Tonto National Forest Plan Revision Stream Restoration Field Trip Wednesday, May 2, 2018 | Haigler Creek and Canyon Creek (near Young, AZ)
Co-Convened by the US Forest Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Trout Unlimited
Overview of the Field Trip The stream restoration field trip brought together staff and partners of the Tonto National Forest (TNF) to discuss the future management of streams across the forest. It was co- convened by the Tonto National Forest, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Trout Unlimited. The following were the field trip objectives:
Establish a shared understanding of stream restoration as a tool to achieve desired conditions. Share examples of successful projects and the range of effective tools and techniques. Identify how partners can support the TNF in achieving desired conditions for streams.
The field trip took place at restoration sites along Haigler Creek, with an optional stop at Canyon Creek (near Young, AZ). Agenda
9:00AM Stop 1: Alderwood Campground (Introduction and desired conditions) Introductions – All participants Logistics – Southwest Decision Resources Overview of stream restoration in the new Forest Plan – Kenna Belsky, Grant Loomis, and Robert Madera, Tonto National Forest o Definition and context of desired conditions o Other efforts (4FRI, etc.), and how they relate to the Forest Plan Introduction to the Haigler Creek restoration project – Curt Gill, AZ Game and Fish Dept; Grant Loomis, Tonto National Forest Discussion: Desired conditions applicable to sites across the Tonto National Forest
11:00AM Stop 2: Haigler Canyon Campground (Successful methods and approaches) Examples of other successful projects/efforts: o Canyon Creek (passive and active restoration) – Curt Gill and Kelly Wolff- Krauter, AZ Game and Fish Dept. o Dude Creek (Gila Trout reintroduction) – Nate Rees, Trout Unlimited o Cherry Creek (channel stability) – Allen Haden, Natural Channel Design Discussion: Methods and outcomes that the Tonto National Forest (and partners) should aim for in future restoration projects Lunch – Participants provide their own
1:00PM Stop 3: Bridge site (Multiple uses and management actions) Overview of the site and the effects of the bridge – Grant Loomis and Mike Martinez, Tonto National Forest Narrative on possible management actions to be done – Alan Haden, Natural Channel Design o 4FRI Flexible Toolbox for Aquatics – Joe Miller, Trout Unlimited; Kelly Wolff, AZ Game and Fish Dept. o Efforts to engage in: . East Verde headwaters . Salt River . Water rights – USFS has filed for instream flow rights on Haigler Creek Discussion: What actions could be taken to bring this site to meet the Desired Conditions identified earlier? What partners should we engage into the future for stream restoration? Wrap-up: In what ways could you or other partners be involved in helping the TNF to achieve desired conditions? Adjourn, or go to optional stop at Canyon Creek
3:00PM Stop 4 (Optional): Canyon Creek Drive to Canyon Creek to see an example of a different restoration project. No formal presentation. Discussion: A restoration project that was completed 2 years ago. How has the site matured since then? (Including exclosure)
STOP 1: Alderwood Campground
The first stop was Alderwood Campground, where participants introduced themselves, and the co-conveners provided an overview of the context of Forest Plan Revision in stream restoration. Participants also provided input on the desired conditions that can be applied across projects on diverse streams.
Overview of Restoration in the New Forest Plan, and Other Projects Tonto National Forest - The TNF is in the process of writing a new Forest Plan, which provides direction for management actions across all resources on the Forest. This field trip will inform the TNF Planning team on Desired Conditions and other aspects of the new Forest Plan. AZGFD - began the NEPA process for Mogollon stream restoration projects in 2005. The work has focused on popular trout fishing streams degraded by flooding, fire, and recreation. As a result of this project, the following streams have been restored: Tonto (2008), Christopher (winter 2017), Canyon (May 2017), Haigler (May 2017). Upcoming projects, depending on funding and watershed stability, include: o East Verde River – waiting on NEPA and funding. o Dude Creek – restoration work and augmentation of Gila trout population. Restoration actors o Agencies: Arizona Game and Fish, and Tonto National Forest o Contractors: Natural Channel Design and others o Funding: Arizona Game and Fish with Watershed Condition Framework funding.
Questions If a stream has no brook or rainbow trout due to flooding, would AZGFD prefer to add native species? o AZGFD: If the stream can support them we prefer to use native species, e.g., Gila trout, desert suckers, longfin dace. What is the livestock management along this stream? There are fences around the area suggesting exclusion of livestock but cow pies are within the area. o TNF: We will follow up with Chandler Mundy, the Rangeland Specialist, on that question. There are fence maintenance and illegal cutting issues here. The Forest Service is supposed to inspect fences and cattle growers are supposed to fix them, except in the case of exclosures. There is a network of users who stays in touch with the Forest regarding fence incidences.
