St. David Cienega Restoration Plan Community Watershed Alliance

Thomas R. Biebighauser October 17, 2019

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 3 Background ...... 4 Purpose and Need for Proposal:...... 19 Wetland Restoration Design ...... 21 Invasive Species ...... 29 Invasive Native and Nonnative Plant Control ...... 30 Mosquitoes...... 30 Heavy Equipment Requirements ...... 31 Engineering Design – Service or Construction Contract?...... 32 Construction Monitoring ...... 33 Buried Utilities ...... 34 Climate Change ...... 34 Project Implementation ...... 35 Budget ...... 35 Summary...... 35 Funded by: ...... 36 Prepared by: ...... 36 About the Author: ...... 36 Appendix 1: Photos Showing Wetlands Constructed in Arid Regions by the Author ...... 37 Appendix 2: Wetland Construction on Saturated Soils ...... 63

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Executive Summary

Actions are outlined for restoring the St. David Cienega to provide habitat for the Federally listed Desert pupfish, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, Northern Mexican gartersnake, Huachuca water umbel, Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes delitescens), and Arizona eryngo (soon to be listed). The restored wetlands may also provide habitat for the other aquatic/wetland species such as lowland leopard frog, Mexican Duck (and other waterfowl), Sonora mud turtle, various shore and wading birds. Areas of open water and the elevation of groundwater would be restored by filling ditches and by excavating naturally appearing and functioning wetlands that do not use pipes, pumps, or diversions to maintain water levels. The project would improve wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities, and be designed to require little, if any maintenance, except for the periodic control of nonnative plants, and possibly cattails and bulrushes.

Introduction

The St. David Cienega is a 386-acre unit of land administered by the United States Bureau of Land Management. St. David Cienega is an extensive wetland within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA). The Cienega contains large areas of bottomland grasses, mesquite bosques, and net-leaf hackberry trees with areas of sedges and open water choked by bulrushes.

The author examined the St. David Cienega for restoration opportunities on June 1 and 2, 2018 at the request of the Community Watershed Alliance. The following individuals assisted the author in the investigation of the St. David Cienega:

Catie Armstrong (Community Watershed Alliance) Tom Bousman (Community Watershed Alliance) Howard Buchanan (Community Watershed Alliance) Kali Holtschlag (Community Watershed Alliance) Mike Holtschlag (Community Watershed Alliance) Mary McCool (Community Watershed Alliance) Carmen Miller (Community Watershed Alliance) David Murray (Bureau of Land Management) Jeffrey Simms (Bureau of Land Management) Kristin Terpening (Arizona Game and Fish Department) Laura White (Community Watershed Alliance) John Windes (Arizona Game and Fish Department)

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The author worked to identify and design management actions for the St. David Cienega that would: 1. Restore areas of open water 2. Restore the elevation of groundwater 3. Increase the area of wetlands 4. Provide habitat for Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species of animals and plants, as well as, a wide variety of species that require aquatic and wetland habitats. 5. Increase opportunities to view and hunt wildlife

Efforts were made to identify and map all ditches affecting the St. David Cienega. Constructed features such as railroad embankments, culverts, and pipelines were examined to determine if they were affecting the St. David Cienega.

Soil texture, and the presence or absence of groundwater at potential project locations was determined using a 48-inch long tile probe, and a 52-inch long open-face soil auger. The texture of the soil at each location was determined using the ribbon test.

Portions of the St. David Cienega were surveyed using a laser level and survey rod. Elevation locations were recorded. The perimeter of designed projects was recorded using a GPS.

Background

The St. David Cienega once contained large pools of open water1. Rancher Carmen Miller remembers visiting these areas of open water within the St. David Cienega as a child.2 Anecdotal records collected by members of the Community Watershed Alliance report that the open water was maintained by ranchers using fire, grazing, dredging, blasting, and herbicide application.

The presence of an extensive network of ditches constructed prior to the BLM purchasing the land in 1988 shows that actions were taken to protect El Paso gas pipeline, which was installed in 1935, and to spread water from the St. David Cienega to irrigate grassland. Approximately 8,206-feet of ditches were identified that are now affecting the St. David Cienega.

The ditches that were constructed within and around the St. David Cienega, which are visible on a 1956 aerial photograph, are still functioning today. These ditches affect the St. David Cienega by removing standing water, and by lowering the elevation of groundwater.

