October 8, 2013 WORK SESSIONS of the COCONINO COUNTY

October 8, 2013

WORK SESSIONS OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SPEICAL SESSION OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE JAIL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

10:00 A.M. – Work Session Immediately Following – Special Sessions Immediately Following – Work Session

219 E. Cherry, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86001

The Board may change the order of the agenda at the time of convening the meeting or at any time during the meeting. Members of the Board of Supervisors will attend either in person or by telephone conference call. Work sessions and regular meetings are open to the public. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation by contacting the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office at 928-679-7144. Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

Notice of Option to Recess in Executive Session Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431-.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Board of Supervisors and to the general public that, at this meeting, the Board of Supervisors may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the County's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38 431.03(A) (3).

As a reminder, if you are carrying a cell phone, electronic pager, computer, two-way radio, or other sound device, we ask that you silence it at this time to minimize disruption of today’s meeting.

WORK SESSION MEETING 10:00 A.M.

Call to Order

A. Presentation of Coconino Community College ballot initiative by CCC President Dr. Bornstein

Special Session

1. Approve the appointment of election board workers for the November 5, 2013 Consolidated Election. Recorder

Is there a motion for the Board of Supervisors to resolve as the Jail District Board of Directors?

2. Approve a budget adjustment and the grant award and agreement with Arizona Community Foundation (ACF) on behalf of Flagstaff Community Foundation (FCF) in the amount of $8,500 to provide transitional housing post release for graduates of the Exodus in-custody substance abuse treatment program from 10/17/13 through 12/31/14. Jail District

Is there a motion for the Jail District Board of Directors to resolve as the Board of Supervisors?

Is there a motion for the Board of Supervisors to resolve as the Flood Control District?

3. Approve Amendment #2 to an existing Special Use Permit between the U.S. Forest Service and the Coconino County Flood Control District authorizing construction of on- forest watershed restoration measures in the Campbell Watershed within the Schultz Fire burn area, under the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Flood Control District

4. Approve Amendment 5 to Financial Assistance Agreement 68-9457-12-510 between the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Coconino County Flood Control District in the amount of $1,325,560.50 enabling construction of watershed restoration measures on National Forest land in the Campbell Corridor, under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program; including a $331,390.13 matching requirement from the Flood Control District. Flood Control District

5. Approve Modification #10 to the existing Emergency Watershed Protection Assistance Agreement between the Coconino County Flood Control District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service for Phase 11, providing continuation of engineering design services in the Schultz Flood area, in the amount of $69,443.55, with no direct County funding commitment. Flood Control District

Is there a motion for the Flood Control District to resolve as the Board of Supervisors?

6. Receive legal advice regarding land use matter and contemplated or potential litigation. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A) (3) & (4), the Board may enter executive session.

Work Session Continued

B. Presentation and discussion of forthcoming County Supervisors Association Legislative Summit. Government Relations

C. Roundtable: To be discussed (Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02H – These matters will not be acted upon):

 Planning Calendar for 2013  Future Agenda Items  BOS Committee Liaison Appointments  State and Federal Legislation  CSA Update  NACO Update  County Manager’s Report  Chair’s Report  Reports from Supervisors - (Update on new projects, requests for services & initiatives.)

o District 1 – Supervisor Babbott o District 2 – Supervisor Archuleta o District 3 – Supervisor Ryan o District 4 – Supervisor Metzger o District 5 – Supervisor Fowler o Other

Adjourn

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted at the Coconino County Administration Building, 219 East Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona, on this date: ______at ______am / pm (circle one) in accordance with the statement filed by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors with the Clerk of the Board. Dated this ______day of ______, 2013.

______

Wendy Escoffier, Clerk of the Board

Financial History of the College CCC is at the heart of education in Coconino County.

Since 1991, CCC has served more than 65,000 students.

Williams

Learners Per Year Explosive Growth to Meet Community Needs • Three campuses • Four instructional sites Coconino Community College’s Three Core Missions:

1.) Arts & Sciences – Transfer/Transition

2.) Career & Technical Education

3.) Workforce Training

Vital To Your Future Core Mission: 1.) Arts & Sciences – Transfer/Transition

HS2CCC • Arizona Programs of Study and C.A.V.I.A.T. • Dual Enrollment - earn college credit while in high school • G.E.D.

S.T.E.M. • Science, Technology, Engineering & Math

CCC2NAU • 1,200+ students since 2008 • Saves students & families more than $10,000 • Integrated student advisement • Shared access to facilities, clubs, etc…

Helping local students navigate seamlessly to success! Core Mission: 2.) Career & Technical Education

Preparing local students for better jobs.

51% And many more… Fire Fighters • Allied Health Services • American Sign Language Interpreters • Certified Nursing Assistants 43% • Computer Network Engineers Criminal Justice • Detention Officers • Emergency Medical Technicians • Medical Assistants • Phlebotomists 42% • Photovoltaic & Weatherization Technicians Registered Nurses & Paramedics Filling critical jobs in Coconino County! Vital To Your Future Core Mission: 3.) Workforce Training

Business & Employee Training • Customized industry curricula • Promoting business retention & expansion • Teaching and counseling for job advancement

Partners Including: Coconino County Arizona Deckers Outdoor Corporation W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. NACET - Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology National Park Service Northern Arizona University And many more…

Keeping jobs in Coconino County! Coconino Community College’s Three Funding Sources…

Vital To Your Future CCC’s Financial Dilemma…

1.) State Aid Cuts • $15 million cut cumulatively from FY2007 to FY2014

State Aid & Full-Time Student Enrollment (FTSE) State aid was 23% share of CCC’s budget in 2007; now it’s 12%. Struggling to meet core missions! CCC’s Financial Dilemma…

2.) Property Taxes

• Since 1991, CCC’s primary property tax rate has virtually stayed the same even though CCC’s student body has grown.

Property Tax & Full-Time Student Enrollment (FTSE) Struggling to meet core missions! Vital To Your Future CCC’s Financial Dilemma… Lowest Property Tax Rate in Arizona!

FY2014 Primary Property Tax Rates by Arizona Community College Struggling to meet core missions! CCC’s Response… 3.) Tuition & Fees • 89% higher tuition since 2007! • $1,296 tuition increase is the largest increase among Arizona community colleges.

Academic Year Tuition & Fees Tuition was 33% share of CCC’s budget in 2007; now it’s 43%. Struggling to meet core missions! Vital To Your Future CCC’s Response… Highest Student Tuition in Arizona!

FY2014 Tuition & Fees by Arizona Community College Struggling to meet core missions! CCC’s Response… 100 Cost Saving Initiatives

• 15% employee reduction

• 20% classes cut

• 30% programs eliminated

• Closed Williams Campus

FY2014 Operating Budget & Reductions $4 Million in Budget Reductions = -18%

CCC is now drawing on minimal reserves and struggling to meet core missions! Vital To Your Future CCC’s Financial Situation… Raising tuition & cost saving initiatives are not enough to maintain current levels of service.

Sustainable Options:  Eliminate core missions OR  Increase revenue

Coconino Community College’s Three Core Missions:

1.) Arts & Sciences – Transfer/Transition - Navigating students seamlessly from high school to CCC, to a bachelor’s degree and beyond through CCC’s educational pipeline.

2.) Career & Technical Education - Preparing local students for better jobs in Fire Science, Criminal Justice, Nursing & Paramedics, etc.

3.) Workforce Training - Keeping jobs in Coconino County with customized curriculums, business retention & expansion, community partnerships, etc.

Vital To Your Future Override Election – November 5, 2013

On June 25, 2013, the Coconino Community College District Governing Board unanimously called for a voter-approved override election. • Temporary: 7 Years • $4.5 Million/Year • Requires Voter Approval Property Tax Effects: $100K Home Value • $2.40/month • $29/year $170K Home Value (Average in Coconino County) • $4.20/month • $50/year Override Election – November 5, 2013 Schedule:

October 7, 2013 Last day to register to vote

October 25, 2013 Last day to request early ballot by mail

November 5, 2013 Election Day Polling hours: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.

For election information visit: www.coconino.az.gov/elections Thank You!

For more information, visit: www.coconino.edu/VoterInformation

Vital To Your Future TARGET MEETING DATE: 10/8/2013

DATE: 9/27/13

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board

FROM: Patty Hansen, RECORDER

SUBJECT: Approve the appointment of election board workers for the November 5, 2013 Consolidated Election

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve.

BACKGROUND:

ARS 16-531(A) requires for General Elections, not less than 20 days prior that the Board of Supervisors appoint the election board workers. The election boards will be made up of a minimum of three election board workers for each polling place.

ALTERNATIVES:

N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A.

REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

N/A.

November 5, 2013 Election Board Workers Precincts 1 2 3 (1084) Precincts 4 5 55 56 (1198) Precincts 6 7 9 40 84 (1384) Precinct 21 (693) Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church (2) Flagstaff High School (4) Woodlands Hotel (6,84) DeMiguel School (21) 1 Kurt Brydenthal 1 Melody Bowling 1 Marc Murison 1 Donald Barnes 2 Enrique Vega 2 Linda Howell 2 Sandra Lambdin 2 Martha Murphy 3 Karen Fella 3 Susan Lupo 3 Hazel Clark 3 Sybil Smith 4 Teresa Vivio 4 Sheryl Solberg 4 Barbara Cluck 4 Jill Farrell 5 Keith Schrader 5 Kathie Sorenson 5 Lisa Talayumptewa 5 Michael Satterwhite 6 Dixie Reese 6 Judy Manoogian 6 "Jay" Scott Thompson 6 Joanne Parkes 7 Thersa Kulpinski 7 Sharon Sifling 7 Allison Eckert 7 Jennifer Corrigan

Precincts 10 12 13 14 20 (910) Precincts 8 16 (923) Precincts 11 15 (1355) Precincts 17 18 26 (958) Murdoch Community Center (14) East Side Public Library (8) Coconino Health & Community Services(15) Family Resource Center (17) 1 Aprilkay Nelson 1 Nina Swidler 1 Miriam Gage 1 Fred Myler 2 Dolores Morado 2 Yvonne Pinzon 2 Martha Montgomery 2 Brenda Myler 3 Marshall Morado 3 Natalie Ankney 3 Barbara Tauritz 3 Peter Green 4 Michael Begay 4 Alan Eddy 4 Rose Felix 4 Denise Morton 5 Sallie Sage 5 James Harris 5 Bernard Natseway 5 June Bainbridge 6 David Smith 6 Twyla Phipps 6 Tracy Cruise 6 Marissa Haarmann 7 Maria Angleton 7 Wendy Kasprzyk-Roberts 7 Sherry Cornforth 7 Valerie Ausband

Precincts 19 24 25 (1604) Precincts 22 23 63 (1137) Precincts 50 86 92 (1580) Precincts 51 52 85 (1320) Christ's Church of Flagstaff (19) Bethel Community Church (22) Calvary Bible Church (50 86) Summit Fire St 33 past 2nd chance( 51 52) 1 Jerry Loynachan 1 Diana Leppke 1 Donna Womble 1 Mark Wakeford 2 Tina Pfeiffer 2 Patricia West 2 Gail Lowe 2 Tina Burger 3 Terry Tress 3 Brenda Florman 3 Susie West-Wilkes 3 Antonette "Toni" Fox 4 Alan Novack 4 Eugene Komperda 4 Anita Ryan 4 Eleanora Nez 5 Patricia Walton 5 Beatrice Diaz 5 Sharrilyn Honacki 5 Alicia Wiilliams 6 David Walton 6 Adel Gouhin 6 Melody English 6 Larry Wallen 7 Joy Farrelly 7 Rocina Rodriguez 7 Kyle Mickelson 7 Kevin Manny

Precincts 62 Pumphouse Wash (986) Precincts 58 Fredonia (410) Precincts 59 97 (642) Precincts 64 66 98 99 (1176) Highlands Fire Station (62) Fredonia Fire Station (58) Shirine of the Ages (59) Grand Canyon Railway Hotel (98) 1 Tom Hanecak 1 Debra Judd 1 Lori Bowman 1 Joyce Matzdorff 2 Craig Schilling 2 Marilyn Johnson 2 Shannon Reed 2 Robert Small 3 Amy Baca 3 Verene Tait 3 John Gallagher 3 Barbara Brutvan 4 Phillip Mlsna 4 Margaret Scott 4 Joyce Johnson 4 Elizabeth "Cookie" Dent 5 Barbara Bydenthal 5 Hazel Hatch 5 Donna McClellan 5 Alan Spicer 6 Ian Hough 6 Mike Oxtoby 6 Mark Harmes 6 Ruth Alvarado 7 Tim Carter 7 Denim Bond Precincts 72 74 (1103) Precincts 73 75 (1216) Precincts 79 Parks (335) Precincts 80 Pinewood (237) Faith Bible Church (74) Page City Hall (75) Maine Consolidated School Pinewood Fire Station, Munds Park (80) 1 Irene "Marie" Cloutier 1 Dora Nelson 1 Kali Kaliche 1 Tom Eade 2 Janice Boehme 2 Sharon Buck 2 Cheryl Bean 2 Lois Barnes 3 Judy Kitson 3 Ryan Trujillo 3 Joseph Bean 3 Enid Gustin 4 Wilma Seeley 4 Carmen Trujillo 4 Linda Czech 4 Linda Stetser 5 Dan Franzen 5 Phyllis Connally 5 Tamara Andrews 5 Sean Kane 6 Ramie Hansen 6 Brenda Narada 6 Thomas Johnson 7 Allie Stender 7 Byron Browning

Precincts 53 Forest Lakes (59) Precincts 41 Blue Ridge (138) Precincts 42 Bodaway (863) Precincts 43 Cameorn (765) Chevelon Butte School Library (53) Blue Ridge Community Church (41) Bodaway Chapter House Cameron Senior Center 1 Rebecca Johnson 1 Richard Palmer 1 Verna Nez 1 Janice Bradley 2 Rosemarie Watson 2 Ruth Palmer 3 Susan Bragg 3 Sylvia Meakin 4 Randy Phillips 4 Kris Estes

Precincts 47 Coppermine (394) Precincts 61 71 (683) Precincts 65 Kaibeto (1101) Precincts 67 Lechee (853) Coppermine Chapter House Inscription House Chapter House (61) Kaibeto Senior Center Lechee Chapter House 1 Rod Permar 1 Brad Cheff 1 Jocelyn Beard 1 Dallas Lilly

Precincts 69 88 (1291) Precincts 90 Tonalea (1294) Precincts 48 70 93 94 95 (4741) Precincts 60 Havasupai (88) Leupp Community Center (69) Tonalea Senior Citizen Center (90) Tuba City High School Havasupai Tribe New Builidng (60) 1 Elta Foster 1 Aimee D'Avignon 1 Denise Burley 1 Scott Richardson 2 Matlilda Perdue

SEDONA 82 & 83 Mail Ballot Precincts VOTE BY MAIL PRECINCTS BACK-UP EDT In Flagstaff: Candice Koenker 2013 CCCC REZ Election Board Workers Dist 23/ Bodaway 42 (1094) ID Number Dist 24/ Cameron 43 (1052) ID Number Bodaway Chapter House Cameron Chapter House 1 Billings, Linda J 300002850 1 Laughter, Randolph R 300024839 2 Billings, George Sr 300011319 2 Goldtooth, Marie 300111822 3 Billings, Vanessa 300062421 3 Semallie, Julia 300004501 4 Dalgai, James 300095207 4 5 John, Patty 300018188 5 6 Ridpath, Mattie 300013867 6 7 Sloan, Lorraine A 300032785 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Dist 25/ Coppermine 47 (510) ID Number Dist 26/ Ins House 61& Nav Mtn ID71 Number(633) Coppermine Chapter House Inscription House Chapter House (971) 1 Manson, Carol B 300008513 1 Claw, Darlene 300000719 2 Goldtooth, Julie T 300032635 2 Manheimer, Elaine G 300001378 3 Howard, Frank 300015822 3 Shepard, Rose M 300012678 4 Spencer, Caroline 300131300 4 Tso, Anna L 300021257 5 Spencer, Frank Y 300117565 5 Watson, Vernita 300045774 6 6 Whitehat, Louise C 300047111 7 7 Tate, Ann 300015164 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Dist 27/ Kaibeto 65 (1406) ID Number Dist 28 Lechee (1108) ID Number Kaibeto Senior Center Lechee Adminstration Building 1 Johnson, Lee F 300014958 1 Bennett, Edlinda M 300021631 2 Bennett, Lora M 300015059 2 Brown, Lorenzo H 300020230 3 Bennett, Robert D 300012197 3 Charley-Sloan, Irmadine M 300112146 4 Choe, Dalraeia R 300125993 4 Johnson, Cecil B 300037912 5 Choe, Julia R 300125992 5 Johnson, Rose M 300036022 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Dist 29/ Leupp 69 & TL 88 (1708)ID Number Dist 30/ Tonalea 90 (1844) ID Number Leupp Community Center Tonalea Senior Center 1 Leon, Sara B 300020458 1 Maize, Victoria 300011022 2 Benally, Diane 300110853 2 Dodson, Ray L 300111836 3 Blake, Brandon L 300080170 3 Freeman, Leila 300015135 4 Wilson, Laura J 300016518 4 Sherman, Adair L 300064184 5 5 Slowtalker, Vina 300020545 6 6 Whitehair, Pauline 300021147 7 7 Whitehair, Jeremy J 300015135 8 8 Whiterock, Junior 300092012 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Dist 31/ Coaline 48, Moenkopi 70(6362) Dist 32 Havasupai 61 (125) 93 TCNE, 94 TCNW, 94 TCS Havasupai Community Building ID Number Tuba City Warrior Pavillion ID Number 1 Jones, Yvonne 1 Smith, Travis E 300065228 2 Putsoy, Tyron F 2 Black, Francine 300001823 3 Siyuja, Gloria Ann 3 Begaye, Elvina 300025044 4 4 Benally, Candice R 300035619 5 5 Charley, Roxann 300060406 6 6 Claw, Reuben T 300002705 7 7 Cleveland, Louisa 300100459 8 8 Coriz, Marci L 300131160 9 9 Hyden, Alfred B 300012661 10 10 Hyden, Shirley B 300013398 11 11 Kewanyama, Michelene K 300036798 12 12 Miller, Myles 300051517 13 13 Scott, Shavaie L 300105379 14 14 Yazzie, Christina 300060267 15 15 Yazzie, Larado, Jr 300052287 16 Dodson, Samantha 300126379 17 Yazzie, Beverly 300001757 Tuba City Public Library 1 Blackhair, Sue M 300012088 2 Homer, Kayla 300126379 3 4 5 Counting Board Jerry Diebel MaryAnn Mayrand Tyler Stone Martha Taylor Sherman Stephens Robert Gonzales November 5, 2013 Election Board Members

Early Voting Board

Luella Palmer Janice Woodburne Sandy Swaby Cliff Swaby Sarah Witham

Receiving Board

Wes Beuchamp Armando Ruiz Kris Dalmolin Kim Cvetkovich Sandy Swaby Cliff Swaby Donald Grassmuck Mark Mayrand Julie Carter Anna Carter Jackie Coleman Shirley Coleman-Dean

Meeting Date: October 8, 2013

DATE: October 2, 2013

TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board

FROM: Sheriff William B. Pribil

SUBJECT: Approve a budget adjustment and the grant award and agreement with Arizona Community Foundation (ACF) on behalf of Flagstaff Community Foundation (FCF) in the amount of $8,500 to provide transitional housing post release for graduates of the Exodus in-custody substance abuse treatment program from 10/17/13 through 12/31/14.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve a budget adjustment the grant award and agreement with Arizona Community Foundation (ACF) on behalf of Flagstaff Community Foundation (FCF) in the amount of $8,500 to provide transitional housing post release for graduates of the Exodus in-custody substance abuse treatment program from 10/17/13 through 12/31/14.

BACKGROUND:

Exodus is the Coconino County detention facility in-custody, drug and alcohol treatment program. It is based on the Matrix Model which has been proven to be effective with alcohol dependence, methamphetamine dependence and other commonly addictive substances. It is recognized by the National Institute on Drug Abuse as a comprehensive treatment program that uses a scientifically based approach.

The Matrix model uses cognitive behavioral counseling and motivational interviewing techniques proven to be effective in treatment for substance addictions. The Matrix Model has also been used with multiple ethnicities including Native Americans on and off reservations, Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Exodus uses 12-step and bio-psychosocial materials to augment the program. Exodus emphasizes total abstinence and not advocate or support a controlled use philosophy.

Many people leaving Exodus do not have a home and are returning to communities where poverty, lack of jobs, and a lack of affordable housing make obtaining a safe permanent home difficult. For others, their prior residence is not an option due to abuse, substance use and criminal activity that is persistent in the home. A necessary condition for a successful transition from jail and treatment to the community is access to housing that is safe, free of substance use, provides a structured environment, and supports treatment goals. Lack of housing is a leading barrier to successful reentry and increases the temptation to use drugs and alcohol, engage in criminal activity, and to earn money through illegal activities. Homeless shelters are rampant with substance abuse, theft, robbery, and fighting.

We requested funding from the Flagstaff Community Foundation in order to pay for one month at a transitional housing facility for three Exodus graduates per month. Overall, we have seen great success in providing a safe place to stay drug and alcohol free after release from our in-custody program. The Flagstaff Community Foundation has awarded a grant in the amount of $8,500 which will provide 17 Exodus graduates with transitional housing for one month.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternative is to not accept the funding and or request funding from General Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This requires a jail district budget adjustment in the amount of $8,500.

REVIEWED ELECTRONICALLY

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Three (3) original grant agreements with the Flagstaff Community Foundation.

Project

Reference

Exodus - Community Foundation

Fund Pending

Current Year Grant 8,500

544-50-6419 Rent Assistance 8,500 Meeting Date: October 8, 2013

DATE: September 30, 2013

TO: Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Board of the Flood Control District

FROM: Andrew L. Bertelsen, Public Works Director

SUBJECT: U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit – Schultz Area Emergency Watershed Protection – Amendment #2

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Amendment #2 to an existing Special Use Permit between the U.S. Forest Service and the Coconino County Flood Control District authorizing construction of on-forest watershed restoration measures in the Campbell Watershed within the Schultz Fire burn area, under the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Emergency Watershed Protection Program.

BACKGROUND:

On January 24, 2012 the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) awarded $4,344,750 in Federal Assistance to Coconino County under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). These funds were intended to assist with construction of watershed restoration and flood mitigation measures on National Forest, Coconino County and private lands throughout the Schultz Flood area. At this time the Flood Control District Board of Directors accepted the funds and also approved the $1,448,250 in required local matching funds from the Coconino County Flood Control District (FCD).

To accomplish the overall goals of the Schultz EWP project, construction of watershed restoration measures, primarily for the purpose of sediment reduction is required on National Forest Service land. These watershed restoration measures will ensure that the construction of downstream flood mitigation measures will function as designed and not fill up with sediment, thereby creating an ongoing maintenance issue.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 1 of 62

On March 12, 2013 the Board approved a Special Use Permit (SUP) with the U.S. Forest Service, establishing the terms and conditions for construction and maintenance of watershed restoration measures on National Forest land, and authorizing construction of such measures in the Brandis/Thames flood corridor.

On May 7, 2013 the Board approved Amendment #1 to this SUP authorizing construction of a second watershed restoration project on National Forest land in the Wupatki Trails/Lenox flood corridor

Amendment #2 to this SUP authorizes construction of a third watershed restoration project on National Forest land in the Campbell flood corridor

This SUP Amendment contains four parts:

• SUP Amendment #2 authorizing construction in the Campbell flood corridor • SUP Amendment #1 authorizing construction in the Wupatki Trails/Lenox flood corridor • The original approved SUP document outlining the general terms and conditions associated with construction of watershed restoration/sediment reduction measures on- forest, and authorizing construction in the Brandis/Thames flood corridor.. • The Plan of Operations describing how the FCD will mitigate impacts to USFS resources during and after construction. • Final construction plans and specifications for the Campbell project (not submitted via OnBase for Board review, but available upon request)

Importantly, the SUP and the Plan of Operations detail that the FCD has a monitoring and maintenance responsibility for the sediment reduction measures constructed on-forest, up to the design storm to which the measures have been engineered, and for a period of three years. After this three year period, ownership and responsibility for the measures reverts back to the USFS.

The SUP Amendment now presented for Board consideration authorizes construction of sediment reduction measures in the Campbell watershed, which flows into the Campbell Avenue Corridor. The exact start and end date of the three year monitoring and maintenance period in this corridor will be established through an additional Amendment to the original SUP upon approval by both the USFS and the Board.

