In order to save Fossil Creek, Northern Arizona University stream ecologists first had to destroy it.
Nearly a century after it was dammed, Jane Marks, my mom and a stream ecologist at Northern Arizona University (NAU), partnered with Arizona Public Service (APS) and the US Forest Service to poison Fossil Creek. In 1908, APS built the Fossil Creek dam to help the rapid expansion of Phoenix. Ninety-one years later, though still providing power by this point the effects the dam had on the ecosystem were deemed too great and it was, unanimously, agreed to be demolished, beginning one of the largest river restorations in the Southwest.
Fossil Creek is home to ten native central Arizona fish species including headwater chubs, desert suckers, and speckled dace. Starting in 1912, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department introduced various non-native fish species, such as crayfish and brown trout, into Arizona’s freshwater ecosystems to promote recreation. The non-native fish now outcompete the native fish for resources, replacing them at the top of the food web. The dam lowered the flow of the water to a trickle, exacerbating this impact on native fish. My mom and her team of researchers partnered with APS and the Forest Service to restore the native fish populations.
For the restoration to work, the non-native fish had to go. My mom’s team of scientists captured as many native fish as possible. With those fish safe in holding tanks, the Forest Service scientists poisoned the river. They used antimycin A, a toxic chemical that is meant to only target fish and leave macro-invertebrates, like insects, safe.
“It’s like a bone marrow transplant,” my mom said. “You harvest the stem cells, do massive chemotherapy, and then reintroduce the cells.”
My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013. This diagnosis came eleven years after her work on the Fossil Creek native fish restoration, but it is difficult to not see the parallels. Many restoration projects are supposed to be solely positive, solely restorative. But the destruction that must come with a lot of conservation and restoration projects is often not seen. Although chemotherapy, radiation, and surgeries treated my Mom’s cancer, it seemed that the destruction from the treatment was more than the destruction from the disease.
After the introduction of antimycin into the river, the non-native fish floated to the surface of the river, dead and with them came the insects. My mom did not expect the insects to die, as well. The treatment was successful in eradicating the non-native fish, but without the insects my mom’s team wasn’t sure if the river would ever recover.
“Bugs are the unsung heroes of a river. Everybody loves fish and birds, but without the bugs, you can’t have any of that,” my mom told me. “All we could do was wait and see if they’d come back.”
Before starting treatments, my mom had dreams of being able to work and exercise and function essentially as she did before. Chemotherapy withered those dreams. After treatments, she lay in bed for days, only feeling better enough to walk around and work just before her next dosage.
“The bugs were the thing that was the most harmed by the chemical,” she told me when talking about her struggles with cancer treatments. “And that was kind of like: Will I ever recover from chemotherapy? Am I ever gonna get my hair back? My energy level back? The treatments of it, all of it knocks you back. And some people do end up dying of the treatments. The cure sometimes is worse than the disease.”
The insects eventually returned and the project went forward with the dam removal, restoring the river’s flow and eventually the ecosystem. Since the reconstruction, Fossil Creek has become a prime recreational destination, leading to management issues on how to allow people to enjoy the river while still protecting the ecosystem. The US Forest Service recently issued a management plan that promotes increased recreation and development, putting the fragile ecosystem of Fossil Creek at risk.
When reflecting on this new plan, my mom said, “We just restored this whole river, and now the Forest Service is screwing it all up again. And like cancer, because I had a mess up with my [breast] reconstruction, there’s this sense that, if you really care about something, whether it’s being alive and healthy or it’s restoring a river and keeping it restored, you never get to give up the fight. It’s never behind you.”
I asked her if that gets draining and she laughed. “Yes, definitely. But there’s this sort of a lesson that you don’t need to be defeated. Whether it’s your health and wellbeing or the river’s health and well being, sometimes all you can do is power through. Fight and stay focused on what you want.”
---
Nona is an Environmental Communication Master’s student from Flagstaff, Arizona. She is passionate about education and ways to change the way we teach environmental science and environmental change. Their undergrad focused on community health impacts from climate change. She is also very passionate about theater and writing and hopes to find a way to explore all of these interests, whether at the same time or individually, in the future.
Comments