The St. David Cienega has been modified by the following activities:

1 Brown, D.E. 1985. Arizona wetlands and waterfowl. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2 Carmen Miller personal communication with T.R. Biebighauser on June 2, 2018.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

1) A 4-foot deep x 40-foot wide ditch was dug to channel water to the south, under the El Paso gas easement via a culvert to Headcut Creek. 2) A series of irrigation ditches were dug to move water from the St. David Cienega to grasslands located downhill (north) from the Cienega. 3) Several low dams were built to impound water. These dams are no longer functioning or leak. 4) Ditches are drying the Cienega by diverting runoff, removing surface water, and by lowering the elevation of groundwater. The ditches provide poor habitat for fish and wildlife because they only periodically contain water, lack pools, riffles, woody debris, and some are eroding. 5) The ditches lowered the elevation of groundwater in the Cienega, providing conditions where shrubs and trees may now dominate areas that once supported sedges, grasses, and aquatic plants. 6) The ditches reduced the depth of water in open water wetlands, allowing bulrushes to fill open water. The annual growth and die-back of bulrushes and cattails have created mats of organic material that are over 4-feet thick, filling areas that were once open water. 7) Within the Cienega, water from springs once flowed in a sheet-like pattern, saturating soils and supporting a diversity of wetlands, pools and streams. The dug ditches have concentrated runoff into narrow channels that are now eroding in some cases. 8) Deep and long ditches were dug to remove water from the Cienega. This may have been done so that pasture fields may be irrigated, and other fields managed for hay. The ditches eliminated water standing in wetlands and lowered the elevation of groundwater. 9) Head-cuts have formed in some of the ditches. These head-cuts have caused a deepening and widening of ditches, eliminating surface water, and lowering the elevation of groundwater. The ditches and head-cuts are responsible for draining many acres of natural wet-meadows. 10) The ditches that were dug are no longer being used. These ditches continue to divert runoff, lowering the elevation of groundwater, and drying wetlands. 11) It is very possible areas were leveled so that irrigation water would spread across the surface of the land. This may have involved filling natural wetland depressions so fields could be cut for hay. 12) The soils in fields has been compacted by livestock and by rubber-tired tractors. Because many areas of soil contain a high percentage of clay, they have remained compacted. Plant growth, along with plant and animal diversity are greatly affected by compaction. Animals that survive by digging burrows are less likely to survive in compacted soils. The compacted soils also reduce the quantity of water that can soak into the ground. 13) The water in north-flowing ditches is no longer connected to the river floodplain, which is now a terrace located over 20 feet above the river. Wet-meadow wetlands containing sedges and rushes are not associated with the floodplain. The moist and saturated soils are needed to maintain wet-meadows have been eliminated by ditches.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

A number of cows were observed using the St. David Cienega during the author’s examination of the area. The presence of well-used trails, abundance of feces, and grazed grasses and sedges shows that livestock have been using the area for a considerable amount of time. Grazing of the area likely began in the 1880’s.

1956 Aerial Photo showing probable open water 1988 Aerial Photo showing a portion of the St. areas circled in blue within the St. David Cienega David Cienega. Although field notes, studies, and photos of the time identify areas with open water, open water is not evident in this image.

The Community Watershed Alliance identified the following main issues affecting the St. David Cienega, prior to Tom Biebighauser’s examination of the area:

1. Loss of water sources/ spring discharge sites, examples “Cienega 1” a spring near Shoe Tree (aka Ben’s point) and the well casing for the “Geyser Ride” can no longer be located. 2. Loss of open water. 3. Culvert is draining water from the St. David Cienega to the South.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

4. Diminished flow of water sources – apparent causes include biomass buildup, groundwater pumping, upland development/infrastructure and severe upland erosion/downcutting. 5. Almost a total lack of maintenance using large animals, fire, and mechanical means causing the Cienega to fill with plant detritus. Cows (large animals) don’t eat bulrush if other plants are available. Wetlands were kept open by grassland fires with a recurrence interval of 5-10 years. Native Americans kept wetland open as they collected food and fiber from them. They may have used fire as well, when necessary to open habitat that is overgrown. 6. Decreasing footprint of riparian vegetation, encroaching mesquite. 7. Cienega draining to south instead of north as it did historically. 8. Decrease in water storage capacity due to buildup of biomass – potentially contributing to changing water flow patterns away from the north end of the Cienega. 9. Possible loss of biodiversity. 10. No active BLM management beyond Little Joe Spring – ranchers used to dynamite springs, burn, dredge, graze. 11. Upland degradation, erosion, bare soil. 12. Increased sediment transport (possible toxic material) to the Cienega due to erosion of upland railroad bed located within designated ACEC area. 13. Lack of baseline data, ongoing qualitative or quantitative monitoring to capture change over time in order to identify and/or implement adaptive management strategies.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The red lines show the locations of approximately 8,206-feet of ditches affecting surface water and groundwater within the St. David Cienega. It is very possible that more ditches are present in the area. A quality Lidar image, if available, is likely to reveal the location of additional ditches.