In addition, the Campbell flood corridor is the third of several flood corridors which may possible receive treatment. As projects in other corridors are engineered and made ready for construction, approvals will be made through additional Amendments to the original SUP upon approval by both the USFS and the FCD Board of Directors.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 2 of 62 ALTERNATIVES:

1. The Board could choose to approve Amendment #2 to the existing SUP, resulting in the ability to proceed with construction of watershed restoration and flood mitigation construction work in the Campbell Corridor under the NRCS EWP program

2. The Board could choose not to approve Amendment #2 to the existing SUP, resulting in the cessation of watershed restoration and flood mitigation construction work in the Campbell corridor under the NRCS EWP program.

3. The Board may amend or table this item for future discussion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This SUP Amendment includes no financial commitment and therefore has no financial impact. The financial impacts associated with construction of the measures authorized under this Amendment will be presented for Board consideration in conjunction with a separate agenda item; the Federal Assistance Agreement between the Flood Control District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which would obligate funds for the project.

SUBMITTED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

• Schultz EWP Special Use Permit Amendment #2 • Schultz EWP Special Use Permit Amendment #1 - Signed • Schultz EWP Special Use Permit - Signed • Schultz EWP Special Use Permit Plan of Operations

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 3 of 62 Auth ID: PEA0812 FS-2700-23 (v. 10/09) Contact ID: COCONINO,COUNTY FCD OMB No. 0596-0082 Use Code: 923 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE AMENDMENT FOR

COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT

Amendment#: 2

This amendment is attached to and made a part of the special use authorization for watershed restoration measures under the water diversion use code issued to COCONINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT on 03/12/2013 which is hereby amended as follows:

The amendment adds the Campbell area watershed corridor and authorizes construction, and maintenance of watershed restoration measures in this area as described in the special use permit executed March 12, 2013. Construction activities are subject to final approval of plans and specifications of designs submitted by the Holder. This additional project area and located on the west side of the Timberline Estates private property at the end of Campbell Road and north of Forest Road 6064D, in Sections 7, 8 and 17, Township 22 North, Range 8 East, G&SRM as shown on the attached Map Exhibit A2. An operating plan amendment may be required to address site specific requirements for this project area. All other terms and conditions including the approved project operating plan and clauses of the permit issued on March 12, 2013 remain in place.

This Amendment is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions N/A to N/A attached hereto and made a part of this Amendment.

______Elizabeth Archuleta, Chairwoman Michael T. Elson Coconino County Flood Control District Board of Directors ______District Ranger

______

Date Date

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0596-0082. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average one (1) hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877- 8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) govern the confidentiality to be provided for information received by the Forest Service.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 4 of 62 COCONINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

ATTEST:

CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DATE

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 5 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 6 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 7 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 8 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 9 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 10 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 11 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 12 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 13 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 14 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 15 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 16 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 17 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 18 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 19 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 20 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 21 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 22 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 23 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 24 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 25 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 26 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 27 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 28 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 29 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 30 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 31 of 62 03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 32 of 62 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Plan of Operations

Schultz Emergency Watershed Restoration (EWP) Project

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

General Description 3

Special Use Permit Approval and Amendment Process 3

Schultz Project Mitigation Measures 4

Silviculture 4

Botany 5

Weed Management 5

Soil/Watershed 6

Public Safety 7

Trails 7

Range 7

Heritage Sites 8

Wildlife 9

Monitoring and Maintenance 9

Appendices 14

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 33 of 62 Appendices

Appendix I: Schultz Emergency Watershed Protection Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix II: Schultz Emergency Watershed Protection Project Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact

Appendix III: Construction Plans and Specifications – Brandis/Thames Corridor

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 34 of 62 Introduction

The Schultz Fire – Flood EWP Project is an integrated system of watershed restoration measures performed on Forest Service lands, and flood mitigation measures performed in downstream residential areas; which will result in decreased risks to life, property, and public infrastructure following the 2010 Schultz Fire and the subsequent three years of flooding that has resulted downstream.

General Description

The Schultz Fire – Flood EWP Project consists of:

• Construction and limited maintenance of watershed restoration measures using Natural Resources Conservation Service Emergency Watershed Protection and Coconino County Flood Control District funding mechanisms to support measures to reduce the amount of sediment leaving the forest in order to maintain the hydraulic capacity of downstream channels constructed in residential areas. o The watershed restoration measures include re-establishing alluvial fans and efforts to restore eroded channels along historic watershed drainages to stable conditions. o Another purpose of the watershed restoration measures is to provide greater predictability as to future flood flows from the Schultz Fire burn area in an effort to keep downstream investments in flood mitigation effective.

Special Use Permit Approval and Amendment Process

The following outlines the special use permit (SUP) approval and amendment process for the Schultz Fire – Flood EWP Project:

• An SUP has been developed and approved; establishing overall project terms and conditions, and authorizing construction of watershed restoration measures once final construction plans are approved in the first flood corridor by the USFS, NRCS and Coconino County Flood Control District. The term of this SUP is 10 years. • Amendments to the SUP and this plan of operations will be developed and approved authorizing construction of watershed restoration measures in additional flood corridors as construction plans are completed and approved by the USFS, NRCS and Coconino County Flood Control District. • Revisions to plans will also require approval of the USFS prior to implementation and per clause II.B. of the permit. • Once construction of watershed restoration measures is completed in a flood corridor in accordance with the agreement between Coconino County Flood Control District and NRCS and with final inspection by the USFS, an Amendment to the SUP will be developed to establish the end date of the three year maintenance period for that corridor.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 35 of 62 o The maintenance period will begin upon completion of construction, as determined by final inspection and sign-off by the NRCS in coordination with the USFS, and will end three years from that date, pending final inspection and sign- off by the USFS per clause VII. E. of the special use permit. o At the end of the three year maintenance period, the Coconino County Flood Control District and the Forest Service will evaluate the corridor per Clause VII.E., Rights and Responsibilities Upon Revocation or Termination Without Renewal, and determine site restoration that may be necessary prior to termination of the permit or removal of a flood area from the permit. An amendment will be prepared to remove project areas from the permit or add specific corridors. o The permit may need to be reissued if the 3 year establishment period extends beyond the expiration date of the permit. o At the end of the term of the permit for each watershed, the authorized officer or representative will review the project area and watershed restoration improvements per clause VII.D. of the special use permit. If restoration improvements and construction areas are fully restored and there are no resource or safety concerns, the authorized officer would allow improvements to remain in place upon written concurrence.

Schultz Project Mitigation Measures

Statements in italics are drawn from the Schultz Sediment Reduction Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment. Subsequent statements are discussions of how those mitigation measures will be met by the Coconino County Flood Control District and contractor in coordination with the Forest Service.

Silviculture

Prior to removing trees or vegetation the contractor would be required to notify and coordinate with USFS personnel. All efforts would be made to preserve standing, live trees not directly in the way of channel improvements. Seedlings planted in the project area during 2011/2012 rehabilitation efforts would be avoided when possible. Brush and slash would be stockpiled for obliterating access roads and staging areas.

USFS will perform any and all required timber valuation surveys within the area covered by the Schultz EWP Decision Notice and permit area, concurrent with review of 30% engineering plans if possible, and in advance of anticipated construction start dates. USFS will also mark any and all critical trees not to be cut or otherwise damaged within the project area.

All efforts will be made to preserve standing, live trees not directly in the way of channel improvements. Seedlings planted in the project area during 2011/2012 rehabilitation efforts will be avoided when possible. Brush and slash will be stockpiled for obliterating access roads and staging areas.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 36 of 62 Botany

Temporary road routes would be surveyed for Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi) prior to construction or reconstruction; if detected, populations would be avoided where possible.

Coconino County Flood Control District will submit final construction plans for review and approval by USFS. USFS will identify and stake areas to be avoided if construction is anticipated to occur within the survey season for the Rusby milkvetch, and the Coconino County Flood Control District will require that the contractor protect identified populations. If construction is scheduled for outside this season, no survey will be required.

Weed Management

The objective of weed management would be to prevent the introduction of nonnative weed species into the fire area and minimize transfer of weed seed between watersheds. To this end, the primary defense would be the cleaning of all equipment before it enters the National Forest. Coconino County would ensure that all personnel and contractors are responsible for cleaning any and all equipment brought on site to mitigate introduction of noxious weeds into the area. Additionally, impacts to existing vegetation and habitats that are designated for protection would be minimized through marking of these areas and avoidance. Areas that have high densities of non-native, invasive weeds would be not be used for staging areas. Additionally, disturbed sites would be monitored for at least three years after completion of the project to assess the need for weed treatment. Infestations would be treated as soon as they are detected.

Coconino County Flood Control District will require all contractors to utilize a pre-emergent herbicide on all staging and cleaning areas only, as defined in a pesticide-use plan to be developed for this project by the Flood Control District or the contractor and approved by the USFS. Any herbicide treatment proposal must be consistent with the Weeds Environmental Impact Statement and decision. It is understood that such pre-emergent herbicide can remain effective for up to 120 days.

Following construction, and/or after the 120 day effective period, all staging and cleaning areas will be reseeded with a certified weed-free native seed mix acceptable to the USFS.

Monitoring of these reseeded areas will be performed in conjunction with the Monitoring and Maintenance mitigation measures described herein for the three year monitoring and maintenance period.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 37 of 62 Soil/Watershed

To minimize the construction-related impacts to soils and water resources, all proposed work would be accomplished under an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permit with preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and using Forest Service best management practices (BMPs). The SWPPP is administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. SWPPP-related best management practices for reducing erosion and preventing sediment transport from construction activities would include re-seeding of all disturbed areas and installation of such measures as silt fences and straw wattles to minimize sediment movement. Construction activities would be timed to avoid disturbance during periods most likely to experience flow generating storm events. The exact SWPPP-related erosion control measures would be developed during final project design with SWPPP implementation by the construction contractor. Forest Service BMPs that would be implemented are derived from Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Implementation would occur through incorporation in the SWPPP

To minimize the construction-related impacts to soils and water resources, all proposed work will be accomplished under an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permit with preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and using Forest Service best management practices (BMPs). The SWPPP is administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. SWPPP-related best management practices for reducing erosion and preventing sediment transport from construction activities will include reseeding of all disturbed areas and installation of such measures as silt fences and straw wattles to minimize sediment movement. Construction activities will be timed to avoid disturbance during periods most likely to experience flow generating storm events. The exact SWPPP-related erosion control measures will be developed during final project design with SWPPP implementation by the construction contractor. Forest Service BMPs that will be implemented are derived from Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Implementation would occur through incorporation in the SWPPP

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 38 of 62 Public Safety

Given the potential for intense periods of activity by construction crews, a closure order of the project area would be implemented during the construction phase, including FR 420 north of FR 556 and south of the junction of FR553. Major access points from the surrounding private lands would be marked and public notice would be made of the forest closure period. Protection devices would be provided including barricades, fencing, warning signs, and other devices necessary to ensure that the general public is notified of construction activities within a watershed. Construction activities would be required to be conducted in a manner consistent with all safety regulations and required permits.

USFS will mark major access points from the surrounding private lands and will distribute public notices of the forest closure period. Coconino County Flood Control District contractors will provide protection devices around the immediate area of construction.

Trails

The only major trail through the project area is Deer Hill Trail, which crosses each of the drainages. This trail would be closed during the construction period.

USFS will mark major access points from the surrounding private lands and will distribute public notices of the trail closure period.

Coconino County Flood Control District contractors will flag the immediate construction area signifying the trail closure.

Range

Grazing within the project area would be deferred for the next two to three years to allow watershed recovery to progress. Before grazing resumes, fences impacted by construction activities would be repaired or replaced. Where fences cross active channels, a crossing design that minimizes maintenance without hindering channel processes would be utilized.

Temporary Fence Criteria

Grazing may still be permitted within the project area if determined to be suitable by the USFS. If grazing occurs within or adjacent to areas of project work, the County would be responsible for finding an alternate means of keeping livestock out of the area, such as temporary fencing by electric single wire, during the time livestock are in the area in coordination with the Flagstaff Ranger District Range Program Manager. Protective fencing should be temporary.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 39 of 62 Long-term Vegetation Monitoring Plots: There are two Historic Range Vegetation Plots as well as a set of Northern Arizona University-USFS Native Plant Material Program Plots located along FR420C. It is not anticipated that these plots would be disturbed as part of the planned work; however the plots would be clearly staked prior to any ground disturbance to insure that they are avoided.

The Coconino County Flood Control District will submit final construction plans for review and approval by USFS. Plans will avoid long-term vegetation monitoring plots as much as possible. If potential conflicts are anticipated, USFS will identify and stake areas to be avoided.

Heritage Sites

Pre-fire mapping of archaeological sites within the project area indicate that a number of sites are near enough to proposed disturbance areas to raise concern about disturbance of cultural resources. Many of these sites are within known floodways and may have already been disturbed by flood events. Others may be impacted by erosion as channel banks continue to erode. In these cases, bank protection and channel conversion that slows erosion rates would help protect these sites. In other cases, sites may be directly in the area proposed for treatment activities. These sites would be analyzed on a site by site basis prior to work occurring in those areas to determine if protection or avoidance is the best alternative for each site. If protection is required, appropriate bank protection methods including those listed in Appendix A would be utilized.

If unexpected discoveries are encountered during implementation, project activities would stop and appropriate personnel would be consulted. Given the possibility of inadvertent discoveries of buried archaeological deposits within the project area, archaeological monitoring would be performed during the operation of ground moving machinery. Mitigation of inadvertent discoveries shall be performed in consultation with the Arizona SHPO and/or affiliated tribes. Monitoring would be performed by a qualified archaeologist.

Coconino County Flood Control District will submit final construction plans for review and approval by USFS. Plans will include avoidance or mitigation of any heritage site conflicts.

USFS will provide an archaeological monitor for the duration of construction in 2013. Availability of USFS funding for archaeological monitoring in subsequent years is unknown, and would become the responsibility of the Flood Control District for future construction projects. If an inadvertent discovery is made while the archaeological monitor is not present, Coconino County contractors would cease work and consult the appropriate USFS personnel per special use permit clauses. V.D and VI.D

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 40 of 62 Wildlife

Surveys for Mexican spotted owl (MSO) occupancy would be conducted prior to implementation of construction activities within 1/4 mile of MSO habitat (375 acres). If occupancy is discovered, timing restrictions on construction activities within that 1/4 mile buffer would apply.

Surveys for northern goshawk occupancy would also be conducted prior to implementation of construction activities within post-fledgling areas (PFA) within the analysis area (4,200 acres); if new nesting sites are located, timing restrictions on construction activities within PFAs would be required.

Large snags identified as leave trees by Forest Service biologists would be avoided.

Coconino County will submit final construction plans for review and approval by USFS. USFS will identify and stake areas to be avoided and the Coconino County Flood Control District would comply with timing restrictions and avoidance areas.

Monitoring and Maintenance

The channel enhancements are designed to remain stable within the bounds of natural variation without maintenance. Nonetheless, restoration of degraded stream systems would require a certain amount of adaptive management, whereby monitoring would be used to direct future improvements. Although the proposed treatments are expected to be self-maintaining, monitoring on at least an annual basis—especially after larger storm events—would be conducted by the contractor and/or Coconino County to document treatment success and identify the need for additional measures and maintenance. For example, modified channels may experience localized down cutting and/or stream bank erosion owing to low frequency, high intensity precipitation events and/or hydraulic stresses in excess of threshold values needed to mobilize channel bounding sediments. Monitoring would identify those areas requiring additional treatment.

Monitoring would entail photography and measurement of detailed cross sections at permanently monumented sites. Cross-sections would be compared to previous years to estimate aggradation or degradation at the site. If the monitoring indicated that significant channel degradation was occurring, maintenance in the form of additional grade stabilization may be required. Monitoring would be accomplished by foot travel and closed roads would be reopened if access was required for maintenance; any additional ground disturbing work performed for maintenance of the project would follow the BMPs and other design features outlined for the original treatment.

In accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Agreement developed and executed between the Coconino County Flood Control District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Coconino County Flood Control District will conduct monitoring and maintenance on National Forest lands as follows:

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 41 of 62 I. General

Practices covered by the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement between the Coconino County Flood Control District and the NRCS are identified as:

• Channel Stabilization • Grade Stabilization • Access Road • Critical Area Planting

The Agreement defines responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the restoration measures located on Coconino National Forest lands within the Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area, Coconino County, Arizona. The Coconino County Flood Control District’s responsibility for operations and maintenance begins when construction of a project is determined to be complete by NRCS and USFS. This responsibility shall remain in effect for up to three (3) years from the date construction of the watershed restoration measures covered by the O&M Agreement is determined to be complete.

The Coconino County Flood Control District is responsible for financing the operation and maintenance activities identified in the O&M Agreement.

A. The Coconino County Flood Control District Shall:

1. Complete all normal maintenance, repair, or replacement activities within a reasonable time after the identification of such need; as determined by the Coconino County Flood Control District, working with the NRCS and the USFS, without cost to NRCS or the USFS. “Normal” maintenance activities are defined as maintenance activities resulting from precipitation events up to the Coconino County Flood Control District’s Post Disaster Design Storm Standard as applied to each Schultz Flood Corridor. The Coconino County Flood Control District is not responsible for repairing or maintaining watershed restoration measures damaged by precipitation events in excess of the Post Disaster Design Storm Standard as applied to the specific flood corridor. However, if there are any resource damage or safety concerns that arise as a direct result of the presence of the watershed restoration measures and structures, or if there is a need to remove structures or parts of structures that have been displaced, the Flood Control District would be responsible for addressing those needs prior to final inspection and acceptance by the Forest Service.

2. Obtain prior NRCS and USFS approval of all plans, designs, and specifications for any maintenance work deviating from the O&M plan or any planned alteration to the project or structural practices or approved plans;

3. Notify NRCS and USFS of any proposed agreement to be entered into with other parties for the operation or maintenance of all or any part of the project, and provide NRCS and USFS with a copy of the executed agreement after it has been signed by the Coconino County Flood Control District and the other party. Such agreements will not negate the

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 42 of 62 Coconino County Flood Control District’s responsibilities as stated in the O&M Agreement;

4. Comply with Federal, State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in the operation and maintenance of the structures; and

5. Consider air and water quality, sediment control, and other environmental concerns in the operation and maintenance of the structures.

II. Operation

There are no operational activities associated with the USFS watershed restoration measures.

III. Inspections/Monitoring Plan

The Coconino County Flood Control District shall inspect the measures as specified in the O&M Agreement.

Monitoring activities will include repeat photography of key watershed areas. Cross section and longitudinal profile measurements of both alluvial fans and channels will be employed if significant changes in stream channel stability are observed.

A. The Coconino County Flood Control District shall perform visual inspections after major storm events and shall conduct photo monitoring in the fall after monsoon runoff has ended to determine if the watershed restoration measures are functioning properly or if maintenance is needed. It is recommended that inspections take place pre-winter (October-November). All items listed in the section, “Maintenance” should be included in each inspection.

B. Inspections shall be performed to identify the following deficiencies, if applicable, and identify potential necessary corrective measures:

1. Check alluvial fans for erosion or significant incisions. 2. Check restored channels for changes in width or depth outside the design ranges for specific stream types as defined by the Rosgen classification system. 3. Check channel structures for erosion, displacement, accelerated weathering and/or decay. 4. Check that low water crossings are in good condition. 5. Check for desirable vegetative coverings.

C. Any unusual areas of concern observed between periodic inspections shall be reported immediately to the local NRCS District Conservationist and the USFS.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 43 of 62 IV. Maintenance

The watershed restoration measures are designed to remain stable within the bounds of natural variation without maintenance. Significant changes in channel dimension that change the channel type (Rosgen Channel Classification) may trigger the need for maintenance. Maintenance activities will be driven by results from monitoring these areas and an assessment of the potential and/or actual impacts to downstream flood mitigation measures.

It is the responsibility of the Coconino County Flood Control District to ensure that the following operation and maintenance items, as a minimum, are addressed if identified as areas of concern in annual reports. A schedule for corrective actions shall be developed for completion of identified maintenance work in a timely manner.

All maintenance efforts shall be performed to insure practice integrity and to maintain the restoration measures for the intended design life.

1. Sediment Storage Area Enhancement Areas – Re-grade and/or reshape if necessary to maintain design grade and dimensions.

2. Stream Channel Stability – Re-grade and/or reshape if necessary to maintain design grade and dimensions.

3. Channel Structures - Replace or repair to original grade if necessary to ensure structural integrity and public safety. Remove foreign debris that hinders system operation if necessary.

4. Low Water Crossings – Forest roads will continue to be maintained by USFS, who will maintain the roadway surface, which may include periodic grading or reshaping, including through the low crossing. The Flood Control District will remove debris, if necessary, that may accumulate at the stream crossing to prevent blockage and to maintain flow capacity associated with the low water crossing improvements. Culverts and other inappropriate drainage appurtenances that concentrate flows shall not be installed in low water crossings that cross alluvial fans.

5. Critical Area Planting – Maintain vegetated areas in adequate cover to meet the intended purpose(s); this may include reseeding.

V. Records

The Coconino County Flood Control District shall maintain the following records in a permanent file at their office:

A. A record of all inspections and corrective actions taken. B. As-built drawings; permits; and related material. C. Photographs at the time of construction. D. Photographs at the time of inspection.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 44 of 62 E. Photographs of any failures or maintenance needs, before and after repair. F. Cross-section and profile survey results.

Copies of all monitoring and inspection reports shall be provided to NRCS and the USFS.

The personnel responsible for conducting the inspections shall prepare the written report of each inspection and provide a copy to the NRCS State Conservation Engineer and the USFS within 30-days from the date the inspection was conducted.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 45 of 62 Amendment #1 to Operating Plan Coconino County Flood Control District

Road Maintenance of Forest Road 420:

The holder (including their contractors) is allowed to maintain Forest Road 420 only within its existing prism. Maintenance is limited to blading the existing roadway prism and disturbed drainage structures. No work is to be done outside of the existing disturbed roadway prism at any time. Appropriate notification signage is required when work is occurring while the road is open to the public or being used by the contractors. Conditions of the fire plan and invasive weed mitigation measures (such as clean equipment) already identified in the Operating Plan will be followed. No surfacing material will be allowed on the road. Road maintenance will be done to meet the specification design sheets for rolling dips and road cross sections attached.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 46 of 62 Amendment #2 to Operating Plan Coconino County Flood Control District

The Holder (Coconino County Flood Control District) and their contractors and assigns may use mulched chip piles that are located along Forest Road 420 and Forest Road ? These chips may be transported to be used within the permit area for approved projects. Do not excavate the soil under the piles by leaving a layer of chipped material on site. The pile areas must be left neatly when work is complete.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 47 of 62 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Plan of Operations

Schultz Emergency Watershed Restoration (EWP) Project

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

General Description 3

Special Use Permit Approval and Amendment Process 3

Schultz Project Mitigation Measures 4

Silviculture 4

Botany 5

Weed Management 5

Soil/Watershed 6

Public Safety 7

Trails 7

Range 7

Heritage Sites 8

Wildlife 9

Monitoring and Maintenance 9

Appendices 14

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 48 of 62 Appendices

Appendix I: Schultz Emergency Watershed Protection Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix II: Schultz Emergency Watershed Protection Project Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact

Appendix III: Construction Plans and Specifications – Brandis/Thames Corridor

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 49 of 62 Introduction

General Description

The Schultz Fire – Flood EWP Project consists of:

Special Use Permit Approval and Amendment Process

The following outlines the special use permit (SUP) approval and amendment process for the Schultz Fire – Flood EWP Project:

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 50 of 62 o The maintenance period will begin upon completion of construction, as determined by final inspection and sign-off by the NRCS in coordination with the USFS, and will end three years from that date, pending final inspection and sign- off by the USFS per clause VII. E. of the special use permit. o At the end of the three year maintenance period, the Coconino County Flood Control District and the Forest Service will evaluate the corridor per Clause VII.E., Rights and Responsibilities Upon Revocation or Termination Without Renewal, and determine site restoration that may be necessary prior to termination of the permit or removal of a flood area from the permit. An amendment will be prepared to remove project areas from the permit or add specific corridors. o The permit may need to be reissued if the 3 year establishment period extends beyond the expiration date of the permit. o At the end of the term of the permit for each watershed, the authorized officer or representative will review the project area and watershed restoration improvements per clause VII.D. of the special use permit. If restoration improvements and construction areas are fully restored and there are no resource or safety concerns, the authorized officer would allow improvements to remain in place upon written concurrence.

Schultz Project Mitigation Measures

Silviculture

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 51 of 62 Botany

Temporary road routes would be surveyed for Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi) prior to construction or reconstruction; if detected, populations would be avoided where possible.

