MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
October 30, 2009
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, CPWAC Chairman, Coconino County
Joelynn Roberson, WAC Vice-Chairman, Hopi Tribe
Carl Taylor, Coconino County
Brad Hill, City of Flagstaff
Anita McFarlane, City of Sedona
Robert Kirk, Navajo Nation
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Rory Steinke, Coconino National Forest
Mike Williams, Kaibab National Forest
Bob Michaels, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Hart, U.S.G.S.
Mike Macauley, NRCD
1. Welcome and Introductions Liz Archuleta,
WAC Chairman
Liz Archuleta, CPWAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. and asked for introductions by those in attendance.
2. Approval of Minutes Liz Archuleta, September 25 WAC Meeting WAC Chairman
On a motion by Tom Whitmer, seconded by Bob Michaels, the minutes from the September 25, 2009 WAC meeting were unanimously approved as submitted.
3. Presentation -- Watershed Health Abe Springer, NAU
School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability
Abe Springer addressed the CPWAC in regard to Forest Management and Watersheds (power point presentation will be available at www.cpwac.org ). His presentation included an overview of previous studies, a recent book by the National Academy of Sciences, lessons learned from thinning and burning at Hart Prairie, and implications related to the concept of manipulating vegetation on water yield.
Abe addressed what constitutes vegetation manipulation, noting that there are different methods including man-made, natural, intentional, and unintentional.
Abe mentioned the Beaver Creek Watershed Studies which started as part of the 1950’s “Water for Arizona” program, and continued through the 1980’s. He said that the treatment results were effective for six years and then other vegetation growth took over. He said that the timing of precipitation had a greater role than the treatment.
Abe then discussed the Three Bar Case Study in Southern Arizona. This dealt with converting chaparral shrub growth back to grassland which proved successful.
Abe also mentioned the Michigan Pine Plantation study which showed an increase in recharge of aquifer. He noted that we do not have the same opportunities and it has not been incorporated into studies here.
Abe referred to Forest Watershed Studies which reviewed over 250 watersheds worldwide finding that annual evapotranspiration (ET) is greater for forested than non-forested watersheds, but concluded that the significance of thinning is minimized in areas of limited precipitation.
Abe mentioned recent book from the National Academies of Science which addresses factors affecting water yield changes from forest cover changes. The 2008 book is titled “Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape.”
Abe discussed Hart Prairie as a local example. He said that it has shallow groundwater and a Bebb Willow habitat that is not regenerating. He noted that it is on the only part of mountain that drains into the Verde River watershed, the rest drains into Little Colorado River watershed. Abe addressed the relationship of water availability, grazing intensity, and fire frequency, noting that grazing intensity applies to elk. Abe showed some historic photos reflecting the difference in vegetation and pine encroachment.
In 2003 there was a 300-acre burn for the study, but it was a dry year so they couldn’t assess the hydrologic benefit.
Mike Macauley asked about soil moisture depth, Abe said they didn’t profile with depth, only rooting capacity of plants, they weren’t concerned with changing permeability of soil. Abe said that the only recharge in Hart Prairie is snow melt. Summer rains all go to plants stock tanks also only fill up from snowmelt.
Abe reviewed the implications of the study, noting that forest treatment is important for watersheds but impacts to aquifers, springs, and baseflow dependant streams is still uncertain, especially with climate change.
Mike Macaluey asked how Bebb Willows germinate. Abe said that the seed must fall on bare wet soil usually late June, very specific regeneration conditions.
Mike noted that in the historical photos there is considerable less canopy cover, drier soil possible effect on Bebb Willow. Abe said that was the hope, discussion of nee for 40-50 years of records to evaluate and account for climate
Rory Steinke noted that from the Coconino National Forest management perspective they do not manage to augment water supply and explained their reasons. He said they manage to limit sedimentation and erosion into reservoirs. Wildland Urban Interface treatments help prevent fire threats which could result in major erosion. Rory discussed TMDL (total maximum daily load) as it relates to pollutants in water, noting that they are concerned that if there’s too much loss of vegetation it would result in more erosion and increase TMDLs.
After further discussion the WAC thanked Abe for his informative presentation.
4. Presentation -- Four Forest Restoration Courtney Schultz,
Initiative 4-FRI Assistant Team Leader
Courtney Schultz, Assistant Team Leader for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (4-FRI) gave a power point presentation about this initiative (which will be available at www.cpwac.org ). By way of background, she noted that it includes 2.4 million acres covering parts of the Kaibab, Coconino, Tonto, and Apache-Sitgreaves Forests. The goals are restoring forest health and ecosystem function, reducing risks of uncharacteristic wildfires, and promoting sustainable forest products industries. Courtney stated that the Initiative started in early 2009.
