methods

PHOTO BY MARY STUEVER, BAER IMPLEMENTATION LEADER
Watershed Analysis, Restoration
& Monitoring on the
Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona
Daniel Pusher, Jonathan Long, Cheryl Pailzote &
Javis Davis
White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Resources
PURPOSE
Emphasize importance of watershed protection & preservation:
• Identification
• Identify watershed parameters (i.e. habitat, soil,
geology, endangered or threaten species, vegetation,
etc…
• Analysis
• Establish baseline
• Identify challenges
• Collect data
• Remediation
• Environmental restoration: stabilize watershed (install
rock riffle structures, transplanting, coir logs, fence
installation, etc..)
• Continuous monitoring
• Collect data and evaluate management practices
SITE MAP
• FAIR located in east-central, AZ
• Headwaters of the Salt River Basin
• Total area: 1.67 million acres
• Below the
Mogollon Rim
• Within the
transition zone of
the:
• Colorado
Plateau
• Basin & Range
Physiographic
Province
• Eastern half
composed
generally of
volcanic rocks
• Western half
composed mainly
of sed. rocks
LOCATION
Figure from Peirce, 1984
INTRODUCTION-TURKEY SPRING
• 2002 Rodeo –
Chediski
Wildfire
• Burned over
420,000 acres of
forested
woodlands
• ~281,000 acres
of WMAT lands
damaged
• Currently, the
2nd largest
recorded
wildfire in AZ
Photo retrieved from Barbara Strom’s
master thesis (NAU)
Photo edited and retrieved from: http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH78fb.dir/doc.pdf
INTRODUCTION-TURKEY SPRING
LOCATION-TURKEY SPRING
• Fort Apache
Reservation
• Navajo
County
• Central
northern
section of
F.A.I.R.
• Within the
Corduroy Creek
Watershed Unit
TURKEY SPRING
• Area = 1.12
km² (276.8
acres)
• Elevation:
1,850 m
(6,070 ft)
• Primary soil
type:
• Cobbly
sandy
loam.
(NRCS
WSS)
TURKEY SPRING
• Tributary of the
Salt River
• Perennial flow
from spring
and seeps
• Intermittent
flow in channel
1959
TURKEY SPIRNG GEOLOGY
BACKGROUND – TURKEY SPRING
• Moderate- high
burn severity
• Elevated
erosion of soils
• Loss of soil
anchoring
vegetation
• Increased
sedimentation
& channel
erosion
downstream
Photo from USFS – Jonathan Long
BACKGROUND – TURKEY SPRING
• Channel
erosion and
morphology
study
• Channel
restoration
efforts
continued in
2010 
WMAT
awarded 2012
competitive
EPA-NPS
grant
2012
Photo from USFS – Jonathan Long
BACKGROUND - TURKEY SPRING
Interagency cooperation
• WMAT Water Resources
Program
• B.A.E.R.
• Cibecue High School
Ndee Bini bida’ Ilzaah
program
• WMAT Forestry
• USFS (Pacific Southwest,
Rocky Mountain Station)
• AMERICORP (SW
Conservation Corp)
• NRCS
2012
METHODS
Watershed Restoration Best Management Practices
Stabilize drainage channel from rapid erosion
• Transplant vegetation uplands
• Removed tree debris from drainage channel
• Stabilize channel knick-points
• Rock-riffle structures (x36)
Analyze & monitor results
• Photo points, cross-sections, longitudinal profiles
,vegetation transects, pebble counts, water quality
METHODS
Stabilize drainage
channel from
rapid erosion
• Removed burnt
and fallen tree
debris
2013
METHODS
Stabilize channel
from rapid erosion
• Riffle bars
• Utilized rocks
near site
• 1”-28”
diameter
• Total volume of
rocks= ~420 m3
(~756 tons ) of
rocks
Fall/Winter 2012
Riffle bars structure
METHODS
• Total of 36 riffle
bars total as of
2015
• Spaced ~30-50 ft
intervals
• Sites selection:
sedimentation and
aggradation will
likely occur
•Follow-up with
additional riffle
bars as needed
June 2015
METHODS
Vegetation
•Reseed uplands with
vegetation for slope
stabilization
Upland plants utilized were
drought tolerant + resistant
to erosion
Barley; variety of native
warm and cool season
grasses & variety of forbs
June 2015
•Riparian vegetation: willow, salix, spike rush, wooly
sedge, irish-leaf rush, Baltic wire rush, and yarrow.