Desired Conditions – Grant Loomis, Tonto National Forest Desired Conditions are the lofty vision statement components of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan describes properly functioning watersheds as having good soil conditions, peak flows the stream can handle, and base flows during low flow times. o An assessment of watersheds on the TNF studied indicators such as the number of roads, fires, and aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Half of the watersheds were functioning and at risk, and many were not functioning. Riparian vegetation desired conditions: structural diversity, multiple age cohorts, herbaceous communities, more than one species of sedge and grass, and species that stabilize the soil. o Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) plots are ideally ultimate expressions of the vegetation community and serve as reference points. They are typically chosen in areas with minimal disturbance. Riparian plots are difficult to identify as they are unstable and shifting constantly. o Were these plots in areas grazed by cattle? TNF will follow up.
Introduction to the Haigler Creek Restoration Project – Allen Haden, Natural Channel Design Prior to the restoration work in April 2017, the site was severely degraded. The stream was down cut and blown apart after large floods, grazing, and heavy recreation made the stream unable to heal itself. A road dissected the stream, and camping and fishing occurred on both sides. This left the stream muddy and the banks without vegetation. Baseflow was split between the stream and a channel paralleling it such that fish weren’t supported in either channel. Minimal fish habitat existed due to a lack of coverage and a flat and shallow pool. Natural Channel Design’s (NCD) restoration work improved fishery habitat, supported recreation, and met the desired conditions. The approach centered on achieving the most impact while spending the least amount of money in heavily fished areas. A sill was created and planted with willows to maintain baseflow in the creek. Water can enter the channel via subterraneous flow to allow for snake and frog habitat. The pool could not be deepened due to bedrock. Instead, the bank was built out to provide overhead cover for fish. Stomped out banks were sloped and replanted. A stepping stone path was built to direct users to camp sites and help with sediment flow. Log veins were added downstream to slow stream meander and fences repaired.
Discussion Typical number of campers at the site is 15. Management should strive to keep cattle out of this area, as the stream is dependent on vegetation. The stream has heavier cobbles that provide some protection from grazing. The 1985 Forest Plan had logic for closing roads in riparian areas, but no guidance exists on communicating which roads are closed to the public. The Travel Management Plan should eliminate this problem.
Final Observations This site demonstrates the diversity of conditions along a small section of stream. To have an approach in the plan that considers all of these conditions is challenging. Invasive crayfish are difficult to eradicate. They can be dormant for months below the surface. Plans are only as good as the contractor. TNF needs to vet and monitor contractors. The stream has improved immensely in the past year. Closure to recreation, vehicles, and livestock has allowed the stream to recover. STOP 2: Haigler Canyon Campground
The second stop was Haigler Canyon Campground, where partners discussed the methods and techniques used on successful projects (such as Canyon Creek, Cherry Creek, and Dude Creek).
Introduction to the Haigler Creek Restoration Project – Allen Haden, Natural Channel Design Similarities exist between the first two stops, as both reaches are lacking fish habitat and the function to carry sediment but are heavily used by recreationists. Limited treatments could be used due to the stream’s inability to carry sediment and to maintain habitat structures. Boulders, log overhangs, and veins were installed for fish habitat.
Examples of Other Successful Restoration Projects/Efforts Cherry Creek Project – Grant Loomis, Tonto National Forest Restoration work in 2002 took three months to be completed. There was a big storm in 2005 and the creek maintained its function. A large variation (a few magnitudes of cubic feet per second) exists between base and peak flows in Arizona. As a result, high and dry cobble bars are left after peak flows retreat, creating green vegetation lines at base flow rather than at the bank. Tom Moody, founder of NCD, developed a demonstration project on Cherry Creek to demonstrate successful stream restoration strategies. He recreated a Rosgen C-type stream with shallow elevation up to the flood plain and dependence on riparian vegetation for stabilization. Cherry Creek shifted away from the road to protect the road and the stream. The water table was deep (4-5 ft), so holes were dug and riparian vegetation was planted. The stream was designed to be a single-thread channel but now has multiple channels. Water added to the stream would flow below the channel bottom due to an algae-created ceiling effect. River rock was added so that water could seep through and connect to the old channel. Good post-treatment recovery has occurred. Beaver moved in and raised the water channel. The flood plain is covered by fine sediment, and multiple points of exit for water exist across the valley. Work funded by Water Protection Fund Grant with an agreement component requiring the removal of cattle. Upon a recent trip, there were signs of cattle in the creek.
