, non-members $45, students $20Registration at the door $5 extra in each categoryEvening barbecue $18 additional

Full meeting information and Call for Papers will be mailed separately to all members.Mail your registration fee to Cindy Zisner at the return address below,

or call her at (602) 965-2490 for information.

BT5 1005Arizona State UniversityCenter for Environmental StudiesArizona Riparian CouncilTempe, Arizona 85287- 3211