•Vegetation transects performed
METHODS
Monitoring and analysis:
Stream channel
morphology
• Cross-sections
• 7 of 8 cross-sections
• 1 cross-section
markers loss to
erosion event
• Longitudinal profile
• ~450 meter reach
measured
• Harrelson et al., 1994
• Photo points
June 2015
METHODS
Cross-section & longitudinal
Profile
Cross-Section –Riffle #3
• Quantify drainage channel
erosion and sedimentation
(degradation vs
aggradation)
Pebble Count
Cross-section data from Turkey Spring. Data collected by J. Long (USFS), WMAT Water
Resources & Cibeque, AZ High School
• Assess the size of
sediment on the surface of
stream banks and on the
stream beds
Photo retrieved from: http://www.fgmorph.com/fg_6_52.php
METHODS
Establish photo
points
(rephotography)
• Collect and
compare
images of
morphology
and ecological
restoration
efforts
• Document
incremental
and cyclical
events
Down stream near riffle bar 1
Fall 2012
METHODS
Establish photo
points
(rephotography)
• Collect and
compare images
of morphology
and ecological
restoration
efforts
• Document
incremental and
cyclical events
Down stream near riffle bar 1
Fall/Winter 2012
METHODS
Establish photo
points
(rephotography)
• Collect and
compare
images of
morphology
and ecological
restoration
efforts
Down stream near riffle bar 1
• Document
incremental
and cyclical
events
Summer 2013
DATA
Cross-sections
Data collected
intermittently
from: 2004 –2015
Post – fire erosion
of drainage
channel
Data retrieved from Jonathan Long
previous work
DATA
Longitudinal
Profile
Data collected in
2010
Down cutting of
channel
Data retrieved from Jonathan Long previous work
RESULTS
Avg. area loss = -5.75 m2/yr
Area: 2004 – 2010 = -34.5 m2
RESULTS
 Average Area (loss/gain): 2010-2013 = -0.3 m2/yr
RESULTS
Area loss = -1.6 m2/yr
Area loss total: 2013-2015 = -3.2 m2
Area: 2004-2015 = -38.6 m2
RESULTS
Turkey Spring CS-3
Time
Rate (m/yr)
Cumulative
2005
-5.75
-5.75
2006
-5.75
-11.50
2007
-5.75
-17.25
2008
-5.75
-23.00
2009
-5.75
-28.75
2010
-5.75
-34.50
2011
-0.3
-34.80
2012
-0.3
-35.10
2013
-0.3
-35.40
2014
-1.6
-37.00
2015
-1.6
-38.60
 Area: 2004-2015 = -38.6 m2
RESULTS
Turkey Spring CS-1
Rate (m2/yr)
Cumulative
2005
-3.02
-3.02
2006
-3.02
-6.04
2007
-3.02
-9.06
2008
-3.02
-12.08
2009
-3.02
-15.10
2010
-2.00
-17.10
2011
2.50
-14.60
2012
2.50
-12.10
2013
-6.90
-19.00
Year
2004
2014
 Area: 2004-2013 =2015
-19.0 m2
RESULTS
Turkey Spring CS-19
Rate (m2/yr)
Cumulative (m2)
2005
-2.45
-2.45
2006
-2.45
-4.90
2007
-2.45
-7.35
2008
-2.45
-9.80
2009
-2.45
-12.25
2010
-2.45
-14.70
2011
0.10
-14.60
2012
0.10
-14.50
2013
0.10
-14.40
2014
-0.40
-14.80
2015
-1.20
-16.00
Year
2004
 Area: 2004-2015 = -16.0 m2
RESULTS
TS CS-1 Area: 2004-2015 = -19.0 m2
TS CS-3 Area: 2004-2015 = -38.6 m2
TS CS-19 Area: 2004-2015 = -16.0 m2
DISCUSSION
Remediation results
• Initial B.A.E.R. reseeding by efforts had minimal results
• Channel restoration started in 2010; 8 years after 2002
Rodeo-Chediski wildfire
• Site isolated
• Initial budget for restoration utilized at Swamp Spring
• Analysis of channel started in 2004. Data revealed:
• Channel down cut and widened
• Loss of riparian vegetation
• Loss of wetland & soil
• Increase rate of erosion
• Rock-riffle installation, in fall 2012, slowed erosion,
induced sedimentation & aggradation at some sites
DISCUSSION
Remediation results (cont’)
• Data estimated that ~9,716 m³ of soil eroded from channel
-550 m reach (Long, unpub.)
• Soils ~BC 6,235 ± 140 yrs exposed (8,107- 8,387 yrs) from
channel erosion (Davis, unpub)
• Rock riffle structures stabilized channel from accelerated
erosion rates; rates were reduced
• Aggradation within channel
• Wetted perimeter increased
• Increase in water depth (water pooling behind rock
riffle structures)
• Riparian vegetation naturally returned
DISCUSSION
Remediation results (cont’)
• Riparian vegetation naturally returned
- Cattails (Typha)
- Willows (red, brown stem Fremont and narrow-leaf)
- Wire rush (Juncutus balticus)
- Iris leaf rush
- Spike rush
- Horsetail
- 3 square-bulrush
Above riparian vegetation documented during vegetation
survey in 2015.
INTRODUCTION-SWAMP SPRING
LOCATION-SWAMP SPRING
Watershed located
below the Mogollon
Rim
• Near the NW
section of the
F.A.I.R.
boundary
• Tributary of
Canyon Creek
• Within R/C burn
zone
• Moderate-high
burn severity
SWAMP SPRINGS
Swamp Spring Watershed
• Area ~ 1.70 km2 (420.1 acres)
• Average elevation: 1,830
meters
• Average channel slope: 9.3%
• Overall aspect: South-facing
• Perennial spring head &
stream
6/1997
Image from Google Earth
SWAMP SPRINGS
Soil Type
• Primary soil type(s):
Elledge,Overgaard soils, and
rock outcrop(s)
• Elledge parent material:
slope alluvium derived
from sandstone
• Overgaard parent material:
gravelly alluvium derived
from sandstone and/or
quartzite
6/2014
Aerial photo from Google Earth
SWAMP SPRING-GEOLOGY
Watershed geology
Swamp Spring Watershed Geology
• Pre-Cambrian
metamorphic rocks,
Paleozoic sed. rocks
and Quaternary
alluvium
• Dripping Stone, Troy
Quartzite
• Martin, Naco
Formations
• Quaternary alluvium
Legend
Quaternary Alluvium
Naco Formation
Redwall Limestone
• Area within fault
zone in Canyon
Creek
Diabase
Troy Quartzite
Dripping Stone
Quartzite
METHODS
Identify watershed at risk of degradation
Watershed Restoration Best Management Practices
• Installation of:
• Fences
• Low water crossing
• Rock riffle structures
• Transplant vegetation (sedges)
• Coir logs (Summer 2015)
Monitor results
• Cross-sections, longitudinal profiles ,vegetation
transects, pebble counts, macro invertebrates
sampling, water quality, photo points
METHODS
Stabilize channel from rapid
rate of erosion & prevent
adverse changes to channel
morphology
• Low water crossing
June 2004
• Barbed wire fencing around
perimeter of meadow &
stream
Photo from WMAT Water Resources Dept.
June 2004
METHODS
Stabilize channel from rapid
rate of erosion & prevent
adverse changes to channel
morphology
• Barbed wire fencing
around perimeter of
meadow & stream
• Riffle Bars (x12)
• 1700 tons gravel backfill,
1779 tons riprap armor
• Coir logs (Summer 2015)
June 2007
Photo from WMAT Water Resources Dept.
METHODS
Cross-sections
• Measure
sediment
aggregation
vs
degradation
• Yearly
intervals and
after events
(i.e.
wildfires,
forest
thinning)
Cross-section data from Swamp Spring. Data collected by J. Long (USFS), WMAT Water
Resources & the Cibeque, AZ High School
METHODS
Pebble Counts
Pebble count data for Swamp Spring
• Assess the size of sediment
on the surface of stream
banks and on the stream
beds
• Supplement stream
morphology monitoring
• Monitor sedimentation after:
• Land disturbance
events, restoration
activities…
•
Evaluate the effects of land
management activities
Photo retrieved from: http://www.fgmorph.com/fg_6_52.php
METHODS
Stabilize channel from rapid
rate of erosion & prevent
adverse changes to
channel morphology
• Transplant native sedges
along stream channel &
small fruit bulrush
• Monitor riparian
vegetation near channel
• Vegetation transects
June 2011
Photo retrieved from Jonathan Long
DATA
Swamp Spring
Pebble Count
Data retrieved from Jonathan Long
DATA
Riffle 10 – CS 2
Riffle 10- CS 3
Data retrieved from Jonathan Long
DATA
Riffle 10 – CS 1
Vegetation transects (data)
Riffle 11 – CS 1
Data retrieved from Jonathan Long
RESULTS
 Area: 2004-2010 = +8.0 m2
RESULTS
 Area: 2010-2014 = -0.7 m2
RESULTS
Time
Area (gain/loss)
Cumulative
2005
1.333
1.33
2006
1.333
2.67
2007
1.333
4.00
2008
1.333
5.33
2009
1.333
6.67
2010
1.333
8.00
2011
-0.175
7.83
2012
-0.175
7.65
2013
-0.175
7.48
2014
-0.175
7.30
2015
1.200
8.50
2004
 Area: 2014-2015 = +1.2 m2
RESULTS
SS CS 10-3
Time
Area (gain/loss)
Cumulative
2005
0.94
0.94
2006
0.94
1.88
2007
0.94
2.82
2008
0.94
3.76
2009
0.94
4.7
2010
-0.3
4.4
2011
-0.18
4.22
2012
-0.18
4.04
2013
-0.18
3.86
2014
-0.18
3.68
2015
-0.18
3.5
2004
 Area: 2004-2015 = +3.5 m2
RESULTS
Time
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
SS CS 11
Area (gain/loss)
Cumulative
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
-0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
 Area: 2004-2015 = +0.5 m2
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Early post-fire restoration efforts (2005) likely prevented
erosion and degradation as documented at Turkey Spring
• Data suggest that rock riffle structures and sedge
transplantation stimulated stream channel aggradation and
wetland development
• Cross-section and longitudinal profile data indicates
stream channel erosion was minor when compared to
Turkey Spring
• Mass wasting of marsh and wetlands reported prior to
2005 restoration efforts.
DISCUSSION
• Fencing around study site prevented erosion from
ungulates (when fence is intact)
• Rephotography documents incremental geomorphic
change to watershed restoration site
• Additional restoration trial in progress
• Coir logs placed in Swamp Spring and another
proximal wetland
• Studies suggest coir logs may increase surface
area water distribution within the marsh
CONCLUSION
Monitoring & analysis
assist WMAT understand
and quantify geomorphic
changes to watershed
• Wetlands generally
rare in semi-arid
regions
• New research
suggests that
ecological recovery
longer than previously
suggested
CONCLUSION
Adapting to new
challenges caused by
climate change
• Wildfire regimes
• Drought
• Human caused
ecological
degradation
• Implement land
management and
conservation
strategies
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cheryl Pailzote
Daniel Pusher
Ida Rose Cosay
Jonathan Long (USDA-USFS Pacific Research Station)
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT)
WMAT Water Resources Department
US Forest Service
WMAT Tribal Forestry
Cibecue High School - Ndee bini' bida'ilzaahi (Pictures of
Apache Land)
QUESTIONS?