In-stream Flow Rights – Grant Loomis, Tonto National Forest In-stream flow water rights allow the TNF to maintain flow in the stream, prevent diversions upstream, and prevent groundwater pumping if it affects stream flow. The TNF filed for in stream flow water rights in 1999 and were awarded them in 2018. There were three protests to the application, and the case went to the Arizona Supreme Court. The main argument against the application stated it was not within the public’s interest. o In-stream flow water rights applications for Haigler and Pinto Creek are in process. o Wildlife, fish, and hydrology work were completed for the certificate and can be transferred to future ones.
Canyon Creek – Allen Haden, Natural Channel Design This is an optional stop at the end of the field trip. There are good photos and information in the participant packets that were created for a similar four forest restoration initiative (4FRI) field trip. Canyon Creek was an intensive restoration project across 2 miles of stream. It had a lot of opportunity for restoration due to the long reach and minimal constraints. The creek is an important fishery due to the hatchery. The first stage of restoration occurred in 2015, eight years after the assessment. Rain helped sprout grass seed and allowed for a quick revegetation of the area. A good contractor worked with us on Canyon Creek. The Rodeo Chediski fire heavily impacted Canyon Creek; it caused the channel to widen due to high sediment load and bank erosion. o It is always useful to have knowledge of stream function so that we can predict its reaction to fire, i.e., if it will widen, incise or be resilient. It is much harder to rebuild streams once banks are incised. Restoration goal was not to fix everything but to connect close meanders, slope banks, and add willows for cover and temperature control. Low darts were built to narrow the wide and shallow channel. Cattle and elk exclosures were built immediately following the fire in the riparian and hillside areas that were heavily impacted. The exclosure kept grazing out and allowed the area to regrow. o AZGFD has difficulties maintaining the fences, especially as stream debris gets caught in it. o All project planners need to keep in mind that restoration work including exclosures will require maintenance and upkeep. Important to have monitoring built into the planning process, either through personnel allocation or funding. o AZGFD monitors the exclosures every year. The area is in good condition, so there is a desire to switch to monitoring every 4 -5 years. Dude Creek – Joe Miller, Trout Unlimited Dude Creek was approved as a Gila trout recovery stream 15 years ago. The Dude fire stalled the introduction of Gila trout until 2015. Stocking has been largely successful with holdover from the years before and spawning. Important to coordinate many efforts on forest. The Forest Plan should allow resource specialists to learn from and coordinate with each other. Examples that could be avoided by better coordination: o The first day Gila trout were introduced on Dude Creek, a fuels team was burning piles next to the stream. The ash from the fire, with a large rain event, could impact the trout’s acclimation to the stream. o Larger logs from thinning efforts were burned, but they could have been placed in the stream. Impacts on streams from fire followed by heavy storms can be disastrous. Last summer, Mt. Graham lost three native trout streams – Fry Creek, Ash Creek, Grant Creek. Rains were so powerful on that a 130-ton boulder was moved. Discussion: Methods and outcomes the TNF and other partners should aim for in future restoration projects Though stream restoration is often project-specific, landscape scale forest management needs to be considered. It is unclear where to start, with large or project scale work. The new TNF Forest Plan needs to account for diverse situations and landscapes. Several examples have been brought up of compromised exclosures and evidence of livestock. This is a pervasive issue on the Tonto, whether in exclosures or even retired pastures. Stream restoration work is good, but it doesn’t get at the root cause of widespread chronic stress on the landscape. Restoration gains in a riparian area are lost in one season by cows. o Removal of livestock on the Hassayampa River had a huge positive impact on its health. o Crucial to have a tight network informing each other when fences are compromised. o The range of alternatives in the TNF’ Preliminary Proposed Plan includes different allowances for livestock grazing. The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program, which helps with protection after fires, has discovered that mulching heavily burned areas helps with erosion. What mechanism on the forest sets guidance post-fire? o BAER provides short-term guidance to minimize impacts immediately post fire, e.g., keeping soil on the ground. There is not a lot of focus on long-term restoration; funding no longer exists to help with long-term restoration. Next phase in Forest Plan Revision is to draft the monitoring plan. The TNF will identify key indicators to track to ensure the plan’s direction is being met. Need to engage volunteer groups, coordinate with AZGFD on data collection, and ensure we’re asking the right questions. o Make the monitoring and assessment plan and tools as novice friendly as possible. Citizen science and volunteer groups will be useful in conducting this monitoring but the systems need to be accessible. Streams will usually fix themselves given enough time. Be strategic in restoration work, make sure to spend money and effort on streams what will take a long time to heal themselves. STOP 3: Bridge Site
The third stop was at the bridge over Haigler Creek, where the group identified ways to work together into the future. Ideas were through collaborative efforts (such as the Four Forest Restoration Initiative), incorporating a flexible toolbox approach to restoration, joint funding applications, and closer collaboration with other government agencies (such as the Army Corps of Engineers). Afterwards, some participants visited Canyon Creek to observe the results of the restoration efforts described earlier in the day.