Weed Management

Following construction, and/or after the 120 day effective period, all staging and cleaning areas will be reseeded with a certified weed-free native seed mix acceptable to the USFS.

Monitoring of these reseeded areas will be performed in conjunction with the Monitoring and Maintenance mitigation measures described herein for the three year monitoring and maintenance period.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 52 of 62 Soil/Watershed

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 53 of 62 Public Safety

Trails

The only major trail through the project area is Deer Hill Trail, which crosses each of the drainages. This trail would be closed during the construction period.

USFS will mark major access points from the surrounding private lands and will distribute public notices of the trail closure period.

Coconino County Flood Control District contractors will flag the immediate construction area signifying the trail closure.

Range

Temporary Fence Criteria

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 54 of 62 Long-term Vegetation Monitoring Plots: There are two Historic Range Vegetation Plots as well as a set of Northern Arizona University-USFS Native Plant Material Program Plots located along FR420C. It is not anticipated that these plots would be disturbed as part of the planned work; however the plots would be clearly staked prior to any ground disturbance to insure that they are avoided.

Heritage Sites

Coconino County Flood Control District will submit final construction plans for review and approval by USFS. Plans will include avoidance or mitigation of any heritage site conflicts.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 55 of 62 Wildlife

Large snags identified as leave trees by Forest Service biologists would be avoided.

Monitoring and Maintenance

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 56 of 62 I. General

Practices covered by the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement between the Coconino County Flood Control District and the NRCS are identified as:

• Channel Stabilization • Grade Stabilization • Access Road • Critical Area Planting

The Coconino County Flood Control District is responsible for financing the operation and maintenance activities identified in the O&M Agreement.

A. The Coconino County Flood Control District Shall:

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 57 of 62 Coconino County Flood Control District’s responsibilities as stated in the O&M Agreement;

4. Comply with Federal, State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in the operation and maintenance of the structures; and

5. Consider air and water quality, sediment control, and other environmental concerns in the operation and maintenance of the structures.

II. Operation

There are no operational activities associated with the USFS watershed restoration measures.

III. Inspections/Monitoring Plan

The Coconino County Flood Control District shall inspect the measures as specified in the O&M Agreement.

B. Inspections shall be performed to identify the following deficiencies, if applicable, and identify potential necessary corrective measures:

C. Any unusual areas of concern observed between periodic inspections shall be reported immediately to the local NRCS District Conservationist and the USFS.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 58 of 62 IV. Maintenance

All maintenance efforts shall be performed to insure practice integrity and to maintain the restoration measures for the intended design life.

1. Sediment Storage Area Enhancement Areas – Re-grade and/or reshape if necessary to maintain design grade and dimensions.

2. Stream Channel Stability – Re-grade and/or reshape if necessary to maintain design grade and dimensions.

3. Channel Structures - Replace or repair to original grade if necessary to ensure structural integrity and public safety. Remove foreign debris that hinders system operation if necessary.

5. Critical Area Planting – Maintain vegetated areas in adequate cover to meet the intended purpose(s); this may include reseeding.

V. Records

The Coconino County Flood Control District shall maintain the following records in a permanent file at their office:

A. A record of all inspections and corrective actions taken. B. As-built drawings; permits; and related material. C. Photographs at the time of construction. D. Photographs at the time of inspection.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 59 of 62 E. Photographs of any failures or maintenance needs, before and after repair. F. Cross-section and profile survey results.

Copies of all monitoring and inspection reports shall be provided to NRCS and the USFS.

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 60 of 62 Amendment #1 to Operating Plan Coconino County Flood Control District

Road Maintenance of Forest Road 420:

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 61 of 62 Amendment #2 to Operating Plan Coconino County Flood Control District

03 - 10/8/2013 - Campbell EWP On-Forest SUP Mod 2 10/3/2013 Page 62 of 62 Meeting Date: October 8, 2013

DATE: September 30, 2013

TO: Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Board of the Flood Control District

FROM: Andrew L. Bertelsen – Public Works Director

SUBJECT: NRCS EWP Financial Assistance Agreement 68-9457-12-510, Amendment 5

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Amendment 5 to Financial Assistance Agreement 68-9457-12-510 between the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Coconino County Flood Control District in the amount of $1,325,560.50, enabling construction of watershed restoration measures on National Forest land in the Campbell Corridor, under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program; including a $331,390.13 matching requirement from the Flood Control District.

BACKGROUND:

Since that time, NRCS has allocated, and the Board has accepted additional Federal Assistance funds for the Schultz EWP project. The total Federal Assistance funding now available for project construction is $7,750,660. The Board has also approved the $2,583,553 in required local matching funds from the FCD. In addition, the FCD Board of Directors approved in the FY 2013 FCD budget $1,400,000 to cover the non-EWP eligible costs associated with the EWP projects given that several key costs are not EWP eligible, such as utility relocation and road related improvements.

On June 12, 2012 the Board approved Financial Assistance (FA) Agreement number 68-9457-12- 510 between the NRCS and the FCD, establishing the terms and conditions associated with

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 1 of 117 construction projects under the EWP program, and obligating funds for construction of several small headcut repair projects on private property within the Schultz Flood area.

On March 12, 2012 the Board approved Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 to the original FA Agreement, obligating funds for construction of watershed restoration and flood mitigation measures both on and off-forest in the Brandis/Thames flood corridor

On May 7, 2013 the Board approved Amendment 3 and Amendment 4 to the original FA Agreement, obligating funds for construction of watershed restoration and flood mitigation measures both on and off-forest in the Wupatki Trails/Lenox flood corridor.

Amendment 5 to the existing FA Agreement obligates additional funds for construction of watershed restoration measures on National Forest land in the in the Campbell flood corridor.

Amendment 5 obligates $994,170.38 in federal funds toward project construction, and requires a local matching commitment of $331,390.13, for a total project cost of $1,325,560.50.

Amendment 5 contains seven parts:

• The Amendment Form detailing the federal funds obligated, the local funding contribution required, and the deliverables required for reimbursement requests • The Assurances Related to Real Property Acquisition Form documenting that the FCD has obtained all necessary land rights to construct proposed measures • The Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement detailing the contractual arrangement between the NRCS and the FCD for monitoring and maintenance of constructed measures • The Monitoring and Performance Plan detailing the specific duties to be performed by the FCD with respect to monitoring and maintenance of constructed measures • The final construction plans and specifications for on-forest measures (not submitted in OnBase due to large file sizes, but available for review upon request) o Final Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs o Final Construction Drawings o Final Technical Specifications • Construction Proposal from Tiffany Construction Co. (not submitted in OnBase due to large file sizes, but available for review upon request) • Fully Executed FA Agreement # 68-9457-12-510

Amendment 6 to the existing FA Agreement will obligate additional funds for construction of flood mitigation measures within County right of way in the in the Campbell flood corridor, and will be brought forward for Board consideration in the coming weeks once final engineering is completed.

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 2 of 117 Also of import: The Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement accompanying this Amendment details that the FCD has a monitoring and maintenance responsibility for the constructed measures up to the design storm to which the measures have been engineered, and for a period of three years. After this three year period, ownership and responsibility for the measures reverts back to the USFS as detailed in the Special Use Permits issued by the USFS for this project.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. The Board could choose to approve Amendment 5 to the existing FA Agreement 68-9457-12- 510, resulting in the ability to proceed with construction of watershed restoration measures on- forest in the Campbell flood corridor under the NRCS EWP program.

2. The Board could choose not to approve Amendment 5 to the existing FA Agreement 68-9457- 12-510, resulting in the cessation of watershed restoration and flood mitigation design and construction work for the Campbell flood corridor under the NRCS EWP program.

3. The Board could amend or table this item for future discussion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total expenditures and local matching funds required, as described in this Amendment are included within the FY-2014 budget and no budget amendment is required. The total project cost to the FCD is $331,390.13.

SUBMITTED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

• Amendment 5 to Financial Assistance Agreement Number 68-9457-12-510 • Assurances Related to Real Property Acquisition • Operation and Maintenance Plan and Agreement • Monitoring and Performance Plan • Fully Executed Financial Assistance Agreement 68-9457-12-510

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 3 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 4 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 5 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 6 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 7 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 8 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 9 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 10 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 11 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 12 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 13 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 14 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 15 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 16 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 17 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 18 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 19 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 20 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 21 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 22 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 23 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 24 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 25 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 26 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 27 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 28 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 29 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 30 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 31 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 32 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 33 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 34 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 35 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 36 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 37 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 38 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 39 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 40 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 41 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 42 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 43 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 44 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 45 of 117 Attachment D U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS-ADS-78 Natural Resources Conservation Service 5-88

ASSURANCES RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION

A. PURPOSE — This form is to be used by sponsors) to provide the assurances to the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which is required in connection with the installation of project measures which involve Federal financial assistance famished by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

B. PROJECT MEASURES COVERED — Name of project: Schultz EWP – Campbell – On-Forest Measures Identity of improvement or development: Flood Mitigation On-Forest in the Campbell Corridor Location: Schultz Flood Area, Coconino County, Arizona

C. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION ASSURANCE — This assurance is applicable if real property interests were acquired for the installation of project measures, and/or if persons, businesses, or farm operations were displaced as a result of such installation; and this assurance was not previously provided for in the watershed, project measure, or other type of plan. If this assurance was not previously provided, the undersigned sponsor(s) hereby assures they have complied, to the extent practicable under State law, with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655), as implemented in 7 C.F.R. Part 21. Any exceptions taken from the real property acquisition requirements under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 4655 because of State law have been or is hereby furnished to the Natural Resources Conservation Service along with the opinion of the Chief Legal Officer of the State containing a fall discussion of the facts and law famished.

D. ASSURANCE OF ADEQUACY OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS — The undersigned sponsors) hereby assures that adequate real property rights and interests, water rights if applicable, permits and licenses required by Federal, State, and local law, ordinance or regulation, and related actions have been taken to obtain the legal right to install, operate, maintain, and inspect the above-described project measures, except for structures or improvements that are to be removed, relocated, modified, or salvaged before and/or during the installation process. This assurance is given with the knowledge that sponsors) are responsible for any excess costs or other consequences in the event the real property rights are found to be inadequate during the installation process. Furthermore, this assurance is supported by an attorney's opinion attached hereto that certifies an examination of the real property instruments and files was made and they were found to provide adequate title, right, permission and authority for the purpose(s) for which the property was acquired.

This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 46 of 117 If any of the real property rights or interests were obtained by condemnation (eminent domain) proceedings, sponsor(s) further assure and agree to prosecute the proceedings to a final conclusion and pay such damages as awarded by the court.

Coconino County, AZ – Flood Control District This action authorized (Name of Sponsor) at an official meeting of the Coconino County Flood

Control District Board of Directors on the 8th

By: ______day of October, 2013

Elizabeth C. Archuleta at ______

Title: Chairwoman State of ______

Date: ______Attest: ______

(Name)

______(Title)

By: ______

William P. Ring

Title: Deputy County Attorney

Date: ______

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 47 of 117 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR SCHULTZ FIRE-FLOOD ASISTANCE AREA WATERSHED RESTORATION FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES OFF-FOREST EWP PROJECT COCONINO COUNTY, AZ

THIS AGREEMENT made on this 8th day of October, 2012, by and between Coconino County Flood Control District, hereinafter called the Sponsor, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, hereinafter called the NRCS:

The Sponsor and NRCS agree to carry out the terms of this agreement for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the EWP structures implemented for the SCHULTZ FIRE-FLOOD EWP Project.

I. General Practices covered by this agreement are identified as:

x Channel Stabilization x Grade Stabilization x Access Road x Critical Area Planting

This plan defines responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the restoration measures located on Coconino National Forest within the Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area, Coconino County, Arizona. The Sponsor’s responsibility for O&M begins when a project is determined complete by NRCS. This responsibility shall remain in effect for up to three (3) years from the date the watershed restoration measures covered by this Agreement.

The Sponsor is responsible for financing the operation and maintenance activities identified in this Agreement.

A. The Sponsor shall: 1. Complete all normal maintenance, repair, or replacement activities within a reasonable time after the identification of such need; as determined by the Sponsor working with the NRCS, without cost to NRCS. “Normal” maintenance activities are defined as maintenance activities resulting from precipitation events up to the Sponsor’s (Coconino County) Post Disaster Design Storm Standard as applied to each Schultz Flood Corridor. The Sponsor is not responsible for repairing or maintaining watershed restoration measures damaged by precipitation events in excess of the Post Disaster Design Storm Standard as applied to the specific flood corridor. 2. Obtain prior NRCS approval of all plans, designs, and specifications for any maintenance work deviating from the O&M plan or any planned alteration to the project or structural practices;

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 48 of 117 Operation and Maintenance Plan and Agreement Schultz EWP

3. Notify NRCS of any proposed agreement to be entered into with other parties for the operation or maintenance of all or any part of the project, and provide NRCS with a copy of the executed agreement after it has been signed by the Sponsor and the other party. Such agreements will not negate the Sponsor’s responsibilities as stated in this Agreement; 4. Provide NRCS personnel or its agents the right of free access to the project site at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out terms of the agreement; 5. Comply with Federal, State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in the operation and maintenance of the structure; and 6. Consider air and water quality, sediment control, and other environmental concerns in the operation and maintenance of the structures.

B. The NRCS will: 1. Upon request of the Sponsor and at the discretion of the State Conservationist, NRCS personnel may assist the Sponsor while conducting monitoring in order to provide technical assistance in the operation, maintenance, and replacement of structures or components thereof.

II. Operation There are no operational activities associated with the USFS watershed restoration measures.

III. Inspections/Monitoring Plan The Sponsor shall inspect the measures as specified in this O&M Plan and Agreement. Protocols for inspecting and reporting are described in the Monitoring and Performance Plan that is included as an appendix to this Agreement. NRCS may inspect the structures at any reasonable time during the period covered by this Agreement.

A. The Sponsor shall perform visual inspections after major storm events and shall conduct photo monitoring in the fall after monsoon runoff has ended to determine if the watershed restoration measures are functioning properly or if maintenance is needed. It is recommended that inspections take place pre-winter (October-November). All items listed in the section, “Maintenance” should be included in each inspection. B. Inspections shall be performed to identify the following deficiencies, if applicable, and identify potential necessary corrective measures: 1. Check alluvial fans for erosion or significant incisions. 2. Check restored channels for changes in width or depth outside the design ranges for specific stream types as defined by the Rosgen classification system. 3. Check channel structures for erosion, displacement, accelerated weathering and/or decay. 4. Check that low water crossings are in good condition. 5. Check for desirable vegetative coverings.

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 49 of 117 Operation and Maintenance Plan and Agreement Schultz EWP

C. Any unusual areas of concern observed between periodic inspections shall be reported immediately to the local NRCS District Conservationist.

IV. Maintenance The watershed restoration measures are designed to remain stable within the bounds of natural variation without maintenance. Significant changes in channel dimension that change the channel type (Rosgen Channel Classification) may trigger the need for maintenance. Maintenance activities will be driven by results from monitoring these areas and an assessment of the potential and/or actual impacts to downstream flood mitigation measures.

It is the responsibility of the Sponsor to ensure that the following operation and maintenance items, as a minimum, are addressed if identified as areas of concern in annual reports. A schedule for corrective actions shall be developed for completion of identified maintenance work in a timely manner.

All maintenance efforts shall be performed to insure practice integrity and to maintain the restoration measures for the intended design life.

1. Sediment Storage Area Enhancement Areas – Re-grade and/or reshape if necessary to maintain design grade and dimensions. 2. Stream Channel Stability – Re-grade and/or reshape if necessary to maintain design grade and dimensions. 3. Channel Structures - Replace or repair to original grade if necessary to ensure structural integrity. Remove foreign debris that hinders system operation if necessary. 4. Low Water Crossings – Forest roads will continue to be maintained by Coconino National Forest. Maintain roadway surface, which may include periodic grading or reshaping. Remove debris, if necessary, that may accumulate at the stream crossing to prevent blockage and to maintain flow capacity. Culverts and other inappropriate drainage appurtenances that concentrate flows shall not be installed in low water crossings that cross alluvial fans. 5. Critical Area Planting – Maintain vegetated areas in adequate cover to meet the intended purpose(s); this may include reseeding.

V. Records The Sponsor shall maintain the following records in a permanent file at their office: A. A record of all inspections and corrective actions taken. B. As-built drawings; permits; and related material. C. Photographs at the time of construction. D. Photographs at the time of inspection. E. Photographs of any failures or maintenance needs, before and after repair. F. Cross-section and profile survey results.

Copies of all monitoring and inspection reports shall be provided to NRCS.

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 50 of 117 Operation and Maintenance Plan and Agreement Schultz EWP

The personnel responsible for conducting the inspections shall prepare the written report of each inspection and provide a copy to the NRCS State Conservation Engineer within 30-days from the date the inspection was conducted.

VI. Hazard Concerns There are no specific hazards arising from the installation of these practices.

VII. Violations This O&M Plan and Agreement is a legally binding contract which shall be enforced as necessary to protect the interests of the government and the general public.

If NRCS determines that the Sponsor has failed to comply with the provisions of this O&M Plan and Agreement, then the Sponsor agrees to promptly implement corrective action to achieve compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The Federal government shall have the right to take any further actions it deems necessary.

VIII. Review and Revision of this Agreement This O&M Plan and Agreement may be revised by mutual consent of both the Sponsor and NRCS.

IX. Signatures

COCONINO COUNTY

By: ______

Name: Elizabeth C. Archuleta

Title: Chair, Coconino County Flood Control District Board of Directors

Date: ______

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

By: ______

Name:

Title: ______

Date: ______

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 51 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5

Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) 68-9457-12-510, Amendment 5 Watershed Restoration Measures on US Forest Service Land Campbell Watershed

Bid Tab Budget

Applicable EWP Eligible Budgeted Federal Budgeted Local Budgeted Local Construction Note Item Description Amount Unit Unit Cost Grand Total Expenses Share (EWP) Share (EWP) Share (Non-EWP) & Specification

DIVISION 100 - GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

103 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING 1.00 LS$ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 9,375.00 $ 3,125.00 $ -

105 POLLUTION PREVENTION 1.00 LS$ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ -

106 MOBILIZE AND DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT 1.00 LS$ 60,900.00 $ 60,900.00 $ 60,900.00 $ 45,675.00 $ 15,225.00 $ -

107 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND PARKING 1.00 LS$ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ -

108 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND CONTROL 1.00 LS$ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ -

110 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.00 LS$ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 375.00 $ -

DIVISION 200 - EARTHWORK

201A CLEAR AND GRUB 28.00 AC $3,750.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 78,750.00 $ 26,250.00 $ -

201B SALVAGE AND UTILIZATION OF ONSITE TIMBER 2,285.00 EA $40.00 $ 91,400.00 $ 91,400.00 $ 68,550.00 $ 22,850.00 $ - TRANSPORT AND STAGING OF TIMBER FROM OFFSITE (15 201C 425.00 EA $50.00 $ 21,250.00 $ 21,250.00 $ 15,937.50 $ 5,312.50 $ - FT MIN LENGTH PER TREE 203A CONSTRUCT CONVERSION CHANNEL - CUT 856.00 CY $10.00 $ 8,560.00 $ 8,560.00 $ 6,420.00 $ 2,140.00 $ -

203B CONSTRUCT TRANSITION CHANNEL 6,730.00 CY $8.00 $ 53,840.00 $ 53,840.00 $ 40,380.00 $ 13,460.00 $ -

203C CONSTRUCT/REHABILITATE ALLUVIAL FAN - CUT 20,505.00 CY $8.00 $ 164,040.00 $ 164,040.00 $ 123,030.00 $ 41,010.00 $ -

203F CHANNEL STABILIZATION 280.00 LF $10.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 700.00 $ -

DIVISION 300 - STREAM STABILIZATION & HABITAT STRUCTURES

302A ROCK CROSS VANE STRUCTURE 4.00 EA $3,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ -

302B SIMPLE ROCK WEIR STRUCTURE 2.00 EA $3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ -

305 LOG SILL STRUCTURE 7,583.00 LF $30.00 $ 227,490.00 $ 227,490.00 $ 170,617.50 $ 56,872.50 $ - ROCK SILL STRUCTURE (173 FT, 70 EA - 30 IN. ROCKS, 116 - 306A 1.00 EA $10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 7,875.00 $ 2,625.00 $ - 18 IN FOOTERS ROCK SILL STRUCTURE (37 FT, 13 EA - 36 IN. ROCKS, 25 - 306B 1.00 EA $2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,875.00 $ 625.00 $ - 18 IN. FOOTERS) ROCK SILL STRUCTURE (60 FT., 17 EA - 42 IN. ROCKS, 34 - 306C 1.00 EA $4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ - 21 IN. FOOTERS) 308 CONVERGING ROCK CLUSTERS 64.00 EA $550.00 $ 35,200.00 $ 35,200.00 $ 26,400.00 $ 8,800.00 $ - LOG RUN-DOWN STRUCTURE 7 FT DEEP 70 FT WIDE (1060 309A 1.00 EA $12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 9,375.00 $ 3,125.00 $ - FT OF LOG) LOG RUN-DOWN STRUCTURE 8.5 FT DEEP 200 FT WIDE 10/3/2013 309B Page 52 of 117 1.00 EA $32,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 24,375.00 $ 8,125.00 $ - (3612 FT OF LOG) 329 TOE ROCK (4 EA - 36 IN. ROCKS) 100.00 LF $50.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 1,250.00 $ - SUPPLY & PLACE STREAM SUBSTRATE (5 IN. TO 18 IN. 354 1,140.00 CY $60.00 $ 68,400.00 $ 68,400.00 $ 51,300.00 $ 17,100.00 $ - GRADED ROCK) DIVISION 400 - EROSION PROTECTION

401A ROCK-LINED CHUTE (150 CY ROCK) 1.00 EA $22,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 16,875.00 $ 5,625.00 $ -

401B ROCK-LINED CHUTE (90 CY ROCK) 1.00 EA $10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 7,875.00 $ 2,625.00 $ - 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5

401C ROCK DART 12.00 EA $200.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 600.00 $ -

DIVISION 600 - REVEGETATION

601 SUPPLY AND PLACE NATIVE GRASS SEED 30.00 AC $1,500.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 33,750.00 $ 11,250.00 $ -

SUPPLY AND PLACE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC: 602B 4,000.00 SY $10.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ - DOUBLE NET SUPPLY AND PLACE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC: COIR 602C 1,385.00 SY $15.00 $ 20,775.00 $ 20,775.00 $ 15,581.25 $ 5,193.75 $ - MAT 603 SUPPLY AND PLACE MULCH 30.00 AC $1,050.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 23,625.00 $ 7,875.00 $ -

DIVISION 900 - FENCING

901 FENCING 1.00 LS $12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 9,375.00 $ 3,125.00 $ -

TOTAL = $ 1,205,055.00 $ 1,205,055.00 $ 903,791.25 $ 301,263.75 $ -

EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY

UNFORSEEN CONDITIONS/CHANGE ORDER REQUESTS 1.00 $ 120,505.50 $ 120,505.50 $ 90,379.13 $ 30,126.38 $ -

EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $ 120,505.50 $ 120,505.50 $ 90,379.13 $ 30,126.38 $ -

PROJECT TOTAL $ 1,325,560.50 $ 1,325,560.50 $ 994,170.38 $ 331,390.13 $ -

10/3/2013 Page 53 of 117 Monitoring and Performance Plan

Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)

Task 4.5 Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

. January 2013

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 54 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 55 of 117 Monitoring and Performance Plan

Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)

Task 4.5 Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Prepared for /Submitted to:

Coconino County Public Works Department Flood Control District 5600 East Commerce Flagstaff, AZ 86004

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 230 N. 1st Ave, Suite 509 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1733

Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office 1824 S. Thompson St Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Prepared by:

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 206 South Elden Street Flagstaff, AZ 86001

January 2013

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 56 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 57 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...... i List of Figures...... i Background - Project Description...... 1 Location ...... 2 Project Objectives ...... 2 Monitoring Plan ...... 5 Photo Monitoring...... 6 Key Structures Monitoring ...... 6 Stream Channel Stability Monitoring ...... 7 Establishing Baselines ...... 8 Monitoring Schedule...... 9 Materials and Equipment ...... 9 Quality Assurance/Control...... 9 Personnel...... 9 Literature Cited...... 10 Appendix A...... 11 Field Sheets...... 11

List of Figures Figure 1. Map of project location and treatment areas...... 4 Figure A1. Sample Photo Point Monitoring Sheet………………………………………………………..12 Figure A2. Sample Key Structure Monitoring Sheet...... 12 Figure A3. Sample Channel Stability Monitoring Sheet ...... 13

Natural Channel Design, Inc. i January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 58 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Background - Project Description The Watershed Restoration Project on the Coconino National Forest (Task 4.5) is an emergency treatment plan under the Schultz Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program sponsored by Coconino County (NCD, 2011 and 2012). Schultz EWP project goals are to provide immediate and long-term flood protection and watershed restoration benefits to offset the continued impacts and threats by flooding, erosion, and debris damage as a result the June 2010 Schultz fire.

In June 2010, the Schultz Fire burned over 15,000 acres on the San Francisco Peaks in the Coconino National Forest just north of Flagstaff, AZ (Figure 1). The Schultz burn area is located on steep mountain slopes uphill of an established rural residential area. The developed area is located on flatter slopes at the base of the mountain. The national forest boundary is located just upstream of the residential neighborhood. Summer monsoonal rains immediately following the 2010 fire caused landslides in the steeper portions of the watershed and much higher than normal runoff from the watershed. The high flows created many continuous reaches of incised channels with highly erodible streambanks on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. These high flows caused widespread flooding and deposited large amounts of sediment throughout the residential area as the watershed slopes flattened. While many areas of the watershed have lost all soil and will never recover their ability to retain runoff, other areas will likely recover to some degree as vegetation becomes established. The time frame for recovery is unknown. Estimates range from five to more than twenty years before watershed runoff and sediment yield are reduced to substantially lower levels, however, it will be considerably longer than that before dense forest and a pre-fire hydrologic regime can be re-established.

The purpose of the proposed watershed restoration measures is to reduce sediment supply and transport from channels on USFS lands by restoring stream channels and alluvial fans damaged by post fire flooding to proper functioning condition. This will be accomplished primarily through the stabilization of eroding streambanks and the rejuvenation and enhancement of in-channel sediment storage areas (alluvial fans). Reductions in sediment loading are needed in order to design and construct flood relief channels that can safely route floodwaters and sediment through residential areas. However, the proposed activities are all aimed at enhancement of natural processes that are occurring in the watershed to speed up the recovery of natural watershed function in a post-fire hydrologic regime. An additional benefit to the watershed restoration measures is greater predictability for the location of future flood flows, up to the project design storm used to design the watershed restoration measures.

Speeding up of the recovery period will shorten the period of active alluvial fan aggradation by limiting the sediment supply and ease the burden of sediment related damage and maintenance currently experienced by downstream private landowners. Flooding from increased runoff will continue until forest is reestablished over the watershed, however high sediment loads derived from bank erosion and unstable channels can be alleviated by correcting the damage caused by the initial flooding. While watershed recovery from the catastrophic fire is expected to take many years, the channel work proposed in this project should speed recovery of erosional processes and limit the amount of sediment lost from forest lands.

The proposed practices and locations for watershed restoration have been reviewed and approved through an Environmental Assessment conducted by the U.S. Forest Service under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) signed on July 19, 2012. The approved assessment included the need for monitoring and maintenance of the

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 1 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 59 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

installed practices to insure project success. This document outlines the monitoring plan that would inform the need for any maintenance activities and document the effectiveness of the practices. Location The project includes watershed restoration measures on the Coconino National Forest. The proposed channel restoration projects correspond to the eight watersheds upslope of the residential area. Treatments would be primarily confined to the land east of Forest Road 420 and the National Forest boundary at Black Bill Park (Figure 1). Each watershed will have a unique design plan based on channel conditions and geomorphic setting within the watershed. The monitoring plan outlined below will be applied to each watershed with specifics for locations of monitoring sites to be based on each individual plan.

Project Objectives The purpose of the watershed restoration measures component of the Schultz Fire – Flood Emergency Watershed Protection project is to enhance the natural recovery of damaged channels in the burn area with minimal maintenance of the proposed practices. The primary purpose of this project is to reduce the amount of sediment transported by floodwaters produced from the burn area on the Coconino National Forest in order to support efforts by Coconino County (County) to channel runoff water through private land. There is a need to reduce streambank erosion and ease the burden of sediment-related damage and maintenance currently experienced by the Forest and downstream private landowners. However, as work on National Forest is closely tied to work on private lands, if work is not performed on private land to safely conduct flows all the way through residential areas, no work would be authorized on the National Forest.

The objectives of the project are to: 1. Restore natural stream function by restoring appropriate channel dimension, pattern and profile to flood damaged channels 2. Reduce erosion and sediment transport across the USFS boundary by stabilizing channels and restoration and enhancement of damaged alluvial fans. 3. Manage watershed sediment production through the use of naturally occurring stable stream morphology and function 4. Provide a successful example for other post-fire recovery efforts by providing sediment reduction practices that work within the management criteria for public lands and open space.

The major practices that will be utilized in the watershed restoration plans include: Sediment Storage Area Enhancement – Restoration and enhancement of existing alluvial fans that reduce sediment transport and store sediment for long periods of time. This practice includes the use of onsite materials to repair gullies through existing alluvial fans and create wide shallow channels with low sediment transport capacity. Channel Stabilization – Restoration of channel morphology to stable ‘A’ or ‘B’ channel morphology to reduce sediment source from banks and channel beds. This will include mechanical reshaping of channels and construction of appropriate channel roughness to resist erosion and slow water velocities. Access Roads – Opening of existing closed roads or creation of new roads to allow equipment access to project sites. All reopened or new roads will be closed at the end of the construction period. Staging/Refueling/Washing Areas – Establishment and closure of temporary sites for equipment maintenance and materials stockpiles.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 2 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 60 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Revegetation – Resestablishment of appropriate native vegetation on channel banks and disturbed sites through the application of native grass seed and mulch.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 3 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 61 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Figure 1. Map of project location and treatment areas.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 4 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 62 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Monitoring Plan The overall goal of this plan is to develop an effective monitoring program that is capable of tracking changes within the project site. Maintenance activities will be driven by results from monitoring these areas and the impacts of any changes on downstream flood mitigation measures. The monitoring program should also be straightforward and simple enough to track project success without overwhelming data analyses or complicated procedures prone to error. Monitoring protocols described in this plan are designed to be conducted for a period of three (3) years. However, the methodologies lend themselves to long-term monitoring as well and can be utilized if additional resources are available in the future.

The watershed restoration measures are designed to remain stable within the bounds of natural variation without maintenance. Significant changes in channel dimension that change the channel type (Rosgen Channel Classification) may trigger the need for maintenance. Actual maintenance activities will reflect input from monitoring activities and an assessment of the potential and/or actual impacts to downstream flood mitigation measures.

The aggrading channels (alluvial fans) have a lifespan for active aggradation. This lifespan has been estimated from the volume of borrow material required to build the fan to the design elevation plus and approximate 0.7 feet of additional aggradation. This is likely a conservative estimate of lifespan since several active fans in the burn area have recent aggradation of 1 to 2 feet in portions of the fan. The lifespan of individual aggrading channel areas is site specific, depending on sediment transport rates onto the fan and fan size. For specifics of the lifespan calculations at each fan please see the sediment refinement analysis (NCD, 2012). Updated life span estimates for each designed fan will be based on final designs and presented in the design report for each individual watershed. Once the flow and sediment transport rates decline, the stored sediment is expected to remain in place indefinitely and the fan will become senescent.

The following monitoring components described are: 1) Photo monitoring, 2) Stream Channel Stability monitoring, and 3) Key Structures monitoring. A method, metric, and benchmark are described for each component. The monitoring plan will identify critical thresholds for each area that may trigger the need for maintenance. Some of the key thresholds to consider are rerouting of channels, significant loss of channel capacity, major channel incision or loss of alluvial fan function. However, others may be considered that are specific to the key measures in each watershed. The annual monitoring report will provide specific recommendations as to areas of concern that may require additional monitoring or may require maintenance.

Monitoring activities will include repeat photography of key watershed areas. Quantitative monitoring techniques, including cross section and longitudinal profile measurements of permanently monumented cross sections of both alluvial fans and channels, will take place if photo monitoring identifies areas of concern. Specific monitoring locations will be determined and a map showing those locations will be included in the specific NRCS EWP Maintenance Plan for each corridor.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 5 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 63 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Photo Monitoring Evaluating site change over time by using repeat photography can give great insight into the relative success of restoration efforts. Repeat photography can also document how an entire project site is changing with overview photo sites. Repeat photography can help meet the monitoring goals by qualitatively determining the extent of channel erosion and general changes in channel condition from one monitoring period to another. This information will be evaluated annually and the need for acquiring quantitative data for a specific monitoring period will be determined (i.e. if there is no apparent change in the channel condition there will be no need to make quantitative measurements).

Benchmarks x Noticeable change in alluvial fan surface that is significant enough to warrant further evaluation x Noticeable change in channel stability (lateral or vertical migration of channel margins) that is significant enough to warrant further evaluation x Noticeable change in bank slope or stability that is significant enough to warrant further evaluation x Noticeable change in structural integrity that is significant enough to warrant further evaluation x Noticeable change in the vegetation cover that is significant enough to warrant further evaluation

Monitoring Methods and Parameters Photo point locations will be provided in each individual final design to capture changes over time in the stream channels, alluvial fans and road crossing areas. Photo point markers at the overview locations will be carefully located and monumented with rebar pins. All points will be recorded with a GPS unit and coordinates plotted on scaled maps. These photos will provide a broad view of each site and will also focus on specific treatment areas to show stability of banks, and general site characteristics. In general, photos will be taken from the point directly over the rebar pin along a given compass direction. Notes on site conditions will accompany each photo. Appendix A, Figure A2 contains a sample photo monitoring point field data sheet.

Rationale Photos selectively placed at representative treated areas throughout the project site will track restoration efforts and vegetation establishment/growth. Significant changes in photo points will trigger the need for quantitative methods (repeat measurements of cross sections and longitudinal profiles).

Key Structures Monitoring Several structures throughout the project should be monitored to ensure that they are functioning as designed and not in need of repair. These structures include low water crossings along the 420 Road and associated erosion protection, low water crossings over existing utilities and associated erosion protection as well as grade protection associated with alluvial fans and borrows pits within the alluvial fans. These structures will be monitored as part of the annual photo monitoring effort but will also be inspected to assure that no excessive erosion or failure of key structural members has occurred or is imminent. Notes will be made to describe the condition of the structures and any proposed maintenance tasks, which will be included in the annual photo monitoring report. Locations of key structures to be monitored will be noted in the final design report.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 6 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 64 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Benchmarks x Noticeable change in structural integrity that is significant enough to warrant further evaluation or change in structure function

Monitoring Methods and Parameters Each key structure will be visually inspected during the annual photo-monitoring period. Inspections will take note of key structural elements and connections, aggradation or degradation of key elevations as well as structural function. Key elements will be photographed and reported with notes in the photo- monitoring document.

Rationale Key structures such as low water crossings and grade control into trenches are subject to grading maintenance and traffic as well as high shear stresses. They also protect key resources (alluvial fans, roadways and utilities). These structures require frequent inspections to insure that potential failure does not endanger key resources.

Stream Channel Stability Monitoring As noted above, if significant changes are identified through photo monitoring, then Stream Channel Stability Monitoring will be employed. The overall project objective is to maintain a stable channel, restoring stream function and health. Thus, monitoring goals are that vertical and lateral stability measurements should remain relatively consistent. Both will be monitored through cross-section and longitudinal profile monitoring. The procedures for measuring lateral and vertical stability are explained below. The benchmarks for monitoring goals are set and a range of natural variance is also described that allows some natural change to occur in the system.

Part of the stream channel stability includes monitoring channel bank stability. Under average channel flows up to bankfull, erosion rates along a bank should be minimal under stable conditions. Mechanical and bioengineering practices implemented for this project are designed to reduce erosion rates along the stream banks located within the project area.

Attributes to be Measured Changes in channel width and maximum channel depth from bankfull stage will be measured by surveying a set of monumented channel cross-sections and longitudinal profiles. Change will be quantified by comparing repeat surveys against each other and against baseline conditions measured immediately after construction. It is expected that channel width/depth ratio will not increase over time. An increase in the width/depth ratio indicates increased sedimentation and bed aggradation or bank erosion. The other metric to be monitored is the low bank height ratio, which is the ratio of the low bank height elevation to bankfull elevation. An increase in this ratio indicates channel incision, while a lessening of the ratio indicates excess deposition and bed aggradation. Figure A3 contains a sample structure monitoring field sheet.

Monitoring Methods and Parameters A set of representative cross-sections and longitudinal profiles will be established throughout the project site and proposed locations will be provided in the final design report. Final locations will be adjusted during baseline monitoring. When possible, at least one site will be located outside the earthwork area to act as a reference control. The site locations will be chosen to monitor key channel features of the design plan and established after initial construction activities are completed. Cross sections are to be located in

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 7 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 65 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

riffle sections that naturally have the least variability over time. All cross-section sites will be marked by permanent pins set well away from the stream channel. Cross-section pin locations will be recorded with a GPS unit and plotted on scaled maps. Longitudinal profiles will also be marked with pins along the bank to indicate specific repeatable stationing points for reference. Appendix A, Figure A1, contains a sample cross-section field data sheet.

To monument cross-sections, rebar or wooden stakes are driven into each bank at an elevation equal to or greater than three times maximum bankfull stage on each side of the channel. The pins are placed perpendicular to stream flow and are identified with tags or other markings that record the identifying number, date, and phone contact. Beginning at the left pin (looking downstream) a tape is stretched between the pins as tight as possible. Sag in the tape can distort measurements significantly. Working from left to right (facing downstream) the distance on the tape (station) and the ground elevation is measured and recorded using a laser level. Measurements are taken at each change in slope. Longitudinal profile monitoring is similar except that the tape is run parallel to the centerline of the stream starting at the upstream end of the reach. Measurements are taken in the thalweg or deepest portion of the channel and on the low bank feature at different station proceeding downstream. Care should be taken to align the tape precisely with known stationing points along the channel to insure accurate overlays of channel features.

Benchmarks In riffle sections, channel width at bankfull stage (lateral stability) and channel thalweg elevation (maximum channel depth) as measured from bankfull stage (vertical stability) should not depart from the range of variability for the design stream type as defined by the Rosgen classification system. Major indicators of change to stream classification will be measured by width to depth and entrenchment ratios. See Rosgen 1996 for classification parameters. Changes of width or depth outside the ranges for local stream types will necessitate further analysis and discussion of possible maintenance.

If grade stabilization at the terminus of the fan or a section of restored channel should fail, then headcuts could initiate that would re-entrain sediment into transport. Longitudinal profiles of the stream will indicate changes in slope or low bank height that would indicate headcutting, aggradation, and channel vertical instability. Cross-sections would be compared to previous years to estimate aggradation or degradation at the site. If the monitoring indicated that significant degradation through the fan has occurred, then the fan or channel may require maintenance in the form of grade stabilization.

Project tasks in single thread channels are not expected to result in aggradation (rising of channel bed elevation) or degradation (lowering of channel bed elevation). Any positive or negative change in these attributes that result in a trend towards a change in stream type will necessitate further analysis to determine if the cause is from practices implemented on site or off site and if any remediation action is required. Aggradation on alluvial fans is a project goal, however, incisions through alluvial fans would likely indicate the need for maintenance.

Establishing Baselines As-built drawings and baseline conditions of stream channel stability and photo point monitoring will take place after initial construction.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 8 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 66 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Monitoring Schedule Visual inspection of the watershed restoration measures will take place after major flood events. Photo Monitoring will occur annually in the fall after monsoon runoff has ended. It is recommended that annual inspections take place pre-winter (October-November). A written inspection report will be developed and provided to the County, USFS, and NRCS to show project status and trends. If repeat photography indicates a need for Stream Channel Stability Monitoring (quantitative monitoring), then the report will include cross section and longitudinal profile measurements of both alluvial fans and channels in areas of concern. Both tools will allow tracking of change over time. Materials and Equipment Monitoring of channel and bank stability will require a laser level, survey rods and receivers, (or RTK GPS Equipment), tapes, rebar, rebar caps, tags, clipboard, hammer, and datasheets. Photo point monitoring will require a camera, rebar, rebar caps, and tags. A GPS unit will be necessary to record/relocate the locations of all points identified within the project site for monitoring purposes. Datasheets and a camera will be required to track the success of habitat structures, bank stability structures, and bioengineering treatments.

Quality Assurance/Control In order for a monitoring program to be effective, the plans need to be implemented by knowledgeable people, or properly trained volunteers. Actions that will assure collecting quality monitoring data are listed below.

x The data will be recorded on forms that identify the location date and description of observations and recommendations (see Appendix A, Figure A4 for sample inspection form). x Monitoring personnel will be familiar with the general principles of repeat photography and specific requirements of this monitoring plan. Photos from earlier surveys will be carried into the field to aid in repeat photography. Site maps, flagging, and GPS locations will ensure the monitoring sites are relocated by successive surveys. x Monitoring personnel will be knowledgeable of the monitoring protocol for surveying cross-sections and profiles and be able to identify changes to, or caused by, installed practices. Site maps, photos, monument pins, and GPS locations will ensure the monitoring sites are located by successive surveys. x The data will be recorded on specialized data sheets and transferred to electronic spreadsheets for analysis. x Inspection report will be developed after each monitoring (see Appendix A, Figure A5 for sample report form). x The field data sheets, inspection forms and reports will be archived in the Coconino County Engineering Division of the Public Works Department for the term of the project.

Personnel Performing the monitoring tasks for this project will be a cooperative effort between Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Coconino National Forest (USFS) and Coconino County (County) personnel. The project manager will oversee all monitoring activities and ensure data collection is consistent and completed in a timely manner.

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 9 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 67 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Literature Cited Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc. Ft. Collins, CO

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 10 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 68 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Appendix A

Field Sheets

Figure A1 Sample Cross-Section Survey Data Sheet for Channel Stability monitoring Figure A2 Sample Photo Point Monitoring Sheet Figure A3 Sample Structure Monitoring Field Sheet

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 11 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 69 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Sample Cross-Section Survey Data Sheet 2 ft mi ) Site Elev. Date: Watershed area: etation features and alluvial g Latitude: include ve ( (Perennial / Intermittent / Ephemeral) Cross-section Sketch Sketch Cross-section (shaded cells filled are by formulas) Flow: Notes: Longitude: Personnel: Stream Name: Watershed name: DESCRIPTION for riffle cross-section riffle for data (left to right looking downstream) looking right to (left STA ROD HT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ross-section Data ross-section 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 C

Figure A1. Sample Cross-Section Survey Data Sheet for Channel Stability monitoring

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 12 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 70 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Photo Monitoring Point Locations

Photo Point Date Number Latitude Longitude Detailed Location Notes

Figure A2. Sample Photo Point Monitoring Sheet

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 13 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 71 of 117 Schultz Fire-Flood Assistance Area – EWP Project Monitoring and Performance Plan Watershed Restoration Measures on Coconino National Forest

Structure Monitoring Sheet

Bank/Structure Total Problem Area Date ID Length Length Detailed Notes/ Plan of Action

Figure A3. Sample Structure Monitoring Field Sheet

Natural Channel Design, Inc. 14 January 2013 Flagstaff, Arizona

04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 72 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 73 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 74 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 75 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 76 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 77 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 78 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 79 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 80 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 81 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 82 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 83 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 84 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 85 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 86 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 87 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 88 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 89 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 90 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 91 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 92 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 93 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 94 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 95 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 96 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 97 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 98 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 99 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 100 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 101 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 102 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 103 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 104 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 105 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 106 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 107 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 108 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 109 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 110 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 111 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 112 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 113 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 114 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 115 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 116 of 117 04 - 10/8/2013 - NRCS EWP Financial Assist. Amend. 5 10/3/2013 Page 117 of 117 Meeting Date: October 8, 2013

DATE: September 30, 2013

TO: Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Board

FROM: Andrew Bertelsen, Public Works Director

SUBJECT: Schultz Emergency Watershed Protection Technical Assistance Agreement Modification 10 (Project Phase 11)

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Modification 10 to the existing Emergency Watershed Protection Technical Assistance Agreement between the Coconino County Flood Control District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service for Phase 11, providing continuation of engineering design services in the Schultz Flood area, in the amount of $69,443.55, with no direct County funding commitment.

BACKGROUND:

On January 24, 2012 the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) awarded $4,344,750 in federal assistance to Coconino County under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). These funds were intended to assist in watershed restoration and flood mitigation measures on National Forest, Coconino County and private lands throughout the Schultz Flood area.

In addition to this federal assistance NRCS allocated $868,950 in technical assistance funding to the County. These funds are available for the purpose of designing the watershed restoration and flood mitigation measures to be constructed using the federal assistance dollars. Since that time, NRCS has allocated, and the Board has accepted additional technical assistance funds to the Schultz EWP project. The total technical assistance funding now available is $1,525,456.

In February 2012 the Board approved the first Technical Assistance Phase 1 Agreement with NRCS for $225,000.00 in technical assistance funding. Phase 1 included preliminary design and engineering for measures on National Forest Service, County and private property in all flood corridors.

05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 1 of 37 On May 1, 2012 the Board approved Modification 1 to this Agreement for Phase 2 in the amount of $66,713.00. Phase 2 included final design and engineering of measures on County and private property in the Brandis Way flood corridor, as well as final design and engineering for several high priority individual headcut treatments.

On May 22, 2012 the Board approved Modifications 2 and 3 to this Agreement for Phases 3 and 4 in the amount of $245,180.00. Phase 3 included final design and engineering for measures on County and private property in the Copeland flood corridor. Phase 4 included final design and engineering for measures on National Forest Service property in the Brandis and Copeland Corridors.

On August 7, 2012 the Board approved Modifications 4 and 5 to this Agreement for Phases 5 and 6 in the amount of $114,400.00. Phase 4 included final design and engineering of measures on County and private property and Phase 5 included final design and engineering for measures on National Forest Service property, both within the Wupatki Trails Corridor.

On October 16, 2012 the Board approved Modification 6 to this Agreement for Phase 7 in the amount of $135,762.00. Phase 7 included several add-work items for the Brandis and Wupatki Trails Corridors; post engineering FLO-2D hydrologic modeling for risk management purposes; and Design Concept Report level engineering of measures within the private property section of the Campbell Avenue Corridor.

On February 5, 2013 the Board approved Modification 7 to this Agreement for Phase 8 in the amount of $112,532.50. Phase 8 included several additional add-work items for the Brandis and Wupatki Trails Corridors and additional post engineering FLO-2D hydrologic modeling for risk management purposes.

On March 12, 2013 the Board approved Modification 8 to this Agreement for Phase 9 in the amount of $129,287.00. Phase 9 included construction administration services provided by Natural Channel Design, for construction of on-forest watershed restoration measures in both the Brandis/Thames and Wupatki Trails/Lenox flood corridors.

On August 13, 2013 the Board approved Modification 9 to this Agreement for Phase 10 in the amount of $118,186.00. Phase 10 included funding for multiple items including: Post measure FLO-2D No Adverse Impact analysis in the Campbell Corridor; additional add-work design items on-forest in the Brandis/Thames and Wupatki Trails/Lenox Corridors; add-work design items off- forest in the Wupatki Trails/Lenox Corridor; 15% engineering designs off-forest in the Copeland Corridor; 100% engineering designs off-forest in the Campbell Corridor; and 30% engineering designs for individual lot mitigation measures in the Paintbrush Corridor.

This Modification (Modification 10 for Phase 11) to the original TA Agreement is for $69,443.55 in additional funding. This Modification includes construction administration services provided by Natural Channel Design, for construction of on-forest watershed restoration measures in the Campbell flood corridor.

05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 2 of 37 These are all federal funds and there is no direct County funding commitment.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. The Board could choose to approve this Modification, enabling the utilization of additional EWP technical assistance funds for engineering design services in the Schultz Flood area.

2. The Board could choose not to approve this Modification, resulting in the cessation of engineering design work in the Schultz Flood area under the EWP program.

3. The Board could amend or table this item for later discussion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project is budgeted in Fiscal Year 2014 and no budget adjustment is required.

SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY ELECTRONIC ROUTING

ATTACHMENTS:

• NRCS EWP TA Agreement 68-9457-12-508 Modification 10 • Fully Executed NRCS EWP TA Agreement

05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 3 of 37 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH 15&6$'6 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 127,&(2)*5$17$1'$*5((0(17$:$5' $ZDUG,GHQWLI\LQJ1XPEHU $PHQGPHQW1R $ZDUG3URMHFW3HULRG 7\SHRI$ZDUG,QVWUXPHQW 68-9457-12-508 10 02/24/2012 - 02/23/2017 Cooperative Agreement $JHQF\1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 15&6 5HFLSLHQW2UJDQL]DWLRQ 1DPHDQG$GGUHVV 1DPHDQG$GGUHVV Coconino County Flood Control District USDA/NRCS 5600 E. Commerce Ave. 230 N. 1st Ave., Ste 509 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1733 '816 (,1 078425198 86-6000441 15&63URJUDP&RQWDFW15&6$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&RQWDFW 5HFLSLHQW3URJUDP 5HFLSLHQW$GPLQLVWUDWLYH Dave Beyman, P.E. William J Fletcher &RQWDFW &RQWDFW [email protected] [email protected] Dustin Woodman Dustin Woodman 602-285-6351 602-280-8776 [email protected] [email protected] &)'$1XPEHU $XWKRULW\ 7\SHRI$FWLRQ 3URMHFW'LUHFWRU American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 117; the Agricultural Credit Act of Modification 10.923 3URMHFW7LWOH'HVFULSWLRQ Schultz EWP - Technical Assistance, Phase 11 (QWLW\7\SHBBBBB3URILWBBBB1RQSURILWBBBB+LJKHU(GXFDWLRQBBBB)HGHUDOBBBBXX 6WDWH/RFDOBBBB,QGLDQ1DWLYH$PHULFDQ BBBB2WKHU $FFRXQWLQJDQG$SSURSULDWLRQ'DWD 6HOHFW)XQGLQJ 7\SH )HGHUDO✔ 1RQ)HGHUDO )LQDQFLDO&RGH$PRXQW)LVFDO

3DJH

05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 4 of 37 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH 15&6$'6 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH FRQWLQXDWLRQ NOTICE OF GRANT AND AGREEMENT AWARD Award Identifying Number Amendment No. Award/Project Period Type of Award Instrument 02/24/2012 - 02/23/2017 68-9457-12-50810 Cooperative Agreement

Name and Title of Authorized Government Representative Signature Date KEISHA L TATEM State Conservationist Name and Title of Authorized Recipient Representative Signature Date Elizabeth C. Archuleta, Chairwoman Coconino County Flood Control District Board of Directors

NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

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

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT 7KHDERYHVWDWHPHQWVDUHPDGHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH3ULYDF\$FWRI 86&6HFWLRQD The purpose of this modification is to add and fund Phase 10 to this EWP project. Whereas: The USDA, NRCS and the Coconino County Flood Control District entered into an Agreement dated February 24, 2012, relating to the Schultz Fire Emergency Watershed Program, and; Whereas: Congress has appropriated and made administratively available funds to USDA NRCS for the EWP Program, and; Whereas: Adjustments to the budget will allow the Coconino County Flood Control District to start work on Phase 10 of the EWP program Therefore: The following section of the original agreement is modified Section C. NRCS will: Line item #1 is changed to read: Provide one hundred percent (100%) toward the total cost of the cost of the services described in Section A. This cost to NRCS will not exceed $69,443.55 The Federal portion of this agreement is increased by $69,443.55 for a total value of $1,216,506.25 All other Terms and Conditions will remain the same. 3DJH

05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 5 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 6 of 37 INSTRUCTIONS FOR NOTICE OF GRANT/AGREEMENT AWARD

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²$JUHHPHQWDZDUGHGIRUWKHILUVWWLPH LL $PHQGPHQW5HYLVLRQ²$Q\FKDQJHLQILQDQFLDOREOLJDWLRQRUGHOLYHUDEOHV LLL ([WHQVLRQ²([WHQGSHUIRUPDQFHSHULRG 3URMHFW'LUHFWRU 1DPHDQGFRQWDFWLQIRUPDWLRQRISURMHFWGLUHFWRURUSULQFLSDOLQYHVWLJDWRU LIDSSOLFDEOH 3URMHFW7LWOH'HVFULSWLRQ %ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHSXUSRVHRIWKHDJUHHPHQW (QWLW\W\SH 7\SHRIUHFLSLHQW )XQGLQJ )HGHUDODPRXQWRIWKHDZDUGDQGWKHQRQ)HGHUDOWREHFRQWULEXWHGWRWKHSURMHFW $FFRXQWLQJ$SSURSULDWLRQ'DWH 3URYLGHWKHIROORZLQJ L )LQDQFLDO&RGH²$FFRXQWLQJFODVVLILFDWLRQFRGH LL $PRXQW²6HOIH[SODQDWRU\ LLL )LVFDO

05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 7 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 -Schultz EWP TAMod 10

Date: 9/26/13 SCHULTZ EWP Technical Assistance Phase XI - Deliverables

TASK DELIVERABLE Task 4 FINAL DESIGN AMOUNT 5.2 Post-Design Construction Services

Construction Administration - Thames Watershed On- Deliverables to include: 5.2.1 $69,443.55 NCD Forest - Additional professional engineering and construction administration services for work on the Thames Watershed on USFS land

$69,443.55

$69,443.55 NCD JE Fuller CivilTec SWI 10/3/2013 Page 8of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 9 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 10 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 11 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 12 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 13 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 14 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 15 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 16 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 17 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 18 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 19 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 20 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 21 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 22 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 23 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 24 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 25 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 26 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 27 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 28 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 29 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 30 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 31 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 32 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 33 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 34 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 35 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 36 of 37 05 - 10/8/2013 - Schultz EWP TA Mod 10 10/3/2013 Page 37 of 37 6. Receive legal advice regarding land use matter and contemplated or potential litigation. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A) (3) & (4), the Board may enter executive session.

2014 County Legislative Proposals for Consideration

Ninth Annual County Supervisors Legislative Policy Summit Mazatzal Hotel & Conference Center, Gila County Arizona October 14 – 16th, 2013

October 1, 2013 2014 CSA Legislative Issues & Proposals for Consideration “At A Glance”

2014 CSA Proposed Principle Policy Directions 4. PEVL and Mail-in Ballot Elections (Yavapai Budget. Protect and enhance county fiscal situations County): permit a county to switch to a mail-in 10. The Arizona State Lake Improvement Fund by continuing opposition to state cost/programmatic ballot election if 50 percent or more of their (Mohave County): require the state parks to shifts and diversion of revenues and advocating for registered voters are on the county’s Permanent distribute fifty percent of the Arizona State Lake restoration where feasible. Examples include: Early Voter List (PEVL). Improvement Fund to local governments to fund projects on waters where gasoline • Statutorily re-establish counties’ share of the 5. Expatriate Adoption Relief (formerly Adoption powered boats are permitted. State Lottery Revenues. Relief; Armed Services; Civilians) (Cochise • Fully eliminate county payments for housing and County): eliminate the requirement that a child 11. County Attorney; Civil Counsel (La Paz County): treatment of Sexually Violent Persons at ASH. be physically present at the time an adoption permit the Board of Supervisors to hire outside • Fully fund the HURF and consider revenue petition is filed, if a petitioner or spouse is a counsel to represent the Board and county enhancement options for transportation member of the military serving abroad, or a administrative offices in civil legal matters. purposes. civilian working abroad, so long as they lived in Arizona for at least six months before being 12. County Seals (Gila County): Amend state statute stationed or living abroad. Local Authorities. Protect and advance to protect the integrity of county seals and administrative and fiscal authorities necessary to preventing unauthorized use. 6. Fireworks (Coconino County): permit counties manage county operations to meet local needs and to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in oppose efforts to restrict or diminish board authority 13. Flexibility Language (Navajo County): Extend unincorporated areas of the county when Stage the budgetary “Flexibility Language” to use any and local control. 1 fire restrictions are put in place by a federal or source of county revenue, to meet a county Legislative Submissions Received to Date: state agency. fiscal obligation for FY 15 for counties of fewer than 200,000 people. 1. Special Districts Use Fees (Yavapai County): 7. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Coconino County): raise expand fee authority to include both capacity the state motor vehicle fuel tax for 14. County Abatements; Property Liens (Mohave and availability fees for domestic water and transportation. County): preserve nuisance abatement liens and domestic wastewater improvement districts. dangerous property abatement liens from (Part of CSA Legislative Package for 2013) 8. Administrator; Indigent Legal Services extinguishing on foreclosure of property taxes (Coconino County): codify the county’s practices by investors. 2. Fire Districts; Elections (Yavapai County): of collaborating with courts to appoint an conform state statute for fire district administrator to oversee the contracting and 15. Tuberculosis Monitoring (La Paz County): reorganizations to other special district election costs of indigent legal services. remove county responsibility for tuberculosis statutes. (Part of CSA Legislative Package for (TB) monitoring, treatment and prevention from 2013) 9. Group Home Disbursement Rate (Coconino the counties and shift the responsibility to the County): restore and lower the amount that is Arizona Department of Health Services. 3. Court Ordered Evaluations; Federal Payments paid to the state by residents of group homes (Yavapai County): adjust state statute to reflect back down from 88 percent to 70 percent of 16. Transfer of Public Lands (La Paz County): enact the state’s ability to seek non-county payment their benefits. legislation calling on the federal government to for Court Ordered Evaluation, shifting the extinguish title to federal lands in Arizona. county from payer of first resort to payer of last resort.

1 10/01/2013

#1 Special Districts Use Fees (Yavapai County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §48-910 and §48-2027 to allow domestic water and domestic wastewater improvement districts (DWIDs) to charge both a capacity and an availability fee. Additionally, this proposal includes the ability for the district to recoup costs associated with enforcing a lien for unpaid fees.

Background: Currently, DWIDs provide water to a user and take wastewater away from residents. Funding for these functions may be property-tax-based, fee based, or a combination of both.

Several fees are available to DWIDs for differing purposes and are meant to match, as closely as possible, the costs of the system with their associated user. DWIDs currently are prohibited from charging both a capacity fee and an availability fee simultaneously. These fees have distinct purposes:

• Capacity Fee is a one-time charge based on the cost of developing the capacity for a property within the district’s system and does NOT go towards day-to-day operations, but towards the development of the system infrastructure. • Availability Fee is a recurring fee used to defray the cost of operations and maintenance associated with carrying capacity for a property. The Availability Fee is capped at half of a district’s Use Fee. • Use Fee is a recurring fee that is based on the amount of water or wastewater associated with a property.

DWIDs cannot reduce their capacity or sell off unused capacity if the capacity in the system has been bought (Capacity Fee paid); regardless if the property is developed, undeveloped, on the system, or off the system.

This proposal was adopted as part of CSA’s Legislative Agenda last year and resulted in HB 2175 water improvement; sanitary districts; liens (Fann). The bill passed out of the House Agriculture & Water Committee unanimously and went on to successfully pass out of the House. In the Senate, the bill was double assigned to Government & Environment, and Appropriations. Although there was support for the bill in both committees, the bill was never scheduled for a hearing due to opposition by at least one of the Chairs.

Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to county budgets or the state’s general fund.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

#2 Fire Districts Elections (Yavapai County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §48-802, §48-816, and §48-820 to conform the state statute for fire district reorganization to those outlined in Title 16, including petition and candidate signature requirements and canvassing timeframes.

Background: Current statute outlines the process a fire district must follow to reorganize from a district governed by an elected chief and secretary-treasurer to a district administered by a district board of three members, or to increase the size of the district board from three to five members. The statute can be ambiguous and confusing when compared to other statutes governing other special district elections.

The proposal is to conform fire district reorganization election procedures to those of other nomination and election procedures in statute.

This proposal was adopted last year by CSA as part of our statutory priorities and resulted in HB 2124 fire districts reorganization elections (Ugenti). The bill passed out of the House Government Committee unanimously and went on to pass out of the House. In the Senate, the bill was amended in committee to include an extensive election related measure and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to county budgets or the state’s general fund.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

#3 Court Ordered Evaluations; Alternative Payments (Yavapai County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §36-545 to reflect the state’s ability to seek private, state or federal payment for Court Ordered Evaluation, shifting the county from payer of first resort to payer of last resort.

Background: When a person is suspected to be a danger to themselves or to others, a judge may order that the person’s mental health be evaluated to determine if treatment is required. The evaluation usually consists of visits with 2 psychiatric experts and interim treatment. Current statute requires counties to be the payer of first resort for the evaluations and subsequent treatment, even if the individual has either private or Medicaid health insurance. This section of statute (A.R.S. §36-545.04) was written before the state of Arizona joined the Medicaid system in the 1980’s and was never adjusted to reflect the ability of counties to receive reimbursement of medical care from the federal government.

The proposed statutory change enables counties to access federal and state dollars (as well as private insurance) for reimbursement of these costs to alleviate the burden on county coffers.

This proposal was originally submitted by Yavapai County in 2009, but due to concerns about increased cost to the state expressed by Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), it was withdrawn by the proposing county.

The Arizona Department of Health Services didn’t present any immediate concerns with the proposal. AHCCCS raised the concern that there is a general fatigue about any issues related to AHCCCS at the legislature due to the AHCCCS Expansion. AHCCCS had reviewed this issue when it was previously presented but due to the expansion is looking into the issue in greater detail. The Arizona Office of the Courts did not share any immediate concerns though they did point out that this could potentially increase costs for the state.

Fiscal Impact: Any fiscal impact to the state or the counties is undeterminable at this time due to the recently expanded AHCCCS eligibility.

#4 PEVL and Mail-in Ballot Elections (Yavapai County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §16-204 to permit counties to conduct an all mail-in ballot election when fifty percent or more of the counties registered voters are on the county’s Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL).

Background: This measure allows counties to move to an all mail-in ballot election, if fifty percent or more of the registered voters in that county are on the PEVL.

The Arizona Association of County Recorders is supportive of the measure, if the provision requiring fifty percent of the registered voters be on PEVL be removed. The result would be that each county would be able to decide whether or not to conduct an all mail-in ballot election.

Historically, efforts to permit all mail-in elections have gotten little traction at the legislature. Even limited provisions offering county office, mail-in ballot elections have been stripped out of bills or not heard in committee. Recently, the legislature has declared elections to be of “state-wide concern,” so their appetite for granting counties the ability to control their own elections is unknown at this point (Laws 2012, Ch 353). Concerns at the legislature may focus on voter integrity and the ability of counties to simply decide they will not allow “in person” voting.

Last session, efforts to reform or amend the PEVL legislatively were some of the most contentious measures run. Viewed by some as attempting to disenfranchise minority voters, opponents to HB 2305 initiatives; filings; circulators (Farnsworth) gathered enough signatures to suspend the measure until voters can approve it in 2014. It is unclear right now whether there is any fatigue at the legislature to re-examine PEVL and local authority regarding elections.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact to counties would be positive, in that each Board could decide the most cost- effective manner in which to conduct their elections and balance out the political, civic and financial costs of providing voter polling places.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

#5 Expatriate Adoption Relief (formerly Adoption Relief; Armed Services; Civilians) (Cochise County)

Proposal: Eliminate the requirement in A.R.S. §8-102 and §8-103 that a child be physically present at the time a petition is filed if a petitioner or spouse is a member of the military serving abroad, or a civilian working abroad, so long as they lived in Arizona for at least six months before being stationed or living abroad.

Background: Current statute requires a child to be physically present in the state of Arizona when a petition for adoption is filed. This can create a hardship for Arizonans who are abroad for work (including members of the military). County Attorneys in Arizona often handle adoption cases.

The proposed statutory change eliminates the requirement that the child be physically present at the time the adoption petition is filed, if the petitioner or spouse is employed abroad (including members of the military), provided they resided in Arizona for at least 6 months before being moved abroad.

The Department of Economic Security (DES) did not see immediate concerns with the military component of the proposal, but did raise concerns about loosening adoption restrictions for everyone. Also, an adoption specialist with DES explained that in military communities, such as Sierra Vista, caseworkers are sensitive to the needs of military families and attempt to facilitate adoptions, including, for example, allowing a petitioning parent who is serving abroad to videoconference into court proceedings finalizing an adoption.

The Arizona Office of the Courts (AOC) expressed concerns regarding their inability to adjudicate something outside of the state. AOC also noted that reasonable safeguards should be included in the process to ensure the safety of the children being adopted.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not present any immediate concerns with this proposal, but is reviewing the issue as it relates to existing federal law.

Fiscal Impact: There is no discernible fiscal impact to either the counties or the state.

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, AZ October 14-16, 2013 A. What is the legislative proposal?

Change ARS §§ 8-102 and -103 to read as follows (the added language is underlined and in red):

8-102. Who may be adopted Except as provided in title 14, chapter 8, only a child, or a foreign-born person who is twenty-one years of age or less, and who is not an illegal alien who is present within this state at the time the petition for adoption is filed, may be adopted; provided, however, that if the Petitioner or the Petitioner's spouse is a member of the armed forces of the United States and is stationed abroad at the time the petition for adoption is filed, or if the Petitioner or the Petitioner's spouse is employed abroad at the time the petition for adoption is filed, and in either case the Petitioner or spouse has resided in Arizona for at least six (6) months prior to being stationed or employed abroad, the child may be adopted even if the child was not present within this state at the time the petition for adoption is filed.

8-103. Who may adopt Any adult resident of this state, whether married, unmarried or legally separated, is eligible to qualify to adopt children. A husband and wife may jointly adopt children. For purposes of this section, a member of the armed forces of the United States who is stationed abroad at the time the petition for adoption is filed, and a person who is employed abroad at the time the petition for adoption is filed, is considered a resident of this state if the person has resided in Arizona for at least six (6) months prior to being stationed or employed abroad.

B. Describe the policy problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

As currently written, the adoption statutes impose an unnecessary hardship on members of the military who wish to adopt a child but are stationed abroad. This is because ARS § 8-102 allows a child to be adopted only if the child is present in the state at the time the petition for adoption is filed. Thus, if a member of the military or his/her spouse wants to adopt the spouse's child, he/she must return with the child to the United States. The proposed change to ARS § 8-102 would eliminate the requirement that the child be physically present at the time the petition is filed if the petitioner or spouse is a member of the military serving abroad so long as they lived in Arizona for at least six months before being stationed abroad. The six month requirement ensures that the petitioner, spouse and child have a connection to Arizona, so as to prevent forum shopping. The change to ARS § 8-103, regarding who may file for adoption, parallels the change to ARS § 8-102 regarding who may be adopted.

The situation that this proposed change is designed to remedy is common in Cochise County because it is home to Fort Huachuca. Members of the armed forces who are posted at Fort Huachuca frequently are called upon to serve abroad. This situation is likely to occur at other military installations in Arizona.

The proposed changes would also apply to persons who are employed abroad and the children they propose to adopt. This has not been an issue in Cochise County. However, it may occur in other parts of the State, in which case the adoption statutes as currently drafted would impose an unnecessary hardship on them.

The proposal also adds two commas to the first clause of § 8-102 and one clarifying comma to the first sentence of § 8-103. These commas are not directly related or necessary to the foregoing policy problem that this proposal seeks to solve, but are added to clarify the grammar, and thus the meaning, of these statutes.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

None.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

I'm sure that military families would appreciate the change. I can think of no constituency that would oppose it. It is extremely doubtful that the current statutory language was drafted with the intent to make adoptions difficult for military families serving abroad.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)?

Britt Hanson Chief Civil Deputy Cochise County Attorney Drawer CA Bisbee, Arizona 85603 520/227-7000 [email protected]

#6 Fireworks (Coconino County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §36-1606 to permit counties to regulate the sale of fireworks in the unincorporated areas of the county when Stage 1 fire restrictions are implemented within that county.

Background: Previously, the legislature passed legislation that permitted the sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks, unless otherwise regulated by a local governing body. The statute allowed counties the ability to regulate only the use of permissible consumer fireworks in unincorporated areas when there is reasonable risk of wildfires within the county. This proposal removes that provision and replaces it with the Stage 1 condition put out by the state or the federal government. The United States Forest Service defines Stage 1 fire restrictions to include the prohibition of building, maintaining, attending, or using a fire, campfire, charcoal, coal, or wood stove other than in a developed campsite or picnic area listed in the order. Also, smoking is prohibited, with certain exceptions.

Proponents argue the availability for purchase of fireworks, when a fire restriction is in place, creates confusion about the legality of the use of the products among constituents and other individuals in the county. Given the significant resource requirements by counties for fighting fires and mitigating the subsequent flooding, the potential costs of illegally used, but legally obtained, fireworks could be substantial.

Opponents to the measure will argue that, even in times of fire restrictions, governments do not prohibit the sale of fire-causing items like matches or firewood. They may also make the questionable argument that there has never been a documented case of a forest fire being started by one of the permissible consumer fireworks.

Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to a county’s general fund associated with the proposal. Proponents argue the costs of not getting the authority could be substantial if the costs of fighting a forest fire and subsequent flooding are taken into account.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, AZ October 14th – 16th, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

The legislation being proposed would provide counties with the ability to regulate the sale of fireworks in the unincorporated areas of the county when Stage 1 fire restrictions are implemented.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

In the 49th Regular Session, legislation was passed and signed into law that would allow the sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks, unless otherwise regulated by a governing body. The statute allowed an “incorporated city or town to regulate the use of permissible consumer fireworks within its corporate limits,” but only allowed a “county to regulate the use of permissible consumer fireworks in unincorporated areas when there is a reasonable risk of wildfires within the county.”

Change in statute would provide the County Board of Supervisors the option to regulate the use and sale of fireworks when the Forest Service issues Stage 1 Fire Restrictions. The irreparable damage that fires cause is well substantiated in Coconino County and throughout Arizona. Amending this statute would provide a common sense solution, tying the regulation of consumer fireworks to restrictions that are based on science.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

The fiscal impact of this legislation not being pursued is the continuing threat of catastrophic wildfire during high fire season and the cost of the firefighting and the continued costs of dealing with the aftermath of wildfires.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

In the past counties and cities have supported a similar effort. Representatives of the fireworks industry have opposed past efforts, however, this approach follows current procedures in place on stage restrictions during wildfire season.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)? Joanne Keene, Government Relations Director or Matthew Rudig, Government Relations Assistant for Coconino County Email: [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7134 [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7137

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

Suggested Language:

36-1606. Consumer fireworks regulation; state preemption; further regulation of fireworks by local jurisdiction The sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks are of statewide concern. The regulation of permissible consumer fireworks pursuant to this article and their use is not subject to further regulation by a governing body, except that an incorporated city or town may regulate the use of permissible consumer fireworks within its corporate limits and a county may regulate the SALE AND use of permissible consumer fireworks within the unincorporated areas of the county WHEN A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY ENTERS STAGE ONE FIRE RESTRICTIONS during times when there is a reasonable risk of wildfires WITH in the immediate county. This article does not prohibit the imposition by ordinance of further regulations and prohibitions on the sale, use and possession of PERMISSIBLE CONSUMER fireworks other than permissible consumer fireworks by a governing body. A governing body shall not permit or authorize the sale, use or possession of any fireworks in violation of this article.

US Forest Service Stage Fire Restrictions Pursuant to 16 USC 551 and 36 CFR 261.50, and to provide for public safety and protect natural resources; The Secretary of Agriculture, in connection with the administration and regulation of the use and occupancy of the national forests and national grasslands, is authorized to cooperate with any State or political subdivision thereof, on lands which are within or part of any unit of the national forest system, in the enforcement or supervision of the laws or ordinances of a State or subdivision thereof.

Stage 1 Restrictions • Building, maintaining, attending, or using a fire, campfire, charcoal, coal, or wood stove other than in a developed campsite or picnic area listed in the order. • Smoking, except within an enclosed vehicle or building, a developed recreation site/improved site or while stopped in an area at least three feet in diameter that is barren or cleared of all flammable materials. • For Tonto National Forest administered lands under Stage I Restrictions, Discharging a firearm except while engaged in a lawful hunt pursuant to state, federal or tribal laws and regulations.

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

#7 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Coconino County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §28-5606 to increase the motor vehicle fuel tax by an unspecified amount.

Background: Currently, the motor vehicle fuel tax is at $.18 per gallon and a large portion of the tax is deposited into the Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF). HURF is intended primarily for road construction and maintenance, with a statutory cap of $10 million dollars going to the Department of Public Safety.

The tax is not indexed for inflation and has not been raised since 1991. Nationwide, Arizona’s Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax ranks towards the bottom when combined state and federal taxes. When compared to our neighbors, Arizona is second lowest, with New Mexico being one-tenth of a penny lower.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact to HURF and the counties would be positive. Depending on the amount raised, the impacts to HURF may be significant. According to the Maricopa Association of Governments and based on 2012 forecasting figures, raising the fuel tax five cents would raise $178 million dollars annually on average, over ten years. Adding five cents and indexing the current rate to the Consumer Price Index raises over $316 million annually on average, over ten years.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, AZ October 14th – 16th, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

Increase the state motor vehicle fuel tax to fund transportation.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

There is currently a $0.18 cents per gallon state gas tax on all motor vehicle fuels used, possessed or consumed. This fuel tax has not been increased in Arizona since 1991, not reflecting inflation. With more high-efficiency vehicles on the road, and the public driving less, revenues coming into the state are decreasing. At the same time, HURF revenues to counties have consistently declined in the past five years, while the need to fund road maintenance increases.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

There is no direct study on how a gas tax increase would raise revenues or effect driving behavior; however an increase would improve statewide HURF revenues to counties. There have been more than $73.6 million in HURF shifts from counties in the last 6 years. Without further infrastructure and maintenance dollars to county roads, there will be an exponential and unpredictable long term cost to counties that will affect economic growth, public safety and other essential services.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

Counties within Arizona may support this legislation. Other stakeholders include the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, Arizona Contractors Association, Arizona Dept. of Transportation and the Arizona Truckers Association.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)?

