2002 Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire Survival of Springs. Daniel Pusher, White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Resources Program

Transcription

1 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire Survival of Springs Daniel Pusher, White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Resources Program

2 PURPOSE Emphasize importance of watershed protection & preservation: Identification Reconnaissance Research Outreach Analysis Identify challenges Collect data Assess Remediation Survey Select Best Management Practices Implement the plan Monitor and Evaluate Collect data

3 BACKGROUND Located in eastcentral, AZ ~1.67 million acres Elevation ranges from 2,600 feet to 11,400 feet above sea level Landscape - Sonora Desert to Subalpine Conifer Forest

4 Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire: INTRODUCTION Burned over 420,000 acres ~281,000 acres burn on the WMAT Land Currently, the 2 nd largest recorded wildfire in AZ Map created by J. Long

5 INVENTORY MAP ~300 springs ID reservation-wide ~60 springs ID within the burn

6 SPRING MAP

7 SPRING ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL The interdisciplinary nature of the inventory data aids the process of improving the understanding of springs ecosystem ecology, distribution, status and restoration. The data also provides information on aquatic, wetland, riparian, and upland linkages. There are six variable categories that are assessed: Aquifer and Water Quality Site Geomorphology Habitat and Microhabitat Array Site Biota Human Uses and Influences Administrative context under which the spring is managed.

8 SPRING ASSESSMENT Water Resources staff conducting spring assessment at the spring-head of White Spring located in the lower end of the burn.

9 WHITE SPRING Perennial stream flows directly to Cibecue community located 10 miles downstream from White Spring POST FIRE NOVEMBER 2002 POST FIRE

10 GERONIMO SPRING A spring was identify during a Type 3 wildfire incident. The Dehose wildfire was identify by the Geronimo Hot Shot Crew in the summer of The spring is located in the 2002 burn area. Water Resources staff agree to name the spring after the Hot Shot crew.

11 REFERENCE MAP Turkey Spring & Swamp Spring

12 INTRODUCTION TURKEY SPRING

13 TURKEY SPRING WATERSHED Area ~ acres Average elevation: 6,070 feet Average channel slope: 9.3% Overall aspect: Southeast-facing Perennial spring Moderate-high burn severity

14 Turkey Spring Loss over 9,716 m³ of soils At 550 meter reach

15 TURKEY SPRING SURVEY-MONITOR

16 MONITOR Cross-Section 3 Cross-section data collected by J. Long (USFS), WMAT Water Resources & Cibeque, AZ High School

17 MONITOR Stream Channel Morphology Survey: Cross-sections 7 cross-sections Longitudinal profile ~200 meter reach measured Vegetation inventory Within 40 meters study is done every 2 meters Water Quality Collect sample before & after restoration area June 2015

18 BEFORE RESTORATION EFFORT 2012 AFTER DURING

19 Remediation results: DISCUSSION Initial reseeding efforts had minimal and unsuccessful results Channel restoration started in 2012; 10 years after 2002 Rodeo-Chediski wildfire Site isolated Initial budget for restoration utilized at Swamp Spring Analysis of channel initially started in Data revealed: Channel down cut and widened Loss of riparian vegetation Increase rate of erosion

20 INTRODUCTION SWAMP SPRING

21 SWAMP SPRING WATERSHED Area ~ acres Average elevation: 6,000 feet Average channel slope: 9.3% Overall aspect: South-facing Perennial spring Moderate-high burn severity

22 SWAMP SPRINGS 6/1997 Image from Google Earth 6/2014 Image from Google Earth

23 METHODS Watershed Restoration Best Management Practices Installation of: Fences Low water crossing Rock riffle structures Transplant riparian vegetation Coir logs Monitor results Cross-sections, longitudinal profiles,vegetation transects, pebble counts, macro invertebrates study, water quality sampling, establishing photo points

24 METHODS Stabilize channel from rapid rate of erosion & prevent adverse changes to channel morphology June 2004 Photo from WMAT Water Resources Dept. June 2004

25 SWAMP SPRING SURVEY- MONITOR

26 MONITOR Stream Channel Morphology Survey: Cross-sections 8 cross-sections Longitudinal profile ~200 meter reach measured Vegetation inventory Within 40 meters study is done every 2 meters Water Quality Collect sample before & after restoration area

27 MONITOR Vegetation Inventory at Swamp Spring Pebble count data for Swamp Spring

28 MONITOR Cross-sections Measure sediment aggregation vs degradation Cross-section data from Swamp Spring. Data collected by J. Long (USFS), WMAT Water Resources, Cibeque, AZ High School

29 Vegetation transects (data) DATA Riffle 10 CS 1 Riffle 11 CS 1 Data retrieved from Jonathan Long

30 DISCUSSION Mass wasting of wetland soils ceased following restoration efforts at Swamp 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 Fencing around study site prevented erosion from ungulates (when fence is intact) Studies suggest coir logs may increase surface sheet flow that were placed within meadow

31 CONCLUSION Understand and quantify geomorphic changes to watershed by monitor & analysis Monitor vegetation changes Adapting to new challenges caused by climate change Implement land management and conservation strategies PUMPKIN LAKE

32 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Tribes Watershed programs have formed an informal interagency cooperation partnership with various entities to help protect, sustain, restore and monitor the health of our springs. Ndee Bini bida ilzaahi (Picture of Apache Land) Program Consist of Cibecue High School Summer Students USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Resources Program White Mountain Apache Tribal Forestry Department White Mountain Apache Tribe Game & Fish Department

33 QUESTIONS?