Overview of the Site and Effects of the Bridge – Grant Loomis, Tonto National Forest Ten years ago, this bridge was built crossing the stream with fish habitat money. Previously, there was a cutoff with the gravel bottom crossing the stream. The bridge was installed for the safety of neighboring communities and to lower the impact on water quality of cars driving through the stream. It was built to allow fish travel through the bridge but was unsuccessful. Due to personnel turnover, TNF doesn’t know why the bridge was constructed in this manner. Stream crossings should have the least possible impact on the functions of the stream, which include passing water and sediment and dissipating energy. o The bridge site did not incorporate these aspects into its design, and the stream widened considerably so that the stream was unable to carry sediment downstream. The bridge split the stream, which resulted in low base flow, which is destructive to fish habitat and sediment transfer. The bridge does the job it was designed to do--pass cars safely--but it has had huge implications on fish and riparian habitat.
Army Corps of Engineering Perspective – Kevin Grove, Army Corps of Engineers At the time it was built, this bridge project fit within in the ACE’s mission of improving water quality. If asked to permit this bridge today, ACE would not permit the construction of this bridge due to 404 issues and new procedures (2017) requiring the Corps to evaluate projects’ impacts on fish passageways and T&E species. Prior to construction, the cutoff was as tall as the bridge – the system was already disturbed. Involve ACE early in stream restoration projects as those impacting “waters of the US” require permitting. If ACE has access to the plans early, the implementations stage will go much faster. The ACE authorizes Habitat Restoration Projects (HRP). HRPs are the only project type not evaluated in terms of the acreage impacted ecologically.
Stream Crossing Projects For this site, the impacts of the bridge on the environment can be minimized by narrowing the stream before the bridge, allowing the stream to more effectively carry sediment. This work would be a good example of transportation and stream health co- existing. Generally, a bridge not touching an entire floodplain is ideal as it would have the least environmental impact and would require less permits. However, it would be very expensive.
Stream Restoration and the Forest Plan – Kenna Belsky, Tonto National Forest Need for an adaptive component within the Forest Plan. Identify the resources, their baseline conditions, and their stressors. We can’t predict all of the stressors but an extensive list and an adaptive plan will allow for the most flexibility. Without an adaptive component, the TNF needs to attempt to account for all potential stressors and invasives species in the next ten years. The plan also needs to account for the evolution and advancement of best practices and technologies, and collaboration between partners. Perennial waterways are precious in Arizona; alternatives should be the least damaging.
Collaborative Projects 4-FRI and Flexible Toolbox – Kelly Wolff-Krauter (AZGFD) and Joe Miller (Trout Unlimited) The 4-FRI toolbox and poster, were developed by Stephanie Coleman and input for this toolbox was gathered in 2017 on the Canyon Creek field trip. The toolbox serves as a living reference manual for managers; it contains existing and desired condition information and treatment options. There is never just one option that will work and often they can be combined. The toolbox will provide space for resource specialists to inform each other’s and manager’s work. This aspect is still in development. Several projects were used to walk through the decision-making process to illuminate the gaps in the process. Need for more understanding of the toolbox’s intersection with NEPA. o Toolboxes provide maximum flexibility within one NEPA process. This is exciting but analyzing the EIS presents a large difficulty; analysis won’t be effective if the range of treatments is unclear. It will hinder the NEPA process if the most extreme treatment is analyzed. An important wrinkle to iron out. Clarify when to use which branch of the toolbox decision tree. o Include limitations, i.e., if treatment area is above a specified number of acres, use the normal NEPA process. Use the best science to identifying the acreage trigger point. o NRCS created a toolbox for invasive treatments that worked on a large scale. ACE conducted individual site consultations because of the toolbox scale. o Specific on-the-ground treatments could be a category exception.
Arnett Creek – Tony Bush, Tonto National Forest Arnett Creek work involved many resource specialists working together in one area, making the project more complicated in terms of scheduling crews and coordination of practices. Once clear communication avenues were established the project was successful. o AZGFD successfully introduced Gila topminnow into the creek. o Range specialists – worked with permittee. Exclosures built by a local rancher existed on Arnett. High flows resulted in fence maintenance issues. AZGFD and TNF are building a strong gap fence that will function well during high flow periods. o Recreation specialists – Crews rebuilt trails such that they no longer cut through the riparian edge and removed an invasive oleander forest.
Christopher Creek – Tony Bush, Tonto National Forest Smooth and quick moving project due in part to good communication and relationship with AZGFD and Natural Channel Design. o The process: AZGFD identifies a large area where restoration projects could occur. NCD conducts an assessment of the area to pick the best area for restoration and submits an assessment of the main issues, prioritized actions, and plausible tools to use. AZGFD uses that information to apply for a permit while NCD completes the design. Christopher Creek restoration was more straightforward than Arnett Creek, as there were fewer moving parts (volunteer groups, permittee, weeds, Gila topminnow, trail work, drought conditions).
East Verde – Tony Bush, Tonto National Forest Natural Channel Design completed assessment and design previously; four areas currently need restoration work. During the planning process, a highway and pipeline were conducted and a fire occurred. As such, the assessment was adjusted. Permitting process, NEPA and Threatened and Endangered species component, could have been done earlier so that implementation would not stall as a result. Current status: finishing the NEPA process and working on acquiring funding.
Narrative on Possible Management Actions Collaborative Funding of restoration projects Trout Unlimited is scoping out funding opportunities. Hopefully some TU resources, e.g., Coca Cola, NFWF, and Intel could help fund East Verde. Beneficial to present a well- defined project already through permitting, and past successes. Mogollon Sporting Club donated funds for Haigler Creek restoration work. Providing before and after Canyon Creek photos helped secure funding.
Communication and coordination of restoration projects Coordination and communication are easier once relationships exist between agencies and staff. Now that we have them, process will move faster in the future. Helpful to have: collaboration with monitoring, sharing of information, and early involvement of partners, like Arizona Conservation Experience (ACE).
Closing Comments There were very productive discussions on this field trip, and participants offered valuable information we can utilize on current projects. The TNF will continue to think through how to make stream restoration work fit into the Forest Plan. We appreciated hearing perspectives from our partners and users. The TNF also wanted to thank Trout Unlimited and Arizona Game and Fish for working so hard to co-convene this field trip and make it meaningful to future forest management. Next Steps Following the field trip, the TNF will follow up with specific information and actions requested by partners. They will coordinate more closely with partners to mitigate and address incidents that negatively impact stream health (such as recreation-related trespass and accidental livestock presence). The TNF Planning Team will incorporate participants’ input on desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and other components of the revised Forest Plan, and will solicit partners’ comments on the Draft Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The field trip co-conveners and other partners will also coordinate on regional collaborative efforts and TNF stream restoration projects implemented under the new Forest Plan. Participant List – TNF Stream Restoration Field Trip – May 2018
Name Affiliation Email Abby Fullem Southwest Decision Resources [email protected] Allen Haden Natural Channel Designs [email protected] Amber Fields Hassayampa Forestry & Ecological [email protected] Amoryn Smith US Bureau of Reclamation [email protected] Beth Rumpza Tonto National Forest [email protected] Bill Stewart US Bureau of Reclamation [email protected] Brian Stultz Arizona Wilderness Coalition [email protected] Curt Gill Arizona Game and Fish Department [email protected] Devin Black Santa Fe National Forest [email protected] Garrett Port Coconino National Forest [email protected] Grant Loomis Tonto National Forest [email protected] Guy Austin Tonto Recreation Alliance and Rim [email protected] Country 4 Wheelers Jay Olson Tonto National Forest [email protected] Jeff Burgess Environmental Interests [email protected] Jeff Leonard Tonto National Forest [email protected] Jill Holderman Tonto National Forest [email protected] Jim Strogen Trout Unlimited & Payson Flycasters' Club [email protected] Joe Miller Trout Unlimited [email protected] Joe Trudeau Center for Biological Diversity [email protected] Julia Sittig Southwest Decision Resources [email protected] Kaleb Smith Arizona Game and Fish Department [email protected] Kelly Wolff Arizona Game and Fish Department [email protected] Kenna Belsky Tonto National Forest [email protected] Kevin Grove US Army Corps of Engineers [email protected] Kit MacDonald Kaibab National Forest [email protected] Laurie Nessel Maricopa Audubon Society [email protected] Lisa Fitzner Maricopa Audubon Society [email protected] Mark Horlings Maricopa Audubon Society [email protected] Mark Larson Maricopa Audubon Society [email protected] Matt O'Neill Coconino National Forest [email protected] Nathan Rees Trout Unlimited [email protected] Nelson Mitchell Individual [email protected] Robert Madera Tonto National Forest [email protected] Rod Berkey Trout Unlimited, AZ Flycasters, and Trout [email protected] in the Classroom Tony Bush Tonto National Forest [email protected]