Joanne Keene, Government Relations Director or Matthew Rudig, Government Relations Assistant for Coconino County Email: [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7134 [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7137

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

#8 Administrator; Indigent Legal Services (Coconino County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §13-4013 to codify the county practice of collaborating with courts to appoint an administrator or agency to oversee the contracting and costs of indigent legal services.

Background: Current statute does not specifically reference an administrator or agency for indigent legal services. An indigent defendant is an individual without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a criminal case. Current statute entitles indigent criminal defendants, and others entitled to counsel, the right to investigators and to expert witnesses. Counties are responsible for the associated costs. Some, including Coconino, Maricopa, Mohave and Pima Counties have collaborated with their courts to authorize an administrator to oversee these expenses, but it is not codified in statute.

This proposal creates a permissive statute enabling counties to collaborate with the courts to appoint an administrator or agency to manage indigent legal services. Indigent Legal Services Administrators could be tasked with ensuring a more efficient use of public resources and serve as a mechanism for initially reviewing and approving service requests, potentially resulting in a savings of resources.

Other counties have raised the concern that by not specifying that the administrator or agency have a criminal law background they would not be able to determine if an investigator or expert witness is necessary and/or reasonable.

The Arizona Office of the Courts (AOC) expressed concerns with this proposal, including the potential risk of adding an extra step in the process of providing defense to indigent defendants and the challenge in crafting a logistical and legal definition of the role of an administrator. AOC also explained that there is no requirement in the proposal for these administrators to have a legal background of any kind. Finally, AOC pointed out that the judge in a case often calls into question investigators or expert witnesses that appear unnecessary for an adequate defense.

Fiscal Impact: There is no discernible fiscal impact to the state, although there is the potential for cost savings to counties.

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, AZ October 14th – 16th, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

Codify in statute the ability for Counties to appoint an administrator to oversee indigent legal services.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

Statutes provide indigent criminal defendants and others entitled to counsel the right to investigators and expert witnesses, as well as procedures for administering it. The statutes specifically state that compensation for these services “shall be at such rates as the County contracts for them.” Some Counties have collaborated with their courts to authorize an administrator to oversee these expenses, but it is not codified. This proposal will codify this authority in statute, making it permissive for counties.

Administrators are in the best position to gather information regarding requests from indigent parties for investigators or experts and determining reasonable compensation. The appointment of administrators to oversee indigent legal services results in a more efficient use of public resources and creates a less-cumbersome mechanism for initially reviewing and approving service requests. In addition, the appointment of an administrator will allow for a more complete vetting of the requests, thereby saving additional resources.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

Cost savings will likely result for Arizona Counties.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

Counties within Arizona may support this legislation. Other stake holders may include the Arizona Office of Courts and the Arizona Association of Counties.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)?

Joanne Keene, Government Relations Director or Matthew Rudig, Government Relations Assistant for Coconino County Email: [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7134 [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7137

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

Proposed Language: ADDS SECTION 13-4015 to read: A.R.S. § 13-4015. Legal Services Administration A. Each county shall oversee the expenses for all indigent legal services for all matters in which a party is entitled to counsel or financial assistance as a matter of law. The Board of Supervisors may designate an agency or administrator with the authority to oversee the expenses. The agency or administrator shall have standing for each case in which public assistance is requested. B. All requests for expert witnesses, investigators and other legal services shall first be submitted to the administrator for review. The administrator will determine whether the services are reasonably necessary. The administrator will also determine reasonable compensation for them and the counties may designate the administrator to oversee the contracting for them. C. If the administrator denies a request, the indigent defendants or other parties who submitted it, may appeal to the court handling their matter to order the county to pay for the services, except in those matters in which a public defender is appointed. The administrator may appear before the court on behalf of the county to address the request and provide its position.

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

#9 Group Home Disbursement Rate (Coconino County)

Proposal: Restore and lower the amount in A.R.S. §36-562 that is paid to the state by residents of group homes back down from 88 percent to 70 percent of their benefits.

Background: In 2010, the state budget had reduced the amount of a developmentally disabled client’s income and benefits that must be retained for their personal use, from 30 percent to 12 percent, contributing their extra income to fund their housing, but reducing the amount of income available for other personal purposes. After the change, most developmentally disabled individuals living in group homes were left with approximately $80 per month to take care of their needs. These individuals usually have no additional funding for payment of county services that counties are statutorily obligated to provide.

The proposal restores the amount of income paid to the state from residents of group homes, from 88 percent down to 70 percent of their benefits, thus freeing up those additional resources for personal expenses, including payment of fees for county services. Typically, county services include fiduciary responsibilities ranging from guardianship, conservatorship, decedent services to court ordered investigations for vulnerable adults to protect their estates and well- being.

The Department of Economic Security is conducting a budgetary analysis of this proposal.

Fiscal Impact: In 2010, the contribution rate increase was implemented as a revenue generator, according to JLBC. This proposal would reduce those revenues back to historic levels and therefore be considered a negative impact on the state, but a positive impact for the counties. Some counties have indicated that the savings could be as much as $50,000 per year.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, AZ October 14th – 16th, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

The purpose of the proposal is to restore the amount paid to group homes for room and board for developmentally disabled individuals to either 70% of the individual’s income or the actual cost of the home, if that amount is less.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

In 2010, SB 1011; the Welfare Budget Reconciliation Act changed statutory language to raise the amount of income paid to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) on behalf of residents of group homes from 70% of benefits to 88% of benefits. The change in statute impacted wards of County Public Fiduciary offices that are developmentally-disabled and live in group homes.

Wards of the Public Fiduciary offices (mildly cognitively impaired individuals who require opportunities for normalization in the community) are left with a mere $80 (or less) a month, based on the 2010 statutory change. The change in law has become very difficult given the current group home rate structure for these impaired individuals.

Changing the benefit amount for wards back to 70% will allow the individuals who live in group homes to have a better quality of life. The needs these individuals include such things as community integration and socialization, family visits, clothing, haircuts, and birthday and Christmas money. They simply can’t afford of these basic needs based on the 70% statutory benefit.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

The positive impact of the proposal is primarily increasing the quality of life for the wards being adversely affected by the reduced benefits. Counties could benefit and collect the monthly Public Fiduciary fees, thereby reducing the costs of the state mandated service as well. There will be and impact on the DES budget.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

The County Public Fiduciaries support this proposal.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)?

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

Joanne Keene, Government Relations Director or Matthew Rudig, Government Relations Assistant for Coconino County Email: [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7134 [email protected] Phone: (928) 679-7137

Suggested Language:

ARS 36-562 M. Notwithstanding subsections C and H of this section, the department may require clients who are receiving residential programs and who receive income or benefits to contribute to the cost of their support and maintenance, subject to the provisions of federal laws and regulations. Such contributions shall not be subject to subsections A and I of this section. The department shall adopt rules that determine the amount and means of payment of such contributions, except that in no event shall the combined contribution made on behalf of a client by a client or the client's parent or estate exceed the actual cost of the residential programs provided. A minimum of twelve per cent THIRTY PER CENT of the client's income or benefits shall be retained for the client's personal use.

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

#10 The Arizona State Lake Improvement Fund (Mohave County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §5-382 to require 50 percent of the Arizona State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) to be distributed to local governments to fund projects on waters where gasoline powered boats are permitted.

Background: SLIF monies are derived from gasoline taxes on fuel used by boats. Historically, the funds had been used to enhance facilities on Arizona’s boating waters.

The funds were distributed based on a grant system with the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordination Commission (AORCC) examining all applications and making funding recommendations prior to approval by the Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) and review by the Joint Committee on Capital Review. Each project then had funds allocated to it by the State Parks Board. AORCC guidelines1 established that no more than 30 percent of the grant allocations may go the Parks Board, and that no other applicant may receive more than 20 percent of the available grant resources.

In 2008, ASPB suspended2 the SLIF grant process for FY08 and FY09 and in 2009 they modified a Memorandum of Understanding3 with AORCC to allow Arizona State Parks (ASP) to use SLIF funds for operations. Since FY08 no grant process has been run. The ASPB used SLIF monies for operations, including for reversion to the state general fund per legislation.

This proposal requires that at least 50 percent of the available monies in SLIF be made available through the existing grant process to local government projects.

ASP has expressed concern with this proposal and will likely be opposed unless the legislature appropriates general fund dollars to backfill the lost monies from SLIF.

Fiscal Impact: There is a potential negative impact to the state of $4.2 million4.

1 Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) memorandum dated December 12, 2007 2 Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) meeting minutes; July 17, 2008 Item #5 3 Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordination Commission (AORCC) meeting minutes; July 28, 2009 Item #1 4 Based on ASP FY 11/12 Annual Report; FY12 Source & Disposition of Funds (includes balance forward and revenues in available fund calculation)

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

#11 County Attorney; Civil Counsel (La Paz County)

Proposal: Amend Title 11 statute to permit a county’s Board of Supervisors to retain counsel for civil legal representation of the Board, and other county departments or commissions, as an alternative to civil representation by the County Attorney.

Background: Article 12, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution establishes county officers, including the county attorney. While the Constitution establishes the offices, the duties of those offices are then outlined and enumerated in Title 11 of Arizona Statute, in different chapters.

The County Attorney’s duties are specifically enumerated in Title 11 Chapter 3, Article 6. Among their duties are the responsibilities to prosecute criminal matters on behalf of the state and to act as legal advisor to the Board, and to offer opinions to other county officers when required.

Current case law holds that a Board is permitted to hire outside civil counsel in limited circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. The proposal seeks to broaden the ability of the Board in statute to hire civil counsel at their discretion.

According to different stakeholders, if the proposal is adopted, County Attorneys will vigorously oppose the measure.

Fiscal Impact: There is not a significant fiscal impact to the county and none to the state.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013 2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit

DISCRETIONARY APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY COUNSEL BY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Proposed By: LA PAZ COUNTY

A. What is the legislative proposal?

It is proposed that legislation be presented that amends A.R.S. §11-531 through §11-539 to reflect that a County Board of Supervisors is empowered to hire and appoint “county counsel” for civil legal representation to the Board, its departments, officers, and board and commissions. Such decision to establish “county counsel” would not be mandatory, but an alternative option available to the Board of Supervisors, instead of using the County Attorney for civil services. The “county counsel” option would be solely within the discretion of the Board of Supervisors and will not require obtaining prior approval from the County Attorney. The County Attorney’s primary duties shall be that as the “public prosecutor”, unless requested by the Board of Supervisors to provide civil legal services.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

Currently, the statutes mandate that the elected County Attorney shall be the public prosecutor, as well as the civil legal adviser and representative to the Board of Supervisors and its departments. As a result of these dual representative duties, the attorney-client relationship in this particular government context involve unique rules and present a complex situation with potential conflicts and difficult ethical conundrums predominately relating to the County Attorney’s ethical responsibilities to his “client”.

Due to the hazy and sometimes confusing attorney-client relationship the potential to erode the constitutional separation of powers that exist between the legislative and executive branches of County government is ever present.

Many County Attorneys believe and often specifically state that due to their elected status they represent “the public”, “the people” or “the voters”. In fact, legal seminars designed for civil deputy county attorneys actually instruct the attendees using these aforementioned misconceptions. 1 Even more concerning is the inherent conflict involving an elected attorney who relies upon his own political ambitions and desires to stonewall projects, delay decisions, or provide advice based upon his own self-interests to the detriment of his client, the County.

The County Attorney, like the Board of Supervisors, is an elected officer established in the Arizona Constitution, Article 12, Section 3. This constitutional county officer is afforded those duties and powers as prescribed by the Arizona legislature in statutory law. See, Ariz. Const., Art. 12, Sec. 4.

The power and duties of the County Attorney over civil matters involving the Board of Supervisors, its officers, and departments are specifically contained within A.R.S. § 11-532, which mandates, in pertinent part, the following authority:

“A. The county attorney is the public prosecutor of the county and shall: * * * 4. Draw indictments and informations, defend actions brought against the county and prosecute actions to recover recognizances forfeited in courts of record and actions for recovery of debts, fines, penalties and forfeitures accruing to the state or county. * * * 7. When required, give a written opinion to county officers on matters relating to the duties of their offices. 8. Keep a register of official business, and enter therein every action prosecuted, criminal or civil, and of the proceedings therein. 9. Act as the legal advisor to the board of supervisors, attend its meetings and oppose claims against the county which the county attorney deems unjust or illegal. * * * 12. Defend all locally valued and assessed property tax appeals as provided in section 42-16208. * * * ” Emphasis Added.

On the other hand, the power and duties of the Board of Supervisors over civil legal matters is specifically contained within A.R.S. § 11-251(14), which states, “The board of supervisors, under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law, may:. . . 14. Direct and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.” Emphasis Added.

2 As explained by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division I, in Romley v. Daughton, 223 Ariz. 521, 241 P.3d 518 (2010), an analysis of the “Woodall-Grossetta-Barnes trilogy” of cases addresses the authority of a Board of Supervisors to hire independent counsel for civil legal matters. The following three cases that comprise the aforementioned “trilogy” outline the limited authority of a County Board of Supervisors to retaining independent civil counsel: Board of Supervisors v. Woodall, 120 Ariz. 379, 586 P.2d 628 (1978); Pima County v. Grossetta, 54 Ariz. 530, 97 P.2d 538 (1939); and, County of Santa Cruz v. Barnes, 9 Ariz. 42, 76 P. 621 (1904).

In a nutshell1, a review of the aforementioned “trilogy” of cases reveals that since territorial times and under current law, the authority of a Board of Supervisors to hire its own counsel is narrow. Generally, a Board may not hire its own counsel to provide legal advice if the County Attorney is available to do so. The exceptions to this rule include, when the county attorney refuses to act, is incapable of acting, or is unavailable.

The determination of “unavailability” may include the County Attorney having a conflict of interest; however, the Board cannot seek a declaratory judgment concerning “unavailability” until having attempted and failed to resolve the matter through discussion with the County Attorney under the guidance of the Attorney General.

However, a Board of Supervisors is empowered as the “final authority” controlling cases involving the interests of the county to retain outside litigation counsel under the “implied authority” and discretion contained within A.R.S. § 11-251(14) to, “Direct and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.”

Although seeking of the County Attorney’s consent to hire is not always required there are certain circumstances in addition to those exceptions discussed above that must be present before a Board can do so. However, each situation must be reviewed on a case by case basis. This includes situations where the Board and the County Attorney do not agree how a legal action is to be handled or brought. In other words, there must be a “lack of harmony” between the two offices. This disharmony specifically deals with legal strategy not relationships. Under these circumstances, the Board as the “final authority” possesses the unilateral ability to determine that

1 Legal citations to the above discussed information relating to the Board’s “limited authority” have been deleted due to space limitation; however, is available upon request. 3 harmony is lacking and may seek independent counsel, even without the consent of the County Attorney. Of course, this does not mean that a Board can indiscriminately deprive the County Attorney of his authority to be the legal representative of the County.

Unfortunately, the current law limiting the authority of a Board of Supervisors to hire independent legal counsel has resulted in several abhorred and shocking cases of malfeasance, misfeasance, unethical misconduct, abuse of authority and legal process by County Attorneys against their own clients, the Board of Supervisors.

A recent textbook example of the type and extent of destructive abuse that can be unwarranted and intentional as illustrated in the disciplinary disbarment of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. A review of the published Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions2 from the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, William J. O’Neil in the Arizona Supreme Court Discipline clearly reveals the harmful impact that can be perpetrated upon a Board of Supervisors and County organization by the County Attorney.

Ironically, the initiating fact that first lit the fuse resulting in Thomas’ fervent pursuit of members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors relates back to a meeting with a Board member prior to Thomas’ election as County Attorney. At that subject meeting the question was raised whether as County Attorney Thomas would allow the Board of Supervisors to hire it own civil county counsel that answered directly to the Board. Candidate Andrew Thomas agreed to do so. After Thomas’ election the request for independent “county counsel” was formally requested by the Board, which sparked the controversial and unlawful indictments, search warrants, investigations, lawsuits, etc., against the Board.

All these actions were taken against his own client, the Board of Supervisors. In fact, he divulged attorney/client privileged and confidential information in press releases, as well as blocked the Board from hiring outside counsel even though an apparent conflict existed.

A review of the Thomas ethics opinion clearly found that the “client” of the County Attorney is the county through its Board of Supervisors. Nowhere did the ethics opinion state that the clients of the County Attorney was “the public” or “the people”, although Thomas argued “the voters”

2 See http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/9/Press%20Releases/2012/041012ThomasAubuchonAlexander_opinion.pdf 4 were his clients and had a “right to know” what the Board of Supervisors were doing. This contention was held groundless by the Disciplinary Judge.

Clearly, as a public prosecutor who represents the State’s interests the County Attorney represents the State on behalf of the people or general public; however, the real client in civil matters is much more difficult to ascertain when involving governmental entities.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Abuse of authority and process can occur at any time due to the nature of human interaction.

As another example of the County Attorney misusing his authority can be found in Upton v. La Paz County, 986 P.2d 252, 195 Ariz. 219 (Ariz. App., 1999). In this action, a former County Supervisor, Greg Upton, was sued after he left office for recovery of alleged illegally paid funds for travel/mileage expenses paid during Upton’s term for special projects assigned to him by the Board.

Initially, allegations of misuse of monies were raised by the County Attorney just prior to the General Election. Although only raised in the trial court, the lame-duck County Attorney made these allegations even though he specifically knew of the Supervisor’s travel expenses by attending each Board meeting and actually advised the subject Supervisor of the appropriateness of such charges. Subsequently, Upton lost his re-election due to these allegations. The Upton Court held that the issue of estoppel should be heard by the trial court due to affirmative actions taken by county officials, including the County Attorney, to pay the reimbursements properly relied upon by Supervisor Upton. Clearly, the timing of the misuse of money allegations through the County Attorney’s actions were calculated and made for purely political purposes.

Moreover, other counties’ Board of Supervisors has experienced legal conflicts with their County Attorney. For instance, in the late 1980’s Gila County’s Board was sued over budgeting issues by its County Attorney. Besides representing his own office, the County Attorney also represented several other elected officials.

How can you trust the legal advice of your own attorney when he may sue you over doing your duties?? 5

THE SOLUTION: In several other States’ throughout the Country this ethical challenge has been addressed by a statutory option. The California and Michigan State Legislatures have promulgated statutes providing that County Boards of Supervisors (aka County Commissioners) are empowered, at each Board’s sole discretion, to appoint “county counsel” or “corporate counsel” to represent the Board as well as other County officers, County departments, boards and commissions.

In these States, the County Attorney is designated as an elected “county prosecutor” who predominating pursues only matters of a criminal nature, unless required by or approved by the Board of Supervisors to handle civil actions (i.e., dependencies, etc.).

Under the “county counsel” system, the County Attorney does not have the authority to prevent the Board from hiring its own civil counsel. The decision and appointment of “county counsel” is left to the Board of Supervisors’ discretion. This option is available in both charter and general law counties. The position of “county counsel” serves as a legal adviser and attorney to the County Board, its departments and officers; and serves as an at-will employee.

In the States that offer this option, the differing requirements to specifically establish “county counsel” run the gambit, from needing an unanimous or super-majority vote of the Board; to limiting the “county counsel” option only to smaller counties (e.g., with under 500,000 residents).

Clearly, those entities with “home rule” or charters could seek voter approval to established appointed “corporate counsel”.

Although a Board may currently have no problem with their County Attorney providing services; every four years an election occurs and a new County Attorney may be elected that is uncooperative and does not have the Board’s interests in mind.

Frankly, each County is only one election away from potential disastrous consequences. Regrettably, the pursuit of public office will always attract certain individuals of

6 questionable ethics and hidden agendas who based decisions and take actions that benefit their self-interests and political ambitions. By having an option to select independent county counsel the Board of Supervisors will have the tools to avoid the situation Maricopa County found itself in a few years ago.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal? The fiscal impact to the State and County governments is de minims at best, in that, if the option to hire independent county counsel is approved a cost shift of current budgeted funds would occur. Simply put, those appropriations currently budgeted for the County Attorney Office civil divisions can be shifted to pay for “county counsel” depending upon whether a respective Board of Supervisors desires to use it discretionary authority to appoint its own counsel.

In fact, there may be a savings realized by a reduction of internal conflicts and subsequent legal actions between elected county offices.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments? The proposed legislation is intended to merely offer an alternative option for counties to appoint their own “county counsel”. Small to medium size counties do not necessarily have large civil divisions that would be affected, and therefore, would not result in mass layoffs if the proposed option was initiated.

Obviously, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, its staff, officers and departments had inordinately suffered under the Andrew Thomas Regime. A county may presently have no issue with their County Attorney; however, elections occur at least every four years and changes happen. It is only a matter of time before one of the Counties experiences issues with its County Attorney. It has happened in the past and surely will happen again.

Outside civil counsel, especially those who were targeted by Thomas may support this change. These attorneys include, Rick Romley and Thomas Irvine, etc., and perhaps the Arizona State Bar would also support.

7 It is believed that the County Attorneys will argue they are the “check and balance” against the Board’s illegal actions; however, this ignores the fundamental concept of the separation of powers in County government. The County Attorney as the public prosecutor can still proceed criminally against the Board without also providing civil representation.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)?

Name: Dan Field Phone: (928) 669-6115 E-mail: [email protected]

#12 County Seals (Gila County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §41-130 restricting use and protecting the integrity of “the Great Seal of Arizona” to include county seals.

Background: The Great Seal of Arizona is protected by statute and the Secretary of State’s Office is statutorily charged with defending the integrity of the Seal and enforcing statute governing its use. Failure to abide by the law is a class three misdemeanor.

Proponents of the measure have pointed to instances where campaign or other literature is mailed to county residents with the county seal affixed, leaving most with the false impression that the mailings are somehow sanctioned by the county. Another instance involved a website containing erroneous “audit” information and the county seal. The impression was that somehow the county either conducted the audit or otherwise approved the findings.

Fiscal Impact: There is not a fiscal impact to the state or the counties – barring excessive violations causing reason for enforcements.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013 2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, Arizona October 14-16, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

A revision to A.R.S. §41-130 which restricts the use of the “Great Seal of the State of Arizona” to include County seals.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

There have been instances when County seals have appeared on campaign literature from candidates for County office during elections. This practice may give citizens the impression the mailing was from the County, giving a false impression of official County business and/or an endorsement.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

Unknown.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

Opposition could be that sufficient protection exists in A.R.S. §16.925 which provides, in part:

A. In an attempt to influence the outcome of an election, an individual or committee shall not deliver or mail any document that falsely purports to be a mailing authorized, approved, required, sent or reviewed by or that falsely simulates a document from the government of this state, a county, city or town or any other political subdivision

E. Who is the primary county contact for information for the proposal?

Name: Jacque Griffin, Assistant County Manager

Phone: (928) 402-8770

E-Mail: [email protected]

#13 Flexibility Language (Navajo County)

Proposal: Extend the budgetary “flexibility language” to allow any source of county revenue to meet a county fiscal obligation for FY 15, in any county with fewer than 200,000 persons.

Background: The original flexibility language was introduced in FY 09 as a tool for counties to address pending budget short-falls in the wake of mandated resource contributions to the state and increased administrative responsibilities from the state. That provision was included in subsequent budgets up through FY 12.

“Notwithstanding any other law, for fiscal years [2009-2012], a county may meet any county fiscal obligation from any source of county revenue designated by the county, including funds of any countywide special taxing jurisdiction in which the board of supervisors serves as the board of directors.”

The language was added to the FY 13 budget, including an additional requirement for counties using the authority to report to the Director of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on the intended use of the authority.

“B. On or before October 1, 2012, a county that uses a revenue source to meet a county fiscal obligation pursuant to subsection A of this section shall report to the director of the joint legislative budget committee on the specific source and amount of revenues that the county intends to use in fiscal year 2012-2013.”

This authority was again sought and including in the FY14 budget, however it was restricted to ten counties under 200,000 persons (Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Navajo, Santa Cruz, and Yuma).

“A. Notwithstanding any other law, for fiscal year 2013-2014, a county with a population of less than 200,000 persons according to the 2010 United States decennial census may meet any county fiscal obligation from any source of county revenue designated by the county, including funds of any countywide special taxing jurisdiction in which the board of supervisors serves as the board of directors.”

This proposal seeks to continue the session law language as listed in the FY 14 budget.

Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to state’s general fund.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, AZ October 14-16, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

Renew the use of the “flexibility language” as session law, to allow counties to use any source of county revenue to meet a county fiscal obligation for FY 2015.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

The effect of the economic downturn on county revenues, compounded by impacts from the State over the last six years has created a situation that cannot be sustained at current revenue levels.

Property tax values continue to decline across many counties, while increased costs in various aspects of county government and employee related expenses point to a failure or reduction of county services that is a disservice to the public interest. In many respects, the decline of revenues has been a healthy and productive opportunity for counties to become more efficient and conservative with the expenditure of tax dollars, however, many county governments cannot continue to function without an appropriate amount of available resources.

If the impact to county revenues had been limited to declines occurring at a local level, it is not beyond reason to speculate that there would have been room for each individual county to absorb those declines over time. However, over the last six years, counties, as subdivisions of the State, have partnered with the Legislature to assist in its’ efforts to re-establish a sustainable budget outlook for Arizona. During that time a number of sweeps, reductions and re-allocations of responsibilities were, and continue to be, absorbed by counties, and despite the best efforts of staff and elected officials, many counties are still faced with the prospect of operating expenses, including ERE, rising as properties values continue to decline and we only see modest increases in sales tax revenues.

This proposal would give a Board of Supervisors authority to use revenues from secondary districts to fulfill a county fiscal obligation.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

Varied impact to county budgets should they elect to use the authority. No anticipated impact to the state budget.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

The “flexibility language” has been part of session law for the last 4 years. Two years ago a component was added to the language requiring counties who elect to use the authority to report their action to JLBC, and the one-year nature of the language has required counties to provide current justification for the existence of the authority. For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

In light of the increasing difficulty that counties are faced with to generate appropriate revenue this authority is viewed a failsafe measure, and as such, it has garnered the needed support of members in leadership and the general body of both houses when a reasonable level of need can be demonstrated.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal (name, phone, email and other relevant information)?

Hunter Moore Navajo County Government Affairs Director (480) 254-2387 cell [email protected]

For more information contact the County Supervisors Association at (602) 252-5521

#14 County Abatements; Property Liens (Mohave County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §42-18204 to preserve a county’s nuisance abatement liens and dangerous property abatement liens from extinguishing on the foreclosure of property taxes from investors or other parties.

Background: When faced with some abandoned properties, counties encounter situations where those properties pose a public health risk or other danger to public safety. In those instances, counties will seek to make “improvements” to the property to protect public safety (such as boarding up or otherwise restricting access to abandoned properties) and then file a lien against the property to secure reimbursement for those costs. Many times, there are other liens against the property, such as property tax liens.

Currently, when the property taxes liens are foreclosed by an investor or other entity, subsequent liens are extinguished from the county rolls. While it’s beneficial to get the property out of foreclosure and back on the “healthy” side of the property tax rolls, a county loses the costs of abatement that occurred on the property. The anecdotal evidence suggests investors may purchase a property tax lien and foreclose on a property after a county has made those improvements, to capture the financial benefit.

The proposal rectifies that situation by preserving those liens for public safety issues after a property tax foreclosure. Some counties have indicated a desire to expand the county liens to include those issued to cover costs associated with rectifying “blight” (such as graffiti or trash removal).

Also, some have asked about the possibility that the attractiveness of the delinquent property may be diminished to investors seeking to foreclose on delinquent property taxes, due to the presence of these proposed liens.

Fiscal Impact: Positive fiscal impacts may result if the county has been spending a lot of resources on the different liens on the properties. Negative fiscal impacts could result if the liens discourage investors from purchasing the delinquent tax liability on the property.

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

#15 Tuberculosis Monitoring (La Paz County)

Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §36-104, §36-714, §36-717, §36-726 and §36-727 to remove the county financial responsibility for tuberculosis (TB) monitoring, treatment and prevention and shift the financial responsibility to the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS).

Background: Current statute requires counties to be responsible for the monitoring, treatment and prevention of tuberculosis in their community. Each county (and the Navajo Nation) receives a base level of funding annually and then additional dollars are distributed based on a formula that takes into account TB morbidity. In 2009, the DHS budget was cut, including the annual funding for TB monitoring, treatment and prevention, (the total state funding was $949,924 before the cuts and this past year was just $590,700).

County breakdown for FY09 and FY13 is:

County FY09 FY13 Apache $18,476 $12,000 Cochise $18,476 $12,000 Coconino $18,476 $12,000 Gila $18,476 $12,000 Graham $18,476 $12,000 Greenlee $18,476 $12,000 La Paz $18,476 $12,000 Maricopa $460,014 $281,650 Mohave $18,476 $12,000

Navajo Nation $42,686 $26,800

Navajo $18,476 $12,000

Pima $123,484 $76,150

Pinal $37,109 $23,400 Santa Cruz $18,476 $12,000 Yavapai $18,476 $12,000 Yuma $83,395 $50,700 TOTAL $949,924 $590,700

The proposed statutory change seeks to eliminate the financial burden for the TB monitoring, treatment and prevention from the individual counties, and shift the cost back to the state. They propose shifting to a direct billing process, so the counties can be reimbursed for the actual costs of identifying and caring for TB patients. -over-

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013 A preliminary analysis by the DHS identified concerns that this proposal would have a negative budget impact on the TB response system in Arizona. An initial review by their agency indicated hesitancy to be supportive of this proposal by at least some at DHS.

Fiscal Impact: There is a potential fiscal impact to both the state and counties. Counties may see a positive impact due to receiving reimbursement for actual costs incurred. County costs vary based on number of cases. For instance, La Paz County expended between $17,000 and $49,000 per year since 2006. Counties are required to pay for additional expenses above their grant amount out of their general fund.

###

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013 County Supervisors Association of Arizona

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, Arizona October 14-16, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal?

1. Elevate the financial burden of tuberculosis monitoring, treatment and prevention from the individual counties to the Arizona Department of Health Services.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it.

1. Lack of funding to cover nursing hours spent on TB Case investigations. a. Time documentation on one particular case revealed this amount of time in 2 months: • 24 hours initial assessment • 120 hours DOT (Directly Observed Therapy) Rural area requiring drive times • 240 hours for contact investigative work • 36 hours TB testing activities (had several contacts) • 8 hours for reporting requirements, data entries, and referrals • 2 hours for physician communications – we were in contact with our TB officer frequently, and had to coordinate care with Canada. • Total: 430 Staff Hours. b. Considering this was greater than the 320 hours of one nurse’s time in 2 months (who also had other duties such as HIV testing, family planning clinics, Hepatitis C referrals) other staff were involved as well.

2. Funding is based on CASES and not RATES. a. La Paz has low case morbidity (less than 3 cases per year), yet has high rates most years. Also, several investigations turn out to be MOTT (Mycobacterium Other than Tuberculosis), yet still requires all of the time and resources of an active case until ruled out, and no credit is given when determining funding. Low morbidity also can give a false impression that there is less to do, yet county staffing is directly related to population and not rates. A high rate with low staffing could actually indicate that a small rural facility works just as hard, if not harder, than those with lower rates and more staffing.

3. While Counties can budget based on historical cases there is no safety net should a significant outbreak occur. County staffing and budgets therefore have an unfunded and locally unfundable liability to provide monitoring and treatment.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal?

1. 430 hours cost the county approximately $9,240 nursing hours in just 2 months time for one client. This does not include cost of medications, lab/x-rays, gasoline (DOT in a rural area), and physician services, which was approx $1,600. Funding for the entire year from ADHS is only $12,000.

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments?

1. ADHS receives funding from the Federal level and must then spread it out between the counties. It has been said that Counties hold the responsibility for Tuberculosis Control, and any funding given is meant to supplement, not finance.

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal? 1. Name: D.L. Wilson, Supervisor District 1 2. Phone: a. Office: 928-669-6115 b. Cell: 928-575-3068 3. E-Mail: [email protected]

#16 Transfer of Public Lands (La Paz County)

Proposal: Proposes legislation calling on the federal government to extinguish title to federal lands in Arizona. This proposal is modeled after Utah’s HB 148 Transfer of Public Lands Act and Related Study (Ivory), which passed in 2012, and is attached as a collateral piece.

Background: Utah’s HB 148 Transfer of Public Lands Act and Related Study (Ivory) requires the United States government to extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to those public lands to the state on or before December 31, 2014. Utah’s legislation also provides that, regarding these newly transferred lands, the state shall retain 5 percent of the net proceeds the state receives, and pay 95 percent of the net proceeds the state receives to the United States Government. The Utah legislation does not apply to any of the following lands: tribal lands, national parks, state trust lands, national monuments or wilderness areas.

This proposal addresses the federal government’s ownership and stewardship of federal lands within the boundaries of Arizona. Today, the federal government owns and manages approximately 635-640 million acres of land across the United States (about 28 percent of the total land base). According to the Arizona State Lands Department, the federal government owns more than 30 million acres of land (not including tribal lands) in Arizona, which amounts to approximately 42.1 percent of the land in the state.

The attached map illustrates all federally owned land in Arizona. It is divided as follows:

Federal Ownership Area Acres Bureau of Land Management 12,168,522 Indian Reservation 20,124,385 National Forest 11,166,689 Military 2,756,726 National Parks 2,592,665 National Wildlife Refuge 1,710,693 Total: 50,519,679

Various states across the western United States in the past year have considered actions related to the issues addressed in the Utah’s HB 148 Transfer of Public Lands Act and Related Study (Ivory). Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming passed legislation to establish study committees to analyze the transfer of public land back to their respective states. Idaho additionally passed a resolution urging the federal government to return their land holdings back to the state of Idaho.

-over-

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013

In 2012, two measures were at the consideration of the legislature. The first one, SB 1332 federal lands; conveyance and taxation (Melvin) sought to require the federal government to extinguish title to all public lands in Arizona. In her veto of that measure, Governor Brewer cited the constitutionality and potential for significant additional administrative costs as reasons for her veto. The second measure was a memorial, HCM 2002 federal lands; devolution to Arizona (Barton) that urged the federal government to dispose of public land within Arizona’s borders. It never received a committee hearing.

At the center of this proposal is whether or not the federal government has a duty to dispose of federal land holdings to the state. The discussion identifies the enabling act crafted when Arizona was granted statehood in 1912 as a basis for which to argue for the lands return. Proponents also cite constitutional doctrine of “equal footing” as a basis for their efforts. Equal footing is a constitutional law doctrine upon which States admitted to the United States are given the same legal rights as the preexisting states.

The National Association of Counties recently endorsed a resolution supporting the return of federally controlled lands to their respective states. That resolution is attached to this packet.

Some counties have expressed reluctance of support for the measure due to constitutionality questions and questions about the feasibility of implementation.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact for the counties as well as the state is undeterminable. While some resources at the state level would be needed to address new administrative and managerial responsibilities, proponents argue that putting Arizona land to beneficial use would be revenue positive for the state and its political subdivisions.

###

For more information, contact CSA staff at (602) 252-5521 October 1, 2013 County Supervisors Association of Arizona

2014 Legislative Policy Statement 9th Annual CSA Legislative Summit Gila County, Arizona October 14-16, 2013

A. What is the legislative proposal? a. Enact legislation similar to Utah HB148, Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) demanding that the Federal Government extinguish title to certain federal lands in Arizona.

B. Describe the problem and explain how the proposal solves it. a. The Federal Government controls a large portion of the lands in 12 western states. Certain portions of these lands would be exempt from the proposed Act. b. TPLA is based on a “recurrence to first principles” which consists of analyzing historical documents that are the foundation of our nation. These documents clearly express an obligation of the Federal government to dispose of public lands and TPLA demands that it comply with this obligation. c. The various Enabling Acts for admission to statehood confirm the obligation of the Federal Government to dispose of these lands d. Equal Footing i. The US Supreme Court has ruled that state should be treated on an equal footing. FLPMA and the federal retention of these lands violate this basic principle of statehood ii. Additionally, the requirement that all states be on an “equal footing” calls into question the differences in the Enabling Act for Arizona Statehood from prior Enabling Acts. These differences include changes, especially in Section 20, Second, that are structured to diminish Arizona’s right to these public lands which is contrary to the requirement for “equal footing” and thereby should render those changes invalid. e. “The State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26.

C. What is the fiscal impact to the state or county budgets of the proposal? a. Revenue from sales via the guaranteed percentage of proceeds from sales b. Ability to levy property tax on lands sold and converted to private ownership

D. What is the preliminary analysis of the political environment and stakeholders’ and affiliates’ comments? a. Utah’s TPLA has received broad support from Governors, state attorneys general, state legislators, members of many Western congressional delegations counties, and other public officials as well as private individuals and organizations throughout the western states and beyond

E. Who is the primary county contact information for the proposal? a. Name: D.L. Wilson, Supervisor District 1 b. Phone: i. Office: 928-669-6115 ii. Cell: 928-575-3068 c. E-Mail: [email protected] H.B. 148 H.B. 148 H.B. STUDY ENERAL SESSION ENERAL STATE OF UTAH OF STATE 6 2012 G Chief Sponsor:Chief Ivory Ken 6 Senate Sponsor: Wayne L. Niederhauser SenateL. Sponsor: Wayne ANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT AND RELATED AND ACT LANDS PUBLIC OF ANSFER TR provides that the 5% of the net proceeds of those sales of public lands shall public lands be of sales those of proceeds net the of 5% that the provides clause; severability a provides on certain legislation draft or Council to Constitutional study the Defense requires enacts the Transfer of Public Lands Act; Public of Lands Transfer the enacts terms; defines title to States to United extinguish the title transfer to and public lands requires state the to which title to with public lands respect transfers state the that if provides 02-14-12 3:49 PM 02-14-12 < < < < < < < 6 ONG TITLEONG Approved for Filing: R.L. Rockwell Rockwell R.L. Filing: for Approved LEGISLATIVE GENERAL COUNSEL GENERAL LEGISLATIVE Highlighted Provisions: General Description: General L *HB0148* 6 3 9 4 8 5 6 7 1 2 25 24 State School Fund; into permanent deposited the 26 27 taxation and including: public lands, of management, to transfer, the issues related 23 22 States; to United the receives state the proceeds 19 21 net the of 95% pay and receives, state the proceeds net the of 5% shall retain 16 17 18 31, 2014; December before on or to state public lands those the 20 state the Act, Public of Lands Transfer the titleunder to public lands the receives 13 15 12 to public lands. issues related on certain legislation proposed 14 This bill: 11 draft or Council to Constitutional study the Defense requiring and to state lands the 10 title of to public transfer the to including public lands, issuesrelated This bill addresses H.B. 148 02-14-12 3:49 PM

28 C drafting proposed legislation creating a public lands commission; and 29 C establishing actions that shall be taken to secure, preserve, and protect the state's 30 rights and benefits related to the United States' duty to have extinguished title to 31 public lands and transferred title to those public lands to the state; and 32 < makes technical and conforming changes. 33 Money Appropriated in this Bill: 34 None 35 Other Special Clauses: 36 This bill provides an immediate effective date. 37 Utah Code Sections Affected: 38 ENACTS: 39 63L-6-101, Utah Code Annotated 1953 40 63L-6-102, Utah Code Annotated 1953 41 63L-6-103, Utah Code Annotated 1953 42 63L-6-104, Utah Code Annotated 1953 43 Uncodified Material Affected: 44 ENACTS UNCODIFIED MATERIAL 45 46 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: 47 Section 1. Section 63L-6-101 is enacted to read: 48 CHAPTER 6. TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT 49 63L-6-101. Title. 50 This chapter is known as the "Transfer of Public Lands Act." 51 Section 2. Section 63L-6-102 is enacted to read: 52 63L-6-102. Definitions. 53 As used in this chapter: 54 (1) "Governmental entity" is as defined in Section 59-2-511. 55 (2) "Net proceeds" means the proceeds from the sale of public lands, after subtracting 56 expenses incident to the sale of the public lands. 57 (3) "Public lands" means lands within the exterior boundaries of this state except: 58 (a) lands to which title is held by a person who is not a governmental entity;

- 2 - 02-14-12 3:49 PM H.B. 148

59 (b) lands owned or held in trust by this state, a political subdivision of this state, or an 60 independent entity; 61 (c) lands reserved for use by the state system of public education as described in Utah 62 Constitution Article X, Section 2, or a state institution of higher education listed in Section 63 53B-1-102; 64 (d) school and institutional trust lands as defined in Section 53C-1-103; 65 (e) ÖÖÖººº [ a national park affirmatively ceded to the United States by state statute; 66 (f) public lands that: 67 (i) on January 1, 2012, are designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 68 System under the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1131 et seq.; and 69 (ii) are affirmatively ceded to the United States by state statute;] lands within the exterior 69a boundaries ÖÖÖººº as of January 1, 2012, »»»ÖÖÖ of the following that are designated as national 69a1 parks as ÖÖÖººº [of January 1, 2012] »»»ÖÖÖ : 69b (i) Arches National Park; 69c (ii) Bryce Canyon National Park; 69d (iii) Canyonlands National Park; 69e (iv) Capitol Reef National Park; and 69f (v) Zion National Park; 69g (f) lands within the exterior boundaries ÖÖÖººº as of January 1, 2012, »»»ÖÖÖ of the following 69g1 national monuments managed 69h by the National Park Service as of January 1, 2012: 69i (i) Cedar Breaks National Monument; 69j (ii) Dinosaur National Monument; 69k (iii) Hovenweep National Monument; 69l (iv) Natural Bridges National Monument; 69m (v) Rainbow Bridge National Monument; and 69n (vi) Timpanogos Cave National Monument; 69o (g) lands within the exterior boundaries ÖÖÖººº as of January 1, 2012, »»»ÖÖÖ of the Golden 69o1 Spike National Historic Site; 69p (h) lands within the exterior boundaries ÖÖÖººº as of January 1, 2012, »»»ÖÖÖ of the following 69p1 wilderness areas located in the 69q state that, as of January 1, 2012, are designated as part of the National Wilderness 69r Preservation System under the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.: 69s (i) Ashdown Gorge Wilderness;

Senate 3rd Reading Amendments 3-7-2012 kc/rlr - 3 - Senate 2nd Reading Amendments 3-6-2012 kh/rlr H.B. 148 02-14-12 3:49 PM

69t (ii) Beartrap Canyon Wilderness; 69u (iii) Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness; 69v (iv) Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness; 69w (v) Blackridge Wilderness;

- 3a1 - Senate 3rd Reading Amendments 3-7-2012 kc/rlr 02-14-12 3:49 PM H.B. 148

69x (vi) Box-Death Hollow Wilderness; 69y (vii) Canaan Mountain Wilderness; 69z (viii) Cedar Mountain Wilderness; 69aa (ix) Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness; 69ab (x) Cottonwood Forest Wilderness; 69ac (xi) Cougar Canyon Wilderness; 69ad (xii) Dark Canyon Wilderness; 69ae (xiii) Deep Creek Wilderness; 69af (xiv) Deep Creek North Wilderness; 69ag (xv) Deseret Peak Wilderness; 69ah (xvi) Doc's Pass Wilderness; 69ai (xvii) Goose Creek Wilderness; 69aj (xviii) High Uintas Wilderness; 69ak (xix) LaVerkin Creek Wilderness; 69al (xx) Lone Peak Wilderness; 69am (xxi) Mount Naomi Wilderness; 69an (xxii) Mount Nebo Wilderness; 69ao (xxiii) Mount Olympus Wilderness; 69ap (xxiv) Mount Timpanogos Wilderness; 69aq (xxv) Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness; 69ar (xxvi) Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness; 69as (xxvii) Red Butte Wilderness; 69at (xxviii) Red Mountain Wilderness; 69au (xxix) Slaughter Creek Wilderness; 69av (xxx) Taylor Creek Wilderness; 69aw (xxxi) Twin Peaks Wilderness; 69ax (xxxii) Wellsville Mountain Wilderness; and 69ay (xxxiii) Zion Wilderness; »»»ÖÖÖ 70 ÖÖÖººº [(g)] (i) »»»ÖÖÖ lands with respect to which the jurisdiction is ceded to the United States as 71 provided in Section 63L-1-201 or 63L-1-203; 72 ÖÖÖººº [(h)] (j) »»»ÖÖÖ real property or tangible personal property owned by the United States if the 73 property is within the boundaries of a municipality; or 74 ÖÖÖººº [(i)] (k) »»»ÖÖÖ lands, including water rights, belonging to an Indian or Indian tribe, band, or 75 community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against 76 alienation imposed by the United States.

Senate 3rd Reading Amendments 3-7-2012 kc/rlr - 3a - Senate 2nd Reading Amendments 3-6-2012 kh/rlr H.B. 148 02-14-12 3:49 PM

77 Section 3. Section 63L-6-103 is enacted to read: 78 63L-6-103. Transfer of public lands. 79 (1) On or before December 31, 2014, the United States shall: 80 (a) extinguish title to public lands; and 81 (b) transfer title to public lands to the state. 82 (2) If the state transfers title to any public lands with respect to which the state receives 83 title under Subsection (1)(b), the state shall: 84 (a) retain 5% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title; and 85 (b) pay 95% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title to the 86 United States. 87 (3) In accordance with Utah Constitution Article X, Section 5, the amounts the state 88 retains in accordance with Subsection (2)(a) shall be deposited into the permanent State School 89 Fund.

Senate 3rd Reading Amendments 3-7-2012 kc/rlr - 3b - Senate 2nd Reading Amendments 3-6-2012 kh/rlr 02-14-12 3:49 PM H.B. 148

90 Section 4. Section 63L-6-104 is enacted to read: 91 63L-6-104. Severability clause. 92 If any provision of this chapter or the application of any provision to any person or 93 circumstance is held invalid by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the 94 remainder of this chapter shall be given effect without the invalid provision or application. The 95 provisions of this chapter are severable. 96 Section 5. Constitutional Defense Council study. 97 (1) During the 2012 interim, the Constitutional Defense Council created in Section 98 63C-4-101 shall prepare proposed legislation: 99 (a) creating a public lands commission to: 100 (i) administer the transfer of title of public lands to the state; and 101 (ii) address the management of public lands and the management of multiple uses of 102 public lands, including addressing managing open space, access to public lands, local planning, 103 and the sustainable yield of natural resources on public lands; 104 (b) to establish actions that shall be taken to secure, preserve, and protect the state's 105 rights and benefits related to the United States' duty to have extinguished title to public lands, 106 in the event that the United States does not meet the requirements of Title 63L, Chapter 6, 107 Transfer of Public Lands Act; 108 (c) making any necessary modifications to the definition of "public lands" in Section 109 63L-6-102 ÖÖÖººº , including any necessary modifications to a list provided in Subsections 109a 63L-6-102(3)(e) through (h) »»»ÖÖÖ ; 110 (d) making a determination of or a process for determining interests, rights, or uses 111 related to: 112 (i) easements; 113 (ii) geothermal resources; 114 (iii) grazing; 115 (iv) mining; 115a ÖÖÖººº (v) natural gas; 115b (vi) oil; »»»ÖÖÖ 116 ÖÖÖººº [(v)] (vii) »»»ÖÖÖ recreation; 117 ÖÖÖººº [(vi)] (viii) »»»ÖÖÖ rights of entry; 118 ÖÖÖººº [(vii)] (ix) »»»ÖÖÖ special uses; 119 ÖÖÖººº [(viii)] (x) »»»ÖÖÖ timber; 120 ÖÖÖººº [(ix)] (xi) »»»ÖÖÖ water; or

- 4 - Senate 2nd Reading Amendments 3-6-2012 kh/rlr H.B. 148 02-14-12 3:49 PM

121 Öººº [(x)] (xii) »»»ÖÖÖ other natural resources or other resources; ÖÖÖººº and »»»ÖÖÖ 122 ÖÖÖººº [(e) to establish the conditions under which the state shall cede a national park to the 123 United States, which may include: 124 (i) any circumstances under which a national park shall revert to the state; 125 (ii) the retention of interests, rights, or uses described in Subsection (1)(d); and 126 (iii) whether the state should retain any power to: 127 (A) impose a tax, fee, or charge on activities conducted within a national park; or 128 (B) serve civil or criminal process on a person who is within the boundaries of a 129 national park; 130 (f) to preserve as wilderness public lands that, on January 1, 2012, are designated as 131 part of the National Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 132 U.S.C. Sec. 1131 et seq.; and 133 (g)] (e) »»»ÖÖÖ determining what constitutes "expenses incident to the sale of public lands" 134 described in Subsection 63L-6-102(2). 135 (2) During the 2012 interim, the Constitutional Defense Council created in Section 136 63C-4-101 shall study and determine whether to prepare proposed legislation: 137 (a) to administer the process for: 138 (i) the United States to extinguish title to public lands; 139 (ii) the state to receive title to public lands from the United States; or 140 (iii) the state to transfer title to any public lands the state receives in accordance with 141 Title 63L, Chapter 6, Transfer of Public Lands Act; 142 (b) establishing a prioritized list of management actions for the state and the political 143 subdivisions of the state to perform on public lands: 144 (i) before and after the United States extinguishes title to public lands; and 145 (ii) to preserve and promote the state's interest in: 146 (A) protecting public health and safety; 147 (B) preventing catastrophic wild fire and forest insect infestation; 148 (C) preserving watersheds; 149 (D) preserving and enhancing energy and the production of minerals; 150 (E) preserving and improving range conditions; and 151 (F) increasing plant diversity and reducing invasive weeds on range and woodland

- 5 - Senate 2nd Reading Amendments 3-6-2012 kh/rlr 02-14-12 3:49 PM H.B. 148

152 portions of the public lands; 153 (c) establishing procedures and requirements for subjecting public lands to property 154 taxation; 155 (d) establishing other requirements related to national forests, ÖÖÖººº [national monuments,] 155a »»»ÖÖÖ 156 national recreation areas, or other public lands administered by the United States; and 157 (e) addressing the indemnification of a political subdivision of the state for actions 158 taken in furtherance of Title 63L, Chapter 6, Transfer of Public Lands Act. 159 (3) The Constitutional Defense Council may study any other issue related to public 160 lands as determined by the Constitutional Defense Council. 161 (4) The Constitutional Defense Council shall: 162 (a) make a preliminary report on its study and preparation of proposed legislation to the 163 Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee ÖÖÖººº and the Education 163a Interim Committee »»»ÖÖÖ : 164 (i) on or before the June 2012 interim meeting; and 165 (ii) on or before the September 2012 interim meeting; and 166 (b) report on its findings, recommendations, and proposed legislation to the Natural 167 Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee ÖÖÖººº and the Education Interim 167a Committee »»»ÖÖÖ on or before the November 2012 168 interim meeting. 169 Section 6. Effective date. 170 If approved by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, this bill takes effect 171 upon approval by the governor, or the day following the constitutional time limit of Utah 172 Constitution Article VII, Section 8, without the governor's signature, or in the case of a veto, 173 the date of veto override.

Legislative Review Note as of 2-14-12 12:40 PM

As required by legislative rules and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill. The note is based on an analysis of relevant state and federal constitutional law as applied to the bill. The note is not written for the purpose of influencing whether the bill should become law, but is written to provide information relevant to legislators' consideration of this bill. The note is not a substitute for the judgment of the judiciary, which has authority to determine the constitutionality of a law in the context of a specific case.

- 6 - Senate 2nd Reading Amendments 3-6-2012 kh/rlr H.B. 148 02-14-12 3:49 PM

This bill enacts the Transfer of Public Lands Act, which requires the United States to extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to public lands to the state on or before December 31, 2014. If challenged, this bill raises questions of who has the right to dispose of and possess the land held by the United States.

The "Property Clause" of the Constitution of the United States authorizes Congress "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . ." U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that "Congress has the same power over [territory] as over any other property belonging to the United States; and this power is vested in Congress without limitation . . ." United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. 526, 537 (1840). See also Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539 (1976). Pursuant to its broad authority under the Property Clause, Congress may enact legislation to manage or sell federal land, and any legislation Congress enacts "necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause." Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 543. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that "[w]ith respect to the public domain, the Constitution vests in Congress the power of disposition and of making all needful rules and regulations. That power is subject to no limitations. Congress has the absolute right to prescribe the times, the conditions, and the mode of transferring this property, or any part of it, and to designate the persons to whom the transfer shall be made. No State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise; and to prevent the possibility of any attempted interference with it, a provision has been usually inserted in the compacts by which new States have been admitted to the Union, that such interference with the primary disposal of the soil of the United States shall never be made." Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92 (1872).

The Transfer of Public Lands Act requires that the United States extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to those public lands to Utah by a date certain. Under the Gibson case, that requirement would interfere with Congress' power to dispose of public lands. Thus, that requirement, and any attempt by Utah in the future to enforce the requirement, have a high probability of being declared unconstitutional.

Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel

- 7 - nationalatlas.gov TM ARIZONA Where We Are Glen Canyon NRA Lake Pipe Spring Kaibab Vermilion Powell IR FEDERAL LANDS AND NM Cliffs Page Navajo Grand Canyon NM NM Kayenta INDIAN RESERVATIONS National Game Preserve NEVADA Kaibab Navajo Kaibab NF Indian Reservation NF Bureau of Indian Affairs Grand Canyon- Lake Mead NRA Lake Parashant Grand Canyon Ri NP Bureau of Land Management / Mead NM Havasupai Grand Canyon v National Park Chinle Canyon de Chelly NM Wilderness e IR Lake Mead r Lit Lake Mead Grand Canyon Bureau of Reclamation NRA tle NRA Kaibab NF Hopi Polacca Department of Defense Indian Reservation Hualapai (includes Army Corps of Engineers lakes) Indian Reservation Window Rock Lake WupatkiC Navajo Fish and Wildlife Service / Wilderness NM o Indian Reservation Mohave Coconino lo Kaibab NF ra Lake Mead Navajo Army Depot NF d Forest Service / Wilderness NRA o Kingman (Closed) Flagstaff Sunset Crater Volcano NM Bullhead V National Park Service / Wilderness e Naval Obervation Station Walnut Canyon NM City rd Winslow Petrified Forest Fort Mojave IR e National Park Prescott Tuzigoot NM Holbrook Some small sites are not shown, especially in NF R urban areas. Havasu Coconino iv NWR Prescott er Lake NF Camp Verde IR NF MILES Havasu Lake Havasu City 0 25 50 75 100 Yavapai Prescott R Montezuma Castle NM St Johns NEW MEXICO Bill Williams River IR iv Albers equal area projection CALIFORNIA e Sitgreaves NF NWR Agua r Alamo Fria Payson Show Low Lake NM Abbreviations Parker Tonto Colorado River Horseshoe Res Wickenburg Fort Apache AFB Air Force Base Indian Reservation National Forest Apache o Indian Reservation IR Indian Reservation Bartlett Res National Forest d Saguaro NCA National Conservation Area a Canyon Theodore Roosevelt Lake r Fort McDowell IR Lake NF National Forest o Luke AFB Salt River IR Lake l Tonto NM NHP National Historic Park o Apache San Carlos NHS National Historical Site C Phoenix Scottsdale Lake Indian Reservation NM National Monument Kofa Tempe Mesa Globe NP National Park Cibola NWR NWR Hohokam Pima NM Chandler Superior NRA National Recreation Area NWR National Wildlife Refuge Imperial Gila River IR Gila Imperial Reservoir Gila Bend IR Sonoran Desert Florence Clifton Res Reservoir Military Reservation R NWR Yuma National iv Gila Bend Maricopa er Proving Ground Monument IR Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Safford Yuma Eloy Gila Box Riparian Barry M. Goldwater National Conservation Cocopah Yuma Air Force Range Area IR Marine Corps Coronado National Forest Air Station Ironwood Forest NM Oro Valley Cabeza Prieta Ajo Willcox Dry Lake National Wildlife Refuge Saguaro NP Bombing Range M Willcox Fort Bowie EX Tohono O'odham Tucson NHS Organ Pipe Cactus San Xavier I Indian Reservation Chiricahua NM BAJA C NM IR Davis-Monthan AFB O Lukeville Air Force Benson Plant No. 44 CALIFORNIA Coronado National Forest Tumacacori Coronado NHP San Pedro Riparian Buenos Aires National NWR NCA Sierra Vista Leslie Canyon Forest SONORA Coronado Coronado Fort NWR Gulf of NF Nogales NF Huachuca Douglas California Coronado National Memorial San Bernardino NWR

U.S. Department of the Interior OR U.S. Geological Survey The National Atlas of the United States of America

pagefed_az7.pdf INTERIOR-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA-2003

National Association of Counties *The American County Platform and Resolutions 2013‐2014 136

• Designates specific USFS land, or natural resources on specific USFS land, outside of wilderness designations to be managed by the states on behalf of counties and schools according to state land management practices and federal and state laws as they apply to state land; • Allocates revenues generated from the management of these designated lands to all forest counties with the participating state using a mutually agreed upon formula; • Establishes a management board of county commissioners submitted by a state association of counties (or comparable), and appointed by the governor for each participating state; and Allows the USFS to maintain ownership and fire management responsibility of the land. Adopted July 22, 2013

Resolution Supporting Emergency Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects

Issue: Supporting Emergency Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects Adopted Policy: NACo supports specific components of HR 818, the "Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention Act," which gives states the authority to identify areas afflicted by the bark beetle epidemic, drought, deteriorating forest health conditions, and high risk of wildfires and to put in place emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects. Adopted July 22, 2013

Resolution on Hazardous Fuels Emergency

Issue: Accumulation of biomass on federal lands. Adopted Policy: NACo calls on Congress to grant a Governor the authority to declare a state of emergency when the severity of fire danger from fuels on identified federal lands within that state poses a significant threat to public health and safety. Adopted July 22, 2013

Resolution Supporting Reintroduction of the Community Forestry Conservation Act of 2011 and the Use of Community Forestry Bonds

Issue: Authorizing the use of municipal debt (Community Forestry Bonds) as a tool to help keep working forests in communities across the nation. Adopted Policy: NACo supports the reintroduction and passage of The Community Forestry Conservation Act of 2011. Adopted July 22, 2013 Resolution Supporting the Full and Immediate Implementation of the Transfer of Public Lands Issue: Transfer of public lands Adopted Policy: NACo believes all fifty states are equal and that every state should receive everything that was promised to them in their enabling acts, including land transfers, if requested by an individual state with consultation with the affected counties. Adopted July 22, 2013

Resolution Supporting an Amendment to the Antiquities Act to Require Congressional Approval and NEPA Review Before a Presidential National Monument Proclamation Becomes Effective

Issue: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and congressional approval prior to establishment of a national monument

*To view the complete document, http://www.naco.org/legislation/Documents/American-County-Platform-and-Resolutions-2013-2014.pdf

CSA Proposal Analysis September 19, 2013

1. Special District Fees – Yavapai County o Proposal: Expand the fee authority to include both capacity and use fees for domestic water and domestic wastewater improvement districts. o Background:

o Currently, domestic water and wastewater improvement districts (DWIDs) provide water to a user and take waste water away from residents. Assessments for these functions may be based on property taxes and DWIDs may assess a fee based on a system’s capacity or on a system’s availability.

o If a user does not pay their property taxes, their delinquency would result in a lien being placed on their property. Delinquencies for failure to pay fees result in a secondary lien, paid after other liens are paid off.

o This system works if a DWID is based on property taxes for operation and maintenance costs. Property owners pay the associated fees with their taxes and failure to do so results a lien on the property. However, some DWIDs base their budgets solely on the capacity or availability fee. Since these are liens for essential services they are inferior to general tax liens.

o Allowing Domestic water/wastewater districts to follow the same procedure as sanitary districts will assure that the DWIDs can provide the needed services that the district was formed to provide. o Coconino County Comments:

2. Fire District Elections – Yavapai County o Proposal: The proposal aligns a fire district’s reorganization election process to those of other nominations and elections in statute. o Background:

o Statute delineates the process a fire district is required to follow in order to reorganize from a district governed by an elected chief and secretary-treasurer to a district administered by a district board of three members, or to expand the size of the district board from three to five members.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 1

o If the reorganization is to go from three to five members, the only option for new board members to take their seat is through write-in.

o Changing the statute will require candidates to follow the same guidelines for nomination as set forth in Title 16. o Coconino County Comments:

o According to the County Recorder, Coconino County hasn’t had this situation arise during the past 10 years but this legislation fixes a problem and should be supported. It makes sense to have all candidates running for a fire district board to follow the procedures in Title 16.

3. Court Ordered Evaluations; Federal Payments – Yavapai County o Proposal: Adjust state statute to reflect the state’s ability to seek federal payment for Court Ordered Evaluations, shifting the county from payer of first resort to payer of last resort. o Background:

o If a person is suspected to be of danger to themselves and others; a judge may order a mental health evaluation for that person. According to current statute in Title 36 portions of this cost often fall on counties: “costs of court proceedings and cost of services provided by a county pursuant to article 4 are a charge against the county in which the patient resided or was found before hospitalization.”

o This change in statute would add language to permit federal funding and would help rural counties with the shortage of providers and to control costs by charging the rate that Medicaid providers accept for services. o Coconino County Comments:

o According to County Health Department staff, the proposed change would provide considerable financial relief for Coconino County and recommends supporting this proposal.

4. PEVL and Mail Ballot Elections – Yavapai County o Proposal: Permit a county to switch to a mailed in ballot election if 50 percent or more of their registered voters are on the county’s Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL). o Background:

o Currently, statutes allow cities, towns and school districts to call “vote by mail” elections but the procedure is not extended to counties who often administer these elections.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 2

o Voters in the same county will be required to vote in different manners in the same election possibly causing confusion.

o The legislation is permissive and allows a county to conduct elections by mail. Any county with 50% or more of their registered voters on the PEVL could conduct that election by mail with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. o Coconino County Comments:

o The County Recorder is in strong favor of this proposal. The people living in the county islands would have to go to a polling place because the county does not have the authority to conduct our elections as a vote- by-mail election. The county will be conducting the election for all of our cities and school districts because they do not have the staff and voting equipment to conduct their own elections.

o According to the Recorder, The Board of Supervisors should be making the decision about the manner in which the elections should be conducted to ensure all voters in the county will be voting in the same manner.

o An outstanding question is why CSA (and not AACO) should run this proposal.

5. Armed Forces Adoption Relief – Cochise County o Proposal: Eliminate the requirement that a child be physically present at the time a petition is filed if the petitioner or spouse is a member of the military serving abroad as long as the petitioner has lived in Arizona for at least six months before being stationed abroad. o Background:

o Adoption statutes impose an unnecessary hardship on members of the military who wish to adopt a child but are stationed abroad. ARS § 8-102 allows a child to be adopted only if the child is present in the state at the time the petition for adoption is filed.

o If a member of the military or his/her spouse wants to adopt the spouse's child, he/she must return with the child to the United States. The proposed change to ARS § 8-102 would eliminate the requirement that the child be physically present at the time the petition is filed if the petitioner or spouse is a member of the military serving abroad so long as the petitioner lived in Arizona for at least six months before being stationed abroad. o Coconino County Comments:

6. Fireworks – Coconino County

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 3

o Proposal: Permit counties to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in unincorporated areas of the county when Stage 1 fire restrictions are put in place by a federal or state agency. o Background:

o In the 49th Regular Session, legislation was passed and signed into law that would allow the sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks, unless otherwise regulated by a governing body.

o The statute allowed an “incorporated city or town to regulate the use of permissible consumer fireworks within its corporate limits,” but only allowed a “county to regulate the use of permissible consumer fireworks in unincorporated areas when there is a reasonable risk of wildfires within the county.”

o Change in statute would provide the County Board of Supervisors the option to regulate the use and sale of fireworks when the Forest Service issues Stage 1 Fire Restrictions.

o The irreparable damage that fires cause is well substantiated in Coconino County and throughout Arizona. Amending this statute would provide a common sense solution, tying the regulation of consumer fireworks to restrictions that are based on science. o Coconino County Comments:

o In the past counties and cities have supported a similar effort. Representatives of the fireworks industry have opposed past efforts, however, this common sense approach follows current procedures already in place on stage restrictions during wildfire season.

7. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax– Coconino County o Proposal: Raise the state motor vehicle fuel tax for transportation. o Background:

o There is currently a $0.18 cents per gallon state gas tax on all motor vehicle fuels used, possessed or consumed.

o This fuel tax has not been increased in Arizona since 1991, not reflecting inflation. With more high- efficiency vehicles on the road, and the public driving less, revenues coming into the state are decreasing. At the same time, HURF revenues to counties have consistently declined in the past five years, while the need to fund road maintenance increases. o Coconino County Comments:

o This concept has started to be discussed throughout the state and country. Over 20 years of stagnant gas taxes has crippled transportation revenue for counties. Other stakeholders include the AZ League of Cities and Towns, Arizona Contractors Association, AZ Dept. of Transportation and the Arizona Truckers Association. 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 4

8. Administrator; Indigent Legal Services – Coconino County o Proposal: Codify the county’s practices of collaborating with courts to appoint an administrator to oversee the contracting and costs of indigent legal services. o Background:

o Statutes provide indigent criminal defendants and others entitled to counsel the right to investigators and expert witnesses, as well as procedures for administering it. The statutes specifically state that compensation for these services “shall be at such rates as the County contracts for them.”

o Some Counties have collaborated with their courts to authorize an administrator to oversee these expenses, but it is not codified. This proposal will codify this authority in statute, making it permissive for counties.

o Administrators are in the best position to gather information regarding requests from indigent parties for investigators or experts and determining reasonable compensation.

o The appointment of administrators to oversee indigent legal services results in a more efficient use of public resources and creates a less-cumbersome mechanism for initially reviewing and approving service requests o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County supports the codification of an administrator for indigent defendants. This proposal allows for more complete vetting of the requests, which will save resources. It should also improve the time for processing cases through the court system. Other stake holders include the Arizona Office of Courts and the Arizona Association of Counties

9. Group Home Disbursement Rate –Coconino County o Proposal: Restore the amount paid to the state for residents of group homes from 88 percent to 70 percent. o Background:

o In 2010, SB 1011; the Welfare Budget Reconciliation Act changed statutory language to raise the amount of income paid to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) on behalf of residents of group homes from 70% of benefits to 88% of benefits.

o The change in statute impacted wards of County Public Fiduciary offices that are developmentally- disabled and live in group homes. Due to this change in state statute, most wards have been left with just $80/month to cover all of their needs.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 5

o Changing the benefit amount to wards not only impacts the people living in group homes, but also Public Fiduciary Offices, which are mandated by state law and funded solely by counties. These offices are authorized by law to collect fees for their services.

o Under the current regulations, counties are challenged with collecting fees from individuals (and recouping costs) from individuals who have no funds. Therefore, fees go uncollected, presenting yet another unfunded mandate to counties. o Coconino County Comments:

o The positive impact of the proposal is primarily increasing the quality of life for the wards being adversely affected by the reduced benefits. Counties could benefit and collect the monthly Public Fiduciary fees, thereby reducing the costs of the state mandated service as well. There will be and impact on the DES budget.

o The Public Fiduciaries of Pima, Pinal, Navajo, Yavapai, Gila, Cochise, Mohave, Yuma and La Paz Counties are in favor of this proposal.

10. The Arizona State Lake Improvement Fund – Mohave County o Proposal: Require the state parks to distribute fifty percent of the Arizona State Lake Improvement Fund to local governments to fund projects on waters where gasoline powered boats are permitted. o Background:

o Arizona State Parks has withheld the Arizona State Lake Improvement Fund to local governments for its own use since 2009.

o Under current statute, counties are entitled to these funds but Arizona State Parks has suspended the grant program in which counties could apply for the funds. o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County Parks and Recreation currently does not own or manage any bodies of water where gas powered boats are allowed and the County doesn’t anticipate any additions in the foreseeable future. However Parks and Recreation staff recommends support for this proposal.

11. County Attorney; Civil Action– La Paz County o Proposal: It is proposed that legislation be presented that amends A.R.S. §11-531 through §11-539 to reflect that a County Board of Supervisors is empowered to hire and appoint “county counsel” for civil legal representation to the Board, its departments, officers, and board and commissions. o Background:

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 6

o Statutes mandate that the elected County Attorney shall be the public prosecutor, as well as the civil legal adviser and representative to the Board of Supervisors and its departments. As a result of these dual representative duties, the attorney-client relationship in this particular government context involve unique rules and present a complex situation with potential conflicts and difficult ethical conundrums predominately relating to the County Attorney’s ethical responsibilities to his “client.”

o Due to the hazy and sometimes confusing attorney-client relationship the potential to erode the constitutional separation of powers that exist between the legislative and executive branches of County government is ever present. o Coconino County Comments:

12. County Seals – Gila County o Proposal: Amend state statute to protect the integrity of county seals and preventing unauthorized use. o Background:

o There have been instances when County seals have appeared on campaign literature from candidates for County office during elections. This practice may give citizens the impression the mailing was from the County, giving a false impression of official County business and/or an endorsement. o Coconino County Comments:

o The Coconino County Manager’s Office advocates that the County supports this proposal. Individual counties should have control over the use of their seals but questions who would enforce this.

13. County Flexibility Language – Navajo County o Proposal: Renew the use of the “flexibility language” as session law, to allow counties to use any source of county revenue to meet a county fiscal obligation for FY 2015. o Background:

o This proposal would give the Board of Supervisors authority to use revenues from secondary districts to fulfill a county fiscal obligation. o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County supports this proposal.

14. County Abatement and Property Liens – Mohave County

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 7

Proposal: Amend ARS 42.18204 to include County Liens for nuisance abatements corrected pursuant to Title 36 Chs 1 & 6, and County liens for dangerous building abatement done in accordance with Section 110 of the international Property Maintenance Code, as not being extinguished by foreclosure of the right to redeem property taxes. o Background:

o Investors purchase tax liens on properties on which the County then spends or has spent tax dollars to abate nuisances and/or dangerous building, then foreclose the right to redeem and the improved property free of the County’s lien(s). Including these liens as not being extinguished protects the County’s investment in abating the nuisance and/or dangerous buildings. o Coconino County Comments:

o Coconino County Community Development is in support of this proposal. When properties that the County has a certain lien on go into foreclosure, the County can’t recoup that money because these liens on the foreclosed property would be extinguished. The proposal would change statute so those liens wouldn’t be extinguished and the County could recover the money on that lien.

15. Tuberculosis Monitoring – La Paz County o Proposal: Amend A.R.S. §36-104, §36-714, §36-717, §36-726 and §36-727 to remove the county financial responsibility for tuberculosis (TB) monitoring, treatment and prevention and shift the financial responsibility to the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS).

o Background:

o Current statute requires counties to be responsible for the monitoring, treatment and prevention of tuberculosis in their community. Each county (and the Navajo Nation) receives a base level of funding annually and then additional dollars are distributed based on a formula that takes into account TB morbidity.

o In 2009, the DHS budget was cut, including the annual funding for TB monitoring, treatment and prevention. In 2009 Coconino County received $18,476 for TB and in FY 2013 the County received $12,000.

o This proposal would shift funding to a direct billing process so the counties can be reimbursed for the actual costs of identifying and caring for TB patients. o Coconino County Comments:

o The Coconino County Department of Health supports this legislation. The TB program coordinator in the County spent approximately 20% of their time working on TB cases this year although the $12,000 the County received from the state covered only 15% of the payroll. Coconino County would get more 219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 8

money from a direct billing model because the County TB program workload includes patients who are not residents of Coconino County and are not included in Coconino County’s TB statistics because the Flagstaff Medical Center (FMC) is a regional medical center.

16. Transfer of Public Lands– La Paz County o Proposal: Enact legislation similar to Utah HB148, Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) demanding that the Federal Government extinguish title to certain federal lands in Arizona. o Background:

o According to the Arizona State Lands Department, the federal government owns more than 30 million acres of land (not including tribal lands) in Arizona, which amounts to approximately 42.1 percent of the land in the state.

o At the center of this proposal is whether or not the federal government has a duty to dispose of federal land holdings to the state. The discussion identifies the enabling act crafted when Arizona was granted statehood in 1912 as a basis for which to argue for the lands return.

o Proponents also cite constitutional doctrine of “equal footing” as a basis for their efforts.

o The fiscal impact for the counties as well as the state is undeterminable. While some resources at the state level would be needed to address new administrative and managerial responsibilities, proponents argue that putting Arizona land to beneficial use would be revenue positive for the state and its political subdivisions. o Coconino County Comments:

o The Coconino County Board of Supervisors has opposed this legislation in the past. In 2012, when this legislation was passed by the legislature and subsequently vetoed by the Governor, the Board of Supervisors opposed the legislation.

219 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4627 | Phone: 928.679.7134 | Fax: 928.679.7171 | www.coconino.az.gov 9 C. Roundtable: To be discussed (Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02H – These matters will not be acted upon):

o District 1 – Supervisor Babbott o District 2 – Supervisor Archuleta o District 3 – Supervisor Ryan o District 4 – Supervisor Metzger o District 5 – Supervisor Fowler o Other