The reason behind 4-FRI is the departure from historical conditions on the Forests resulting in dense growth of small trees, increased risk of large wildfires, changing hydrology, and altered ecosystems. The solution is a landscape scale approach including mechanical thinning and burning, and a change in the way of thinking in how they approach planning. Part of the initiative is partnering with industry to support sustainable forest products.
Ms. Schultz described the process as being collaborative including a broad stakeholder group, ecologically based (focus on restoring health and function of forests), protect from wildfires through reduction in dense fuels, industry supported, and science informed. She said that they are trying to get agreement socially that what they are doing is right.
Anita McFarland asked how they will communicate with the general public on what they are doing. Courtney said that they are working on how to broadly engage the public.
David Newlin asked about the time frame for NEPA. Courtney said that it would be 3 years for entire scale, noting that was ambitious and they would still have to do NEPA at smaller scale. She identified a challenge is that this approach is not set up to provide any long-term guarantees to industry.
David asked about thinning vs. burning. Courtney said the group is looking at different treatments in different areas.
Liz asked if there are areas that already have NEPA clearance. Courtney said, yes, some areas are essentially NEPA-ready.
Mike Macauley said that NEPA on the full area wouldn’t be logical, and asked how it is being prioritized. Mike Williams, Kaibab National Forest, somewhat arbitrary but chose areas around Flagstaff based on work that’s already been done here.
Tom Whitmer asked if there had been any discussion about looking at water monitoring. Courtney said not to that point, but will presumably be one of resource effects they will want to measure. Abe mentioned that the Ecological Research Institute is doing some science support for the project.
Carl suggested that the way to go about it is to look at economic potential –e.g. biomass production of energy. Courtney noted that they do have an industry working group.
Anita noted that the need to preserve the forest for tourism is also important, e.g. hiking, wildlife, etc. Courtney, strength of collaborative groups, so many different people and interests at table. She noted that they have hired a facilitator from the Udall Center to help move them forward.
After further the discussion the CPWAC thanked Courtney for an informative presentation.
5. Committee Reports
Technical Advisory Committee Leslie Meyers, Chair
Leslie Meyers, TAC Chair, said they are still working on the sustainable water budget. They are currently identifying data collection needs and suggested monitoring sites. She said that the TAC plans to give a presentation at the December meeting.
Government Affairs Committee Brenda Smith, GAC member
Brenda Smith gave the report for the GAC. She noted that at their meeting earlier that morning they discussed the ADWR budget, reviewed some of their strategic plan accomplishments and goals, and discussed identifying legislative needs to meet the goals.
Public Outreach Committee Patricia Cox, Chair
Patricia Cox, POC Chair, reported that the committee did not meet this month but they are putting together their accomplishments for the December meeting.
6. CAP ADD-Water Meeting Update Brad Hill, City of Flagstaff
Brad Hill gave an update on the ongoing proceedings with the CAP ADD-Water group. He noted that today marks week 5 of an 8-week process. He noted that there is only one seat at the table of 27 representing anyone outside of the CAP’s 3-county service area. There was some discussion about the work of the group, the participants, and what it means for the areas outside of the CAP service area. He noted that some sources they are currently looking at include brackish groundwater, Colorado River water from sources in Yuma, and desalinization from Mexico in the long term.
7. Report on SWAG and other State Tom Whitmer, ADWR
Water Issues
Tom Whitmer said that by way of an update on ADWR budget they are looking at a 30% cut which could mean cutting 85 positions from the department. He said this means the Statewide Rural Planning program is gone, the cooperative work with USGS will be gone, and there will be limited basic monitoring for AMA’s only. The Governor will be convening a special session in early November with a possible second session in December to make decisions. Ultimately 6,000 to 10,000 state employees could be affected. He did note that the legislature did take action necessary to reauthorize ADWR for another 10 years. Tom said that the rural areas are coming out in support of the division. Liz encouraged all CPWAC members to contact appropriate people through email, mail, phone, etc.
8. Wrap-up and set agenda for next meeting Liz Archuleta,
Friday, October 30, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. WAC Chairman
Future Meetings-December 11
Liz asked if there was any other business. Mike Williams from the Kaibab National Forest mentioned the Secure Rural Schools provision for Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) to advise Forest Service. He asked for volunteers or names of people who may be interested.
Mike Macauley mentioned a Rapid Watershed Assessment for Cataract Watershed for identifying locations for rain warning systems. He said that it will start in the next couple of months to be complete by the end of the year. Carl Taylor mentioned the County’s participation with USGS gauging, but understood the problem was there is no money for ongoing monitoring. Mike said that this project is to locate rain gauges not stream flow.
Liz mentioned that the next meeting had tentatively been scheduled for December 11, but that she would not be able to attend and would send out some alternate dates for consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.