Water from the St. David Cienega is flowing out of the wetland to the South via the deep constructed ditch, and over the buried El Paso Gas Pipeline. The area where water flows over the pipeline was examined for signs of water soaking into the ground. The presence of standing water and saturated soils on both sides of the pipeline indicate that a limited amount of water is soaking into the ground. One would expect to find a significant difference in surface water and soil saturation on either side of the pipeline if water was soaking into the ground and following the buried pipe. Groundwater monitoring wells may be installed on either side of the pipeline to determine with certainty if water from the St. David Cienega is soaking into the ground and following the pipeline.

A small Cienega has developed south of the pipeline indicating underflow from St. David Cienega. The leakage from the dam and overflow ditch has grown tremendously since 1988, according to the individuals who accompanied the author on the field review.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The straight lines of vegetation in this photo of the St. David Cienega show the location of a ditch. The soil removed from digging the ditch was likely used to create the Railroad grade. The highly alkaline soil would have made it difficult to grow crops in the Cienega, but draining it would have created pasture as salt tolerant grasses replaced open water and coarser bulrushes.

David Murray stands on a pile of soil that was formed from digging a long ditch in the St. David Cienega.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The ditch visible in this photo shows where waters from a spring were diverted out of the St. David Cienega.

The red line shows the location of a ditch dug to move water from the St. David Cienega to irrigate grasslands downslope from the wetland.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The red line shows the location of a ditch dug to move water from the St. David Cienega to irrigate grasslands downslope from the wetland. The ditch is now drying the wetland.

The red line shows the location of a ditch dug to move water from the St. David Cienega to irrigate grasslands downslope (north) from the wetland. The ditch is now drying the wetland. These ditches would be filled as part of the wetland restoration project.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

One can see the banks on either side of this ditch that is draining the St. David Cienega.

Many of the ditches in the St. David Cienega were made wide with gradual slopes so they could move water from the Cienega without causing erosion.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The ditches continue to dry the wetland years following construction.

The ditches were dug so many years ago they appear as natural features on the landscape. People generally underestimate the impact ditches have on surface water, groundwater, and plants in a wetland.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Many of the ditches are eroding. Ditches that are not eroding may begin eroding because of use by livestock and wildlife.

This ditch and others are drying what was once wetland on either side of the ditch.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The head-cuts that are developing in the ditches have the potential of creating canyons like the one shown, located near the St. David Cienega in the uplands to the West

The ditches have dried large areas that were once wetland. The ditches cause the rapid removal of surface water and groundwater from the St. David Cienega.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

This photo shows one of the main ditches draining the St. David Cienega to the North.

While the wet-meadow wetland in this photo appears natural, it is really a constructed ditch that is drying the St. David Cienega.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

This photo shows a ditch that is 4-foot deep and 40-feet wide that was dug to drain the St. David Cienega to the South. The ditch was probably dug when the El Paso Gas Pipeline was installed in 1937.

While the deep and wide ditch is filled with three-square bulrush, it continues to remove a large amount of water from the wetland to the South.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

An 18-inch diameter culvert was placed so that the deep and wide ditch could be crossed. It is important to recognize that a majority of water in the ditch is moving under, not through the culvert.

The entrance of the large and deep ditch would be blocked as part of the wetland restoration project. The thick red line shows the approximate center location of where the natural rim of the wetland would be restored to block the ditch.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Purpose and Need for Proposal:

The proposed project is entirely within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Enabling legislation directed the BLM to “conserve, protect and enhance” resources including aquatic habitat, fish and wildlife. The project would fulfill the BLM’s responsibility to recover listed species and promote the conservation of other special status species. The BLM is responsible for assisting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with actions that support the recovery of Threatened and Endangered species [Section 7(a)1].

The San Pedro River and associated wetlands once harbored 13 native fishes (W.L Minckley in Jackson et al. 1987)3, two native leopard frogs (Platz and Mecham 19794, Platz and Frost 19845), and the Mexican gartersnake (Rosen and Schwalbe 19886). Today the system supports a relict native fish community of just two species surviving in adverse conditions as a result of diminishing surface flows and a multitude of invasive exotic fishes, the invasive bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and an aggressive nonnative species of crayfish (Orconectes virilis). Two additional fish species (top minnow and pupfish) have been reintroduced to the NCA. The two leopard frog species have disappeared and the Mexican gartersnake have nearly disappeared from the NCA but they can still be found in isolated pockets in the Huachuca Mountains, other adjacent mountain ranges and lower San Pedro River. These species suffer from a similar set of adverse environmental conditions listed above for fish and frogs.

The springs within the St. David Cienega provide the opportunity to re-establish native fishes, frogs, reptiles and plants that are now regionally and globally imperiled with extinction. The Gila topminnow, and desert pupfish were found in the San Pedro River system historically. They have been reintroduced back into the NCA in tributary streams and the desert pupfish can be found in Little Joe Wetland restored in 2011. Today, they both are listed as endangered species and are in need of actions that improve their status as outlined in the Sonoran topminