CANYON CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
OPERATIONAL PLAN
JULY, 1986
COMPILED BY SUE MORGENSEN
INTERAGENCY/CITIZEN MEMBERS
This plan was completed by an interagency/citizen team in response to providing a comprehensive management direction for the stretch of Canyon Creek from the spring source to the Fort Apache Indian Reservation Boundary.
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
Jim Burton, Habitat Evaluation Coordinator Dave Carrothers, Wildlife Manager Richard Cavenaugh, Region VI Fisheries Assistant Russ Haughey, Region VI Fisheries Assistant Sue Morgensen, Region VI Habitat Specialist Bill Silvey, Fish Management Supervisor Don Turner, Region VI Supervisor Jim Warnecke, Region VI Fish Specialist (Team Leader)
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
Gary Bell, Zone Fisheries Biologist Larry Forbis, Wildlife Management Biologist Richard Martin, Hydrologist Keith Menasco, Zone Biologist Buck McKinney, Range Conservationist, P.V.R.D. Dave Stewart, Staff Officer Denise Van Kueren, Range and Wildlife Staff, P.V.R.D.
TROUT UNLIMITED
Bill Davies, Zane Grey Chapter President Gary Carpenter, Zane Grey Chapter
OTHERS CONSULTED
John Caffrey, District Ranger, P.V.R.D. Clare Chalkley, Range Conservationist, Apache-Sitgreaves N.F. Gary Davis, Anglers United Edwin Delph, OW Ranch Owner Norris Dodd, Region I Habitat Specialist, AGFD Dwight Joy, OW Ranch Manager Patrick McCoy, Recreational Staff, P.V.R.D. Bruce Mortensen, Range Technician, Apache-Sitgreaves N.F. Mel Wilhelm, Zone Biologist, Apache-Sitgreaves N.F.
This approach was based on systematic planning concepts. Activities were initiated in October 1986 and completed by May, 1986.
,/..'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
Goal Statement
Operational Plan
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Canyon Creek Description 4
1.11 Current Management 6
1.12 Public Demand 7
1.13 Stream Problems 8
1.2 Team Composition 9
1.3 Goal Statement 9
2.0 Environmental Inventory 11
2.1 Data Base Review 11 2.11 Watershed 11 2.111 Timber 13
2.112 Grazing 16 2.113 Recreation and Roads 20
2.12 Soils 22
2.13 Hydrology 23 2.2 Supplemental Inventory 26 2.21 Models 27 2.22 Methodology 27 2.221 Map of Reaches 27 2.222 Results 29 2.3 Discussion 29 3.0 Management Operational Plan 37 3.1 Solutions 37 3.11 Solutions by Locations 37 3.12 Priorities 38 3.2 Additional Inventory Needs 40 3.3 Implementation 1 41 3.31 Costs 41 3.32 Priorities and Locations 41 3.33 Structural Designs 42 3.34 NEPA Compliance 43 3.4 Monitoring Program 43
References 47
11 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE NO. NO.
1 DRAINAGE MAP OF CANYON CREEK AND SALT RIVER WITH 2 INSET MAP OF CANYON AND MULE CREEK STUDY AREA. 2 FOREST SERVICE ROAD MAP SHOWING CANYON AND MULE 5 CREEKS IN RELATION TO YOUNG, AZ. 3 WATERSHED ASSOCIATED WITH CANYON AND MULE CREEKS. 12 4 PROPOSED CUTTING UNITS FOR THE CANYON CREEK AND 14 VALENTINE TIMBER SALES. 5 PROPOSED TIMBER HAUL ROADS TO BE USED FOR THE 15 CANYON CREEK AND VALENTINE TIMBER SALES. 6 OW RANCH GRAZING ALLOTMENT, PASTURES AND 17 IMPROVEMENTS. 7 CANYON CREEK STUDY AREA, REACHES 1-7. 28 8 ELEVATIONAL CHANGES (MEAN FEET ABOVE SEA 30 LEVEL) FOR 7 REACHES ON CANYON CREEK.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE NO. NO.
1 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CANYON CREEK. 25 2 CANYON CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT EVALUATION PROJECT, 31-32 COMPARISON OF OPTIMUM CONDITIONS TO CANYON CREEK CONDITIONS BY REACH. 3 CANYON CREEK PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS BY REACH. 33-34 4 LIMITING FACTORS BY REACHES (PRIORITY 1-6). 36 5 SOLUTIONS, REACHES 2-6. 39
iii Severe bank erosion at Canyon Creek. Photo by Sue Morgensen
SUMMARY
GOAL STATEMENT
To manage the Canyon Creek drainage above the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, emphasizing brown trout and a native fish forage base. Management direction is to produce a quality "Blue Ribbon" brown and rainbow trout fishery by
1991, and to manage it appropriately thereafter through riparian management, modified stocking strategies, and restrictive fishing regulations.
OPERATIONAL PLAN
PRIORITY ACTION COST 1. Finish Implementation Plan & E.A. 10 person-days 2. Fence Riparian pasture $20,000 3. Beaver Trapping $3,000/yr 4. Monitoring: a. Thermographs $4,200 b. Crest Stage Gauges $1,300 c. Automatic Sediment Samples 30 person-days 5. Riparian Vegetation Planting: a. Cottonwood Poles $6,000/mi b. Modified Cottonwood Poles $10,000/mi VC•1 c. Experimental - summer $5,000 ZAA-F ? d. Experimental - alder $5,000 sycamore $5,000 6. Cutbank Modification and Seeding $5,000/location (12 locations) 7. Structural Enhancement of Pools $7,000/mi 8. Monitoring: d. Macroinvertebrates $600 and 2 person- days/yr e. Summer plantings 4 person-days/yr f. Cutbank modifications 4 person-days/yr g. Fisheries Surveys 16 person-days/yr h. Cover/Photo Points 40 person-days 9. Finish Mule Creek Inventory 6-9 person-days/ 10. Manage Mule Creek under same restrictions as Canyon Creek 2 person-days 11. Close FR 188 $3,000 and build new road to OW $15,000 12. Maintain & Expand Pole Fence 200 person-days 13. Install Headgate at OW Ranch $3,500 14. Study Sinkholes on Rim $50,000/3 yrs 15. Modify Fisheries Regulations 3 person-days 16. Evaluate Success/Revise Plan 20 person-days Canyon Creek. Photo by Sue Morgensen CHAPTER 1.0. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, there has been considerable interest in angling and recreational opportunities at Canyon Creek on the Tonto National Forest. This coldwater stream originates beneath the Mogollon Rim and flows southwards through the
Forest and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation into the Salt
River (Fig. 1).
Canyon Creek was isolated until the late 1970's when the Forest Service improved access and camping facilities.
Prior to this, public use was low and the creek was described in 1963 as one of the better brown and rainbow trout fisheries in the state. Natural reproduction and supplemental stocking of rainbow trout maintained the fishery. In 1962 the Arizona Game and Fish Department wanted public access to the upper half of the creek at the
OW Ranch. The land along the lower half of the creek was owned at that time by a group of sportsmen. They agreed that if a fly-fishing only regulation was enacted, they would allow public access. So in 1963, fly fishing only was passed by the AGF Commission and public access was allowed. Since then, the Forest Service has acquired this land from private ownership. In 1986, management was changed to include artifical lures in addition to flies.
1 fltoreil,A Lake von Figure 1. Drainage map of Canyon Creek and Salt River with inset map of Canyon and Mule Creek study area.
7055. ors. Mtn ColcocdM
Round M Canyon CP°14m • utte Spr. 2 .=" < ARM
shotverb
NJ C Pk 7 • 7
Jrrkln ,nte 7595 • 1 170 '
) 574/•.;
meter Pk c dore 60. ke
Block /A lAA Public use has increased over the years from 14,000 Recreation Visitor Days (RVD's) in 1970 to 66,500 in 1985. The Forest Service expects it to double again by the year 2025. This dramatic increase in public use has affected fishing activites at Canyon Creek. In 1981, 6,600 angler days were spent on Canyon Creek and the average catch was 1.5 trout per angler per day. Angler harvest is maintained by annual stockings of 5-10,000 catchable rainbow trout and occassional stockings of fingerling brown trout. There are several problems associated with Canyon Creek which keeps it from becoming a self-sustaining system. This operational plan identifies those problems and proposes methods to minimize or alleviate them where possible. The following operational plan for the Canyon Creek Aquatic Habitat Improvement Project was developed as a cooperative effort between the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF), the Tonto National Forest (TNF) and interested public angling clubs, such as Trout Unlimited (TU) and Anglers United (AU). It is in compliance with the Cold Water Strategic Plan (AGF) and the Tonto National Forest Plan (TNF). It is meant to provide comprehensive management direction for the stretch of Canyon Creek from the spring source to the Fort Apache Indian Reservation Boundary. 3 1.1. CANYON CREEK DESCRIPTION The headwaters of Canyon and Mule Creeks lie about 16 and 18 miles respectively, northeast of the town of Young, in Gila County, Arizona (Fig. 2). Canyon Creek is a tributary of the Salt River with a total drainage area of approximately 325 square miles) Perennial flow originates from several springs located in the streambed and from limestone sinks located immediately north and east on the Mogollon Plateau. At this time, water and sediment load from the upper watershed can only be speculated on as no studies are available to show the amount and type of input from this source. Mule Creek is a first- order tributary to Canyon Creek. Flows in these high elevation (6200-6500 ft) streams are sustained by a bimodal precipitation pattern which delivers about 24 to 32 inches of mean annual precipitation. Available stream-flow data indicates that peak discharge occurs as spring runnoff, primarily during the months of February through April. Major plant communities which surround Canyon Creek include a dominant Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest interspersed with Gambel oak (Quercus gambelli), meadows, and riparian associations. Riparian vegetation commonly 4 ▪ Figure 2. Forest Service Road Map showing Canyon and Mule Creeks (upper right) in relation to Young, Az. (lower left). I wpowiShRligg, 1 Military c.Lalce Three, - k •0 ,t • / 25 30,0 Fts / BMX Nii 0. „--( et 1: 10 r*. j - + -;.-= +. \ 1 Creek I ' D I ‘ 1 \ ' I I•-'..--• GO - 12 - -:.- , A. -• ; L 1 , 17 : r,q ... 7, ' 15 % . ,.... i., CO ...... "----.. 15 1 \ ' X BM • ',... " Ia 5297 - .4 ,.. I 4' 1 '. ' /4, \ -...... ,0 Walnut ' -1-., +>■,. _ BM 4 Spr 6707 cn 11 6 . -20 ,x.,_222 1 ,..-.70 , k / d, sie - ''' r r j:T.,73r,L+ -3 t5 - / ' ''''''• r.7-5.:76( +—',..:- 14Redman Cave 'lit / „./ . aunders 6 /Trick reek 3.31 /it Mcp ./ ... ..V':: .. 358 Grove 4 Spr 4/ 37/ i Spr. Sill Round e , . 29 - do ) ,P 29; Mtn .1 . 'iN ' • 3 J ROUND /' •,k ‘i .. 4 / II / 6572 "4 -=-4 - - I/L- 1 - ± (%) 1 + 77, 1 FMcInturt- + 7i • X 64 11_03A1 1 1 ,1 1/ `,..;•./ Tolck Tank. Or 36 g ,. 02 t #.„. z Eke ...- 1.... ii , okrie Cr eek' // 31 ) \ a si't!il 32 f 34' '.' ‘ .. 33 3 mom‘-) .11 %/ ...Merl ...... %_ ../1 4- ••••..p• 4. 31 `. / 4;•'" 1 I , Airsirtii•, 1 ...... * I ER C ! yolkyfS+ , \\ + + + rc;( em x Gruwell rry am) Tck,, • 6455 ;) . 5636 Spr 0 Cr 620 6oBrome / 288 3 ' - I ' Trick fonk / Spri / 1.11 (1 l .). 1 0 I 7 Sheep I BM I if . -'•••• LLI I 7 1 k „ Spr I X 5671 1, SlideoSpr rojt % . 11° lost"- Ou nn ng h a I , . 7.1•• I CROUCH ."=// I i t T. Spr Pond I" . wei • + 7 - ek . I'Ve ‘ '-• . 7 4-- Cre if 1 ick Tank I .. ( , +' .•;T- - I Bm I v /pi il I 1 11 • ( ( 1 5 ta 19 Suites II , • I t 5968 , 4 n .. t. / . , 14 '13 ...' " •Y le- 4 ) •` 11 Ak1i :•: 1: • .. \ eP :. 1 41/4) ;1 MAA f I .419 • Q • I to • s3ux , + S .+111.11e. ,R :2 f .,I 5' 5 6 4' GenkY\ 24 1 • • /21 a 20 a aX ••• I l . - O' I 9 " Gentry Y8 G • k • I t I I se4 , I +, -f- - - i "19s4.• f 'i ., I SI1 ell ,,;,S,x4.6H38EL: 27TIP :I ni:: ANT)'1 /— I 25 20i VALLEY > 2e Scarlet 21' () I 30 , 29 'Mtn - SHELL , I I _ * si II 7 Pleas 29 h Spr • 1 rewer / I . ; 1.----,a . 1 !:. • t, Gentry .. • s:- *.., Cr ek I Spr ,• .. 5. ,,..,... __ . , I:3 ,4 r" 7 =-1 HE, — ±--- + a Phie4..+ -79;---; -17,--. 5.2 , 1 Spr ,I e - s.'Pr 33 I ,j'C/-1..15* 5764 -I 3. - ?31 C ' 35 .: /1 / - 35) 31 '32 % •34 , c '' ) C - 5380 II "Divided ) 4 0 Spr • Cr . 6 0 , 1 / 6's • • ‘• Boundary s.„, " - - --:. -- ..1-...-..--...... 1.—. —...... 1-1 "-fir i 5 found along stream courses include narrow-leafed cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia), willows (Salix spp.) and alders (Alnue spp.). Riparian vegetative communities have been seriously depleted by past land use practices and their future recovery may be jeopardized by beaver (Castor canadensis) activites. The drainage is adversely influenced by both logging, livestock grazing and heavy recreation use. Timber sales are planned within the drainage basin in 1987 and 1988. Livestock grazing within the study area is currently managed under a 4-pasture deferred-rotation system. Since 1982, only seasonal yearling use has been permitted on this allotment. Localized soils are highly erodible, with unusually high silt contents. Current land use practices could_ — present a siltation hazard— for both Canyon Creek and Mule Creek (Kelsey, 1985). As - vA6fsc 1.11 Current Management Canyon Creek is currently managed as a 'put-and-take' rainbow trout fishery and 'basic yield' brown trout fishery. A 'put-and-take' fishery provides intensive angler use by stocking catchable size fish. A 'basic yield' 6 fishery uses natural productivity of the water to grow fish to a harvestable size. Other than Lee's Ferry on the Colorado River; Canyon Creek is the only cold water stream in Arizona that is restricted to artificial flies and lures only. Catchable rainbow trout have been stocked since 1948. Current stocking records show an average annual stocking rate of 5,780 catchable rainbow trout, 5,000 fingerling brown trout and 125 catchable brown trout. Brown trout fingerling were last stocked in 1983. A total of 26,000 finglering brown trout have been stocked since 1978. There is no known,Alatural reproduction of brown or rainbow trout in Canyon Creek at this time. Native fish species include speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and the desert sucker (Catostomus clarki). 7_- — Despite the high silt content and relatively low allochthonous (terrestrial vegetation) influx to the stream, Canyon Creek maintains acmoderate assemblage of aquatic invertebrates. Benthic samples have been collected to determine Biotic Potential Indices (BPI's) for the stream. 1.12 Public Demand Canyon Creek supports a considerable amount of angling pressure. In 1981, an estimated 6,600 angler days were spent on the creek and 10,000 catchable trout were 7 harvested. This amounts to 1.5 trout per angler per day. Considerable interest has been expressed by angling groups such as Trout Unlimited and Anglers United to produce a catch and release 'Blue Ribbon' fishery. A 'Blue Ribbon' fishery provides maximum recreation benefit through special regulations and limited harvest of large fish. Several groups have volunteered time and money towards stream improvement projects. In exploring these possibilities, it became apparent that there are several complex problems associated with current conditions in Canyon Creek. 1.13 Stream Problems Presently, there is no known reproduction of brown or \14-1D rainbow trout in Canyon Creek. Reasons and possible remedies are explored in detail in Chapters 2 and 3 of this plan. Some problems that were immediately apparent are: u‘irio _yvvs cturi\,,\ \AU^irvoC 1. Thermal loading due to lack of shade. (Lack of stream-side vegetation.) 2. High siltation levels resulting from erosion which is accelerated by various land use practices such as logging, grazing and recreation. 8 3. Lack of pools of sufficient size to grovi. out large trout. 1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION In order to identify problems and devise solutions to major aquatic problems at Canyon Creek an interagency, (AGF and TNF); and public (TU and AU) team was formed. A systematic team approach was used to develop the following operational plan from all known information. An additional mid-winter survey was conducted to obtain basic stream dynamics data. A list of participating team members is found at tFe begining of this document. Wina-k )5 4k:0- 1.3 GOAL STATEMENT The first task of the Interagency team was to decide on what goal(s) we can realistically hope to attain at Canyon Creek. This operational plan is designed to meet the following goal: "To manage the Canyon Creek drainage above the Fort Apache Indian Reservation emphasizing brown trout and native fish forage base; management direction is to determine if a catch and release brown trout and rainbow trout 'Blue Ribbon' fishery can be attained by 1991, and to manage it appropriately thereafter through riparian 9 management, modified stocking strategies and restrictive fishing regulations." Habitat survey crew at Canyon Creek. Photo by Sue Morgensen 10 CHAPTER 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY All available environmental information was reviewed by the team. The following chapter is broken into two sections. The first section reviews all known information about watershed, soil, hydrology and the impacts of historical land management practices. The second section summarizes results obtained from a mid-winter (1986) survey of Canyon Creek conducted by team members. Survey techniques are described in Burton (1986). 2.1 DATA BASE REVIEW 2.11 Watershed The Canyon Creek watershed, from its headwaters to the boundary with the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, encompasès 32.5 square miles._ Roughly half of the watershed is located above the Mogollon Rim on relatively level terrain. The remainder of the drainage area occurs below the Rim where the topography is generally much steeper (Fig. 3). One of the main tributaries to Canyon Creek within the study area is Mule Creek. This sub-watershed has an area of 11 3BO1 20' ... kr 20 - 3798 3797 3796 MW LION. 3793 1 190 000 FEET (EAST) 3790000.1.N. 14.1W 7 1 1 I 'so 000 A - 1 .4y , < -, J- ;),T •;r r ' Figure 3. Watershed associated with Canyon and Mule Creeks. 12 8.4 square miles. All of the watershed is located within the Apache- Sitgreaves (A-S) and Tonto National Forest (TNF) except for a small portion on the eastern edge which is on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation and 72 acres of private land which serves as the OW Ranch headquarters. 2.111 Timber Timber harvest is a continuous activity on both the A-S and TNF. Above the rim there is a highway salvage operation currently active along Highway 260. There are two upcoming timber sales on the A-S which will have impacts on Canyon Creek. These are the Misquito multiproducts sale in 1986 and the Sheep Creek Sale in 1988. Below the rim, saw-timber sales are scheduled for Valentine Canyon in 1987 and Canyon Creek and 1988. Approximately 10 million board feet will be offered on 842 acres. Buffer zones will be used along all riparian areas and no cutting units are located adjacent to Canyon Creek or Mule Creek (Fig. 4). The major impact from tier sales on water resources is sedimentation resulting frOM haul roads and skid trails. Figure 5 shows probable cuttMg units and haul roads that wil be used during the Valentine and Canyon Creek timber sales. 13 e'LL. 4- , - Actg.- A.TOTT-L, (A54 (). vvvtA.0--12- \ (1 c;L , C.LA.764, LOTA. \ / \ (\ / ( - I \ n ' CANYONALLNTINF TIMBER SALrc‘-5 / \/\ T) \ ' / ) kmERwmore / I / / ) -.... L.--...... /\ I / \ ...... N __/ \ N I 1 \ I N Legend: \ Cutting Unit (70 - COMP. 102.0 C. — COMP.102.03 6 cz7 - """• COMP.103.04 Figure 4. Proposed cutting units for the Canyon Creek and Valentine Timber sales 14 CVRDS" CANYON/VALENTINE TIMBER SALES LOGGING AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN ALTERNATIVE fa LEGEND SCALE=2640(FT/IN) UNIT BOUNDARY ROAD MAINTENANCE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 15 16 / ROAD CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY ROAD ) FD1(1811 ( FDR 33 ttr" \ 23 , I .-4 1 \ 1 ? 1 )\..1°_...... , -....1-., ,\) ',...... 21 ,.. 1....\___ - ) t\„...r...... "-- /21 \\ \ 32 .,,. \ S. r \ \--,--- \ \')! ( " \ K '....4 FTIR 34 (% \,-- ,. ..\ ) \ ') 1 1; 31 .\,/ I \\ , 36 ' r--, ■ 33 /''.- \''., \ • 1 , ,...... -■ ...... L. 34,7 •-" 35 45 \-e) 41 46 ni-12 ‘,2 /r ----- 38 37 40 47 38 43 4._., 14 J O 188 \11 Figure 5. Proposed timber haul roads to be used for the Canyon Creek and Valentine timber sales. 15 In addition to timber sales, impacts to the creek may result from post-sale treatments such as fuelwood sales and controlled burns of excess fuels (slash). These activities will be monitored by members of the team. 2.112 Grazing Both the watershed above the rim and that below the rim have been grazed by livestock since the late 1800's. There are two sheep bands which come up from Sheep Creek Point and along the east or west side of the Young highway in May and June. There is no cattle grazing in the area above the rim which contributes to the Canyon Creek watershed, however, it is a sheep allotment. Canyon Creek on the Tonto National Forest is contained within two present grazing operations, the Heber-Reno Sheep Driveway and the OW allotment. The usual driveway route has sheep bands crossing the creek near the FR33 crossing during spring and late summer. In the past cattle also grazed on the driveway, but the driveway was fenced in 1964 and cattle were excluded. Sheep use of the driveway has been declining over the years. This year only two sheep bands came through. The OW cattle allotment (Fig. 6) was established in 1943, although Forest Service records show permitted grazing 16 )116 MANAGEMENT PLAN MAP B I h26 29 - 'ti ll: X 0 0 T I.. 0. \ ( • I / , . ''. / \ \\' -‘ e e \ \\\\61 /- \, ' ..., __ s■---/„.... R )H-CFRI - HA TO-fER \ 714i'vfX S ...... _ 7 _f 4,ii 14 YETIGCR E ‘, 4 N ) • \ Too .6970 ( 4/Y;-: , • :,_ .•, ' — N .... • . ' MR OW ALLOTMENT; s - I- I 1 - +1/ .\. -..,‘' '/‘. .' / ,III / it! ,,„..\, „.„.] CURRENT RANGE IMPROVEMENTS ‘ - !1.... I IA f -- A',-..:.:: Figure 6. OW Ranch Grazing Allotment, pastures and improvements. 17 from at least 1936, as part of another allotment. Until 1967, Canyon Creek and the surrounding meadows from the OW headquarters to the canyon were private land. Livestock generally grazed there yearlong, and the hay fields were irrigated and cut each year for winter feed. From 1943 to 1950 the term permit on the OW allotment, surrounding the private land, was for 32 cattle yearlong and their yearlings until October 31. From 1951 to 1967 the term permit was for 64 cattle from May 15 to November 15. These cattle stayed in the private land the other six months. When most of the private land was purchased in 1968, the term permit for the OW allotment changed to 43 cattle yearlong and 35 yearlings until October 31. Cattle stayed in the Mule Creek pasture until the summer rains, then moved into the Canyon Creek unit until shipping time in late fall. Until the mid 1970's cattle straying in from the Fort Apache Reservation were a major problem. Another problem was the overgrazing of the meadows and vegetation along the creek. This was due to poor range management practices which allowed cattle to concentrate and stay in creek bottoms for extended periods of time, and a lack of forage and water on surrounding slopes. In 1979 the new permittees switched from adult cattle (114410,0 the current summer seasonal yearling operations. The 18 term permit is for 150 yearlings from June 1st to October 15. In addition to being grazed only 4 1/2 months each year, the cattle are rotated through two pastures and two traps on a deferred system. All pastures and traps receive some usage every year. The long history of yearlong use on the OW allotment resulted in severe resource conflicts. Early spring grazing of desirable cool-season grasses reduced their productive capability. It is speculated that trampling damage to meadow areas during wet periods aggravated the effects of early spring grazing and also caused increased runoff with concomitant acceleration of soil loss. Wildlife and fisheries resources also suffered as a result of yearlong use. During the winter months, utilization of desirable streamside vegetation was excessive. This overuse of such species as cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) resulted in a lack of shade which undoubtedly increased water temperatures of the streams. In addition, the increased sedimentation caused by accelerated soil loss adversely affected spawning habitats. A production-utilization study of the allotment in 1980 showed great improvement in forage use patterns compared to the studies in 1976, 1977, and 1979. Where earlier studies showed 70 percent use by cattle and wildlife along Mule and Canyon Creeks and in the Headquarters trap, the 1980 study showed Canyon Creek receiving 40 percent use. Allowable use in that area is 30 percent. Since the 1980 study, waters / 19 have been built and repaired away from the creek, and the Headquarters trap has been split into two holding pastures. While much can still be done to improve range management practices on the allotment, to date, recovery of woody riparian vegetation has not been accomplished under this system. 2.113 Recreation and Roads Another source of impact to the watershed of Canyon Creek is recreational use. Public use is expected to increase from the 50,600 visitor days recorded for 1984 to more than 90,000 by the year 2000. Presently there are three camping/picnic sites in the Canyon Creek and Valentine Canyon areas. At present, recreational facilities consist of: one nine-unit, developed, lightly-used campground at Valentine Ridge; toilets, bulletin boards and a road system each at Airplane Flat, Canyon Creek campground, Colcord Ridge (the junction of FH12 and FR33); and two toilets along FR188. There are no developed trails, but people can use the old logging roads. There is an ORV closure along Canyon Creek, but current funding limits enforcement. A pole fence along the west side of the creek provides some deterrence. The Canyon Creek Recreation Area Development Plan was 20 approved in 1982. The chosen alternative was for development with motorized access along Canyon Creek. It called for: adding a 60 unit developed campground at Airplane Flat, a picnic area and parking lot at the Hayfield, a parking lot along FR188, semi-primitive campgrounds at the Hatchery and in Valentine Canyon, a group site and over-flow at the hatchery, and approximately five miles of trails, about four miles of which will be from the rim to the hatchery and around the OW property. Canyon Creek was to be day-use only. FR188 was to be closed in the winter. It is estimated that full implementation will increase RVD's to 76,750 per year. Although there is a closure along Canyon Creek, the entire watershed area is open to Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use. This use is considerable due to the many old logging roads which honeycomb the area. The major Forest system roads which traverse the area are FR188 along Canyon Creek, FR34 which runs east/west from the Young highway, and FR33 which accesses the hatchery at Canyon Creek. Since 1982, the Pleasant Valley Ranger District has come to prefer some changes to the Development Plan. Currently there are no plans to develop a picnic area at the Hayfield or parking along FR188, nor trail development south or east of the OW property. The road running up Valentine Canyon should be closed about one quarter mile from the stock tank. The road going up Mule Creek is locked at the 21 OW and fenced at Canyon Creek campground. However, the Forest Plan calls for the development of the Hayfield picnic site, road access along the creek, and a trail down Valentine Canyon. Any changes as a result of current thinking will require Plan amendment. Given the current financial situation, there are no immediate plans to fully implement the Canyon Creek Recreation Development Plan in the future. A surfaced road system is gradually being installed at Airplane Flat and Canyon Creek. Campground development plans for Colcord Ridge, Airplane Flat and Canyon Creek Campground should be completed this year. 2.12 Soils Localized soils exceed 1 meter in depth and were formed primarily from Pennsylvanian-Permian sandstone and shale, with small areas of Carboniferous limestone, Tertiary sediments and quartzsites. The top two inches are highly erodible, with unusally high silt contents. Current land use practices could present a siltation hazard for both Canyon Creek and Valentine Canyon (Kelsey, 1985) and are recognized as a concern in current Tonto National Forest resource plans for the area. Activities within the watershed include timber harvest, livestock grazing and recreational use. Haying associated 22 with the OW Ranch has historically occurred on meadows along the creek near the headquarters. 2.13 Hydrology Canyon Creek is a perennial streal0 that arise from several springs at the base of the Mogollon Rim. Origination of water for the springs is unknown, however, one source is suspected to be from limestone sinkholes above the Rim. Flow from the springs has been measured by AGF on several occasions and averages approximately 10 cfs. Streamflow records for Canyon Creek are very limited. The only published data are from a U.S. Geological Survey gauge that was located two miles upstream from Canyon Creeks' confluence with the Salt River. This gauge was established in 1976 and abandoned in 1981. Precipitation and runoff were somewhat atypical throughout central Arizona during this period--flows being generally much g ter than long-term norms. Data from this gauge did, however, verify general runoff trends. This is, peak flows norm4ty occur 4° during the winter and spring months while OW flows, characteristicly occur just prior to and immediately after the summer rains (U.S.G.S., 1982). Peak stream flows that could result from the 25-year storm were estimated at three separate points within the study area. This was done to give the team an idea of the 23 magnitude of flows that could occur during relatively rare flood events. Such information should be useful in designing structures that will be placed in the stream itself and in the floodplain. These peak flows are as follows: Canyon Cr. Canyon Cr. to conf. Mule Cr. to FS bdry w/Mule Cr. Watershed area (mi sq) 14.9 8.4 32.5 Average Elevation (ft) 7300 7200 7100 Average Precipitation (in) 32 32 30 Peak Flow 025 (cfs) 1600 700 2800 Water quality data have been collected by the Forest Service at various times since 1968(Table 1). Generally, the water quality of Canyon Creek can be characterized as good. That is, the water chemistry is normally within the standards set for the State of Arizona for wildlife and fish. Two items of concern are water temperature and sediment. Water temperature does exceed the 68 degree F. maximum limit for cold water fisheries (1Jo sediment dat.* ------have been collected within the study area. However, the large amount f silt and clay in the stream channel indicates th t a problem exists. 24 TABLE 1. WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CANYON CREEK A. At Hatchery Site: Sec 36,T11N,R14E Date Collected Parameter 8/68 7/69 1/70 4/70 5/70 8/70 8/71 3/72 Avg. Max Min. Water temp (°F) 51 54 48 46 54 54 55 50 51.5 55 46 0 (ppm) 14 6.2 10.6 10.5 12.0 11.6 9.0 9.0 10.4 14.0 6.2 pH 8.0 8.4 8.3 8.0 8.4 . 8.4 - 7.8 8.2 8.4 7.8 B. Above Valentine Canyon: Sec 34,TION,R15E Date Collected Parameter 11/68 3/69 7/69 1/70 4/70 5/70 8/70 3/71 8/71 3/72 Avg. Max. limn. Water temp(°F) 50 48 64 44 50 61 68 40 72 53 55 72 40 0 (ppm) 9.7 11.0 6.9 13.0 10.8 11.4 12.0 14.0 - 9.0 10.9 14.0 6.9 pH 8.6 8.0 8.4 8.5_ 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.4 - 7.9 . 8.4 8.6 7.9 The source of this material is unknown. Water flows from the springs in this area contain colloidal-sized particles. In addition, surface run-off undoubtedly contributes sediment to the channel. This could be from both man-caused and natural sources. To fully assess these sources, their relative importance, and possible solutions to the problems, requires further study. 2.2 SUPPLEMENTAL INVENTORY A supplemental inventory of stream habitat parameters in Canyon Creek and Mule Creek was conducted in February 1986. This was done to determine the habitat suitability of upper Canyon Creek to support self-sustaining populations of brown and rainbow trout. The time-frame for producing this plan constrained the sampling period to mid-winter. Consequently, some parameters were not measured. These included average maximum summer temperatures, average minimum summer dissolved oxygen, and average base flow. Team members were not able to measure streambank vegetative stability or pool quality on Mule Creek due to snowpack. Parameters measured included stream, pool and rifle widths; stream depths; water velocities, substrates, pool quality; embeddedness; instream cover; overhead cover, and strambank stability. 26 ' N14410000 2.21 Models Habitat suitability of the upper Canyon Creek drainage was evaluated utilizing modified species suitability indices derived from models developed for the rainbow trout (Raleigh et al, 1984a) and the brown trout (Raleigh et al., 1984b) as part of the Western Energy and Land Use Team. Rating systems for the habitat variables measured were taken from Hamilton and Bergerson (1985) and Platts et al (1983). 2.22 Methodology A transect grid system, utilizing 500 foot (151 m) intervals was employed. Along Canyon Creek, 7 reaches with 7 transects each were established. An additional =reach along Mule Creek with 7 transects was sampled. Each transect was permanently marked and photos were taken. Methodology used is detailed in Burton (1986). 2.21 Map of Reaches The following map (Fig. 7) shows the reaches sampled along Canyon Creek. Reach 1 starts just below the springhead and goes to the low-water crossing. Reach 2 is from the low water crossing to the FR 188 bridge.. Reach 3 starts at the FR188 bridge and includes the co9fluence of Mule Creek. Reaches 4 and 5 include stretchee'of Canyon Creek along FR 188. Reach 6 begins just above Valentine 27 U TS. U011BAJOS08 REACH 6 REACH 7 1000 ft ' Figure 7. Canyon Creek Study Area, Reaches 1-7. 28 \011ie Canyon. Reach 7 extends through a steep canyon area and ends at the Fort Apache Indian Reservation Boundary. Figure 8 maps elevational changes along the transect reaches. The average slope from the springhead on Canyon Creek to the confluence with Mule Creek is 4.3%. The average slope of Mule Creek is 4.7%. Along Canyon Creek from the confluence with Mule Creek to the point where Valentine Canyon enters has a slope of 1.8%. A slope of 1.1% occurs from Valentine Canyon the Reservation boundary. 2.222 Results Data collected in February 1986 were tabulated and compared to optimum values for brown trout (Raleigh et al., 1984b) and rainbow trout (Raleigh et al., 1984a). Results are shown in Table 2. 2.3 DISCUSSION Table 3 lists the major limiting factors and possible solutions in each reach of Canyon Creek. A high percentage of fines was a major problem in all reaches. Although there is a high siltation potential within the watershed due to roads (especially FR 188), grazing, timber harvest, and recreation, there is also a high concentration of silt in the springhead indicating an unknown source from above the rim which may be difficult to control. Lack of suitable 29 6720 6640 6560 REACH 1 6560 6480 6400 REACH 2 ^ 64801- u; 6400F REACH 3 z 6400r o 632(:k REACH 4 uj 6320[- REACH 5 63201- 6240L REACH 6 63201- 6240' REACH 7 Figure 8. Elevational changes (mean feet above sea level) for 7 reaches on Canyon Creek. 30 TABLE 2 CANYON CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT EVALUATION PROJECT, COMPARISON OF OPTIMUM CONDITIONS TO CANYON CREEK CONDITONS BY REACH BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT PARAMETER OPTIMUM OPTIMUM REACH 1 1. Avg. Max. Temp. 12-19 C 10-20 C 15C 2. Avg. Max. Temp. (embryo) 6.5-13 C 8-13 C - 3. Avg. Min. D.O. 8 mg/1 >6 mg/1 8 mgle 4. Avg. Depth 30 cm >30 cm 17. 6 cm 5. Avg. Velocity 40-75 cm/sec 25-75 cm/sec 6.3 cm/sec 6. % Cover (Adult) >35% >24% 31% (Juvenile) >14% >14% 31% 7. Avg. Substrate (spawning) 3 (code) 3 (code) 5 (code) 8. % Substrate Class >10% 10% 1.3% 9. Dominate Substrate Type >50% 9 (code) 9 (code) 7 (code) _ 10. % Pools 50-70% 35-65% 6.4% 11. % Allocthonous Vegetation 120% 150% 50-79% 12. % Bank Stability >75% >75% 50-79% 13. Max pH 6.8-8 6.5-8 8 14. Avg. Annual Base Flow >50% >50% 20.7% 15. Pool Class >30% >30% <10% _ 16. % Fines <6% 5-10% 25-50% 17. % Shade 50-75% 50-75% 47% ) 18. Nitrate-nitrogen .15-25 - 0.03 Table 2 continued. CANYON CREEK REACH 2 REACH 3 REACH 4 REACH 5 REACH 6 REACH 7 1. 18.6 C 22.6 C 22.6 C 25.6 25.6 C 2. 3. 4. 17 cm 24.4 cm 11.6 cm 12.6 cm 12.6 cm 17.1 cm 5. 10.8 cm/sec 10.6 cm/sec 16.40 cm/sec 21.6 cm/sec 21.6 cm/sec 12 cm/sec 6. 19% 24% 18% 14% 14% 21% 19% 24% 18% 14% 14% 21% g. 5 (code) 5 (code) 5 (code) 5 (code) 5 (code) 5 (code) 8. 1.9% 2.2% 0.5% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 9. 9 (code) 7 (code) 8 (code) 7 (code) 7 (code) 11 (code) 10. 7.0% 1.9% .5% .3% 0.3% 1.4% 11. 50-79% 25-49% 25-49% 25-49% 25-49% 25-49% 12. 50-79% 25-49% 25-49% 25-49% 25-59% 25-49% 13. 8 14. 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 15. <10% <10% <10% <10% <10% <10% 16. 25-50% 25-75% 75% 50-75% 75% 50-75% 17. 8.5% 15.8% 16.6% 6.7% 16.4% 50-75% 18. .05 TABLE 3. CANYON CREEK PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS BY REACH EACH LIMITING FACTOR CAUSES SOLUTIONS 1 1. Percent Fines Condition of watershed on Rim Investigate upper watershed/limestone sink holes Too High High % fines at Springhead Install settling basin or chemical treatment at Spring High % fines from Hatchery Terracing and vegetative management at hatchery 2. Lack of Spawning Flushed out due to water velocity Catch gravels Substrate Natural lack Import gravels Poor quality (Embeddedness) of Reduce fines (see #1 above) available gravels 3. Lack of Pools Gradient too steep (natural for Can't alter significantly headwater) Water velocity during floodflows Install settling basin and/or structures REACH LIMITING FACTOR CAUSES SOLUTIONS 2 1. Same as Reach 1 Same as Reach 1 plus Same as Reach 1 plus Condition of watershed at OW RanchCoordinate on Allotment Mangement Plan (i.e. (impacts from grazing, timber, fence riparian pasture), timber sales, trail recreation) & road management plans 2. Same as Reach 1 Same as Reach 1 Same as Reach 1 3. Lack of Instream Floodflows, bank instability, Structures to provide cover and bank stability Cover for Adult Lack of vegetation Revegetation Trout 4. Lack of Pools Floodflows, lack of Boulders, Structures to create cover debris, etc., natural gradient, Not a good Reach for scoure structures, bedrock blasting 5. Lack of Shade Watershead condition Evaluate watershed conditon Floodflows, lack of trees Revegetate Beavers Suppress beavers 6. Max. Temperature Just beginning to be a problem at See prescriptions for cover, pools and shade end of Reach due to lack of cover, pools & shade 7. Bank Stability Watershed conditon, grazing See appropriate solutiohs above Floodflows, lack of vegetation Beavers Recreation „40.11111111.111111111.11111111111"""”' Table 3 continued. REACH LIMITING FACTOR CAUSES SOLUTIONS 3-6 1. Max. Temperature Lack of depth, pools Structures Lack of Shade Lack of woody vegetation due to Revegetate, suppress beavers, evaluate grazing, flood flows, grazing, recreation plan trails, consolidate flow Water removal for irrigation Install headgate and close when not irrigating (Reach 3) 2. Percent Fines Forest Road 188 Close FR188, or surface Too High Timber sale roads, Coordinate on timber sales, close roads Mule Creek watershed runoff Investigate Mule Creek watershed, settling basin Gully erosion, bank instability Install erosion control structures, bank (grazing) stability structures Sheet erosion on private land Fence riparian pasture, coordinate on good farm practices Upper and Canyon Creek watershed See fines solution for Reach 1 and 2 condition 3. Lack of Instream Same as Reach 2 Same as Reach 2 Cover for Adult Trout 4. Bank Instability Lack of vegetation due to flood- Revegetate flows and grazing Coordinate on allotment management Physical destruction due to Structures for bank stabilization grazing, and recreation 5. Lack of Spawning Natural lack of gravels Import gravels Substrate Flushed out during floods Catch gravels Poor quality, high embeddedness Reduce fines (See above) 6. Lack of Pools Floodflows, lack of boulders, Flood resistent structures debris, etc. Establish vegetation and bank stability Braided Channels Consolidate Flow without reducing meander REACH LIMITING FACTOR CAUSES SOLUTIONS 7 1. Same as Reaches Same as Reaches 3-6 Same as 3-6 Scoured to bedrock Most difficult to alter because of topography Solution to causes upstream will benefit this Reach also spawning substrates and lack of pools of sufficient size also occurred in all reaches. We believe that the system may have a natural lack of spawning gravels which is aggravated by flushing during flood events. The lack of pools may also result from scouring to bedrock during flood events and a lack of boulders and other debris that would create pool habitat within the creek. Lack of instream cover for adult trout is not a problem in Reach 1 but does become a problem for Reaches 2-7. This is thought to be a result of floodflow scouring due to bank instability caused by lack of vegetation. Elevated water temperatures due to lack of shade begin to occur at the bottom of Reach 2 and were identified as the major problem in Reaches 3-7. This problem is aggravated by damage done to any riparian regeneration from both livestock and beavers. Limiting factors by reaches are summarized in Table 4. Other factors which contribute to low productivity of Canyon Creek but which are difficult to control are: mean depth too shallow, mean velocity too slow, and mean annual base flow too low. A low percentage of allochthonous vegetation and a low nitrate-nitrogen content will be alleviated if streamside vegetaion is improved due to land management techniques. 35 Table 4 Limiting Factors by Reaches (Priority 1-6) REACHES LIMITING FACTORS 1 2 3-6 % Fines too High 1 1 2 2 Lack of Spawning Substrate 2 2 6 4 Lack of Pools 3 4 5 5 Lack of Instream Cover for Adult Trout 3 3 3 Lack of Shade/Max Temp too High 5 1 1 Bank Instability 6 4 Beaver dam in Canyon Creek. Photo by Jim Warnecke 36 CHAPTER 3.0 MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL PLAN 3.1 SOLUTIONS The following operational plan is a blue-print for habitat improvement projects in Canyon Creek over a 5 year period. Although numerous treatments were explored, we feel that those identified in the following section, if taken in conjunction, will offer the best return for our resources. 3.11 Solutions by Locations The major problems in reach 1 are: high percent of fines, lack of spawning substrate and lack of pools (Table 4). We feel that given the inherent nature of the watershed, conditions in this reach are as good as can be. We do not feel that there is much that can be done to alter these conditions at this time. In fact, it was the concensus of the team that habitat to grow large fish in Canyon Creek is presently unavailable and that if natural reproduction could be obtained the result would most likely be a population of stunted trout. Consequently, we choose to concentrate our efforts over the next several years at modifying conditions in reach 2 through 6, from the Sheep driveway/OW boundary fence to the box canyon, to produce optimum habitat to 'grow-out' trout. 37 We believe that solutions to problems associated with reach the box canyon to the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, will follow if solutions in reach 2-6 upstream are effective. The number one problem in this reach is the high summer temperatures which result from thermal loading upstream. Once this problem is alleviated upstream, shading from steep canyon walls should maintain acceptable temperatures in reach 7. Table 5 is a list of solutions to be implemented in reaches 2 through 6 over the next 5 years. 3.12 Priorities Although the solutions listed should be performed in conjunction with one another, we realize that funding and manpower constraints may dictate the time and order in which these activities will be completed. Ideally, the quickest improvement of the greatest magnitude will result if activities are performed in the order listed in the implementation plan. All tree planting, cut bank modification and instream cover modification should be done in upstream reaches first. 38 Table 5. SOLUTIONS, REACHES 2 throygh 6 Problem: Solutions: 1. Max. temperature/ A. Plant individual narr(*.leaf lack of shade cotton wood poles at 10720' intervals interspersed with native vegetation (willows are present in sufficient numbers). B. Modify Cotonwood plantings to provide "structure". Plant groups of 20-30 cottonwoods at 50-100' intervals. C. Experiment with planting alders and other riparian species. D. Experiment with summer plantings. E. Control beavers populations by trapping. 2. Bank in stability/ A. Build a narrow riparian lack of instream exclosure or a riparian pasture cover for adult trout which would be rested during the growing season. B. Slope and vegetate cut banks. Use willow, blackberry and sodforming grasses. Fence sites. Control livestock. C. Protect from recutting using revegetation or natural materials upstream. D. Maintain and expand pole fence to exclude ORV use. E. Install headgate for OW field irrigation to maintain maximum water flow in Creek. F. Close FR 188 (or control use) to eliminate sediment source to stream channel. G. Use logs and boulders for immediate instream cover. 3. Lack of Large A. Enhance or enlarge naturally Pools forming pools. Allow 3-4 years with improvement to determine co3irse of flow and natural pool sites. 39 •*.ARE".. 3.2 ADDITIONAL INVENTORY NEEDS Given the time frame and scope of this plan, it was not possible to obtain all of the information needed to completely access the system. The following additional inventories are planned to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. 1. Coordinate with Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest regarding impacts of upper watershed on Canyon Creek. Trout Unlimited has indicated their interest in a study of the upper watershed including the limestone sink holes and the connection of effects on Canyon Creek. 2. Macroinvertebrate studies should be conducted throughout the implementation of the plan. Current abundance and diversity information is needed in addition to Biological Condition Indices (BCI). These compositional changes are a good indicator of stream condition. 3. Information on bank stability and pool abundance and quality for Mule Creek was not collected during the sampling period. This information as well as data on base flow and maximum temperature can be gathered in the summer of 1986 I 4. Current creel and recreational use surveys are needed to evaluate present fisheries management criteria. Information on size-class distribution of brown and rainbow 40 trout should be collected. Salmonid stocking rate, size and bag limits and method of take should be evaluated. 3.3 IMPLEMENTATION 3.31 Costs The costs listed in the implementation section are approximate based on our previous experience. In some instances, resources of the Tonto National Forest and the Arizona Game and Fish Department may be devoted to activities in our normal program budgets. In most cases, these costs are above and beyond what we have been allocated. 3.32 Priorities and Locations The following list details the activities which we feel should occur in the next 5 years if Canyon Creek is to improve to a condition where a "Blue-Ribbon" fishery will be feasible. The priority listed is the most logical order for synergistic effect. The costs are approximate based on similar activities in which members of the team have been involved. 41 PRIORITY ACTION COST 1. Finish Implementation Plan & E.A. 10 person-days 2. Fence Riparian pasture $20,000 3. Beaver Trapping $3,000/yr 4. Monitoring: a. Thermographs $4,200 b. Crest Stage Gauges $1,300 c. Automatic Sediment Samples 30 person-days 5. Riparian Vegetation Planting: a. Cottonwood Poles $6,000/mi b. Modified Cottonwood Poles $10,000/mi c. Experimental - summer $5,000 d. Experimental - alder $5,000 sycamore $5,000 6. Cutbank Modification and Seeding $5,000/ location (12) 7. Structural Enhancement of Pools $7,000/mi 8. Monitoring: d. Macroinvertebrates $600 and 2 person-days/yr e. Summer plantings 4 person-days/yr f. Cutbank modifications 4 person-days/yr g. Fisheries Surveys 16 person-days/yr h. Cover/Photo Points 40 person-days 9. Finish Mule Creek Inventory 6-9 person-days/yr 10. Manage Mule Creek under same restrictions as Canyon Creek 2 person-days 11. Close FR 188, $3,000 and build new road to OW $15,000 12. Maintain & Expand Pole Fence 200 person-days 13. Install Headgate at OW Ranch $3,500 14. Study Sinkholes on Rim $50,000/3 yrs 15. Modify Fisheries Regulations 3 person-days 16. Evaluate Success/Revise Plan 20 person-days 3.33 Structural designs Structural designs for modified cottonwood plantings and structural enhancement of pools are beyond the scope of this report. Exact location and type of structural modification will be determined by team members for each 42 *' • reach and activity as funding for implementation becomes available. 3.34 NEPA Process The Pleasant Valley Ranger District is in the process of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Canyon Creek Aquatic Habitat Improvement Project. This document will be tiered to the Environmental Impact Statement for the Tonto National Forest Plan. This EA insures that compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act has been met. 3.4 MONITORING PROGRAM Stream habitat improvement techniques are mostly experimental and have met with varying success. Since Canyon Creek is a complex system with a variety of problems and solutions, a monitoring program is essential in evaluating success and applicability of activities performed. The monitoring program should include the following items: 1. Temperature. Maximum stream temperature will be a major criteria for success since this is a major, and over- riding, problem in Canyon Creek. We suggest placing 43 surveys, as well as sediment samples and photo points. 7. Fisheries surveys. Fisheries surveys are conducted periodically on Canyon Creek and should be increased to a regular bi-annual schedule in order to evaluate overall success of all activities performed. Information on length- weight, size-class distribution and population size are needed to determine if a catch-and-release brown trout and rainbow trout "Blue Ribbon" fishery can be established. Sampling will require electrofishing and seining gear. 8. Cover. Baseline information was gathered during the mid-winter survey (1986) on overhead and instream cover. Overhead cover should be re-evaluated during the summer months when percent shade can be more accurately determined. Overhead cover should be evaluated periodically to access the success of tree plantings at producing the desired results. At the same time, assessment of damage by beavers and the success of the beaver trapping operation can also be evaluated. As with cutbank modifications, photo points will be helpful in documenting condition over time. Instream cover should also be evaluated periodically, especially in association with structural improvements. Percent pools and pool classes should be recorded for each reach where structural modifications have been di. implemented. Techiques used for cover evaluations are the same as those used in the mid-winter inventory. 46 REFERENCES Burton, J.E., 1986. Canyon Creek Improvement Project. Field Methods. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 10 p. Hamilton, K. and E. P. Bergersen. 1985. Methods to Estimate Aquatic Habitat Variables. Colorado State Univ., Colorado Coop Fish Res. Unit. Kelsey, J. B. 1985. Tonto National Forest Terrestrial Ecosystems Management. Service Report. Canyon and Valentine Timber Sales. Pleasant Valley Ranger District, Tonto National Forest. 4p. Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. U.S. Forest Service GTR INT-138. 70 pp. Raleigh, R.F., L.D. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984a. Habitat suitability information: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Fish wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82- 10.60. 60 pp. Raleigh, R.F., L.D. Zuckerman, and P.C. Nelson. 1984b. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: Brown Trout. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.7/71 pp. U. S. Geological Survey. 1982. Water Resources Data for Arizona, Water Year 1982. Water Data Report AZ-82-1. 47 440 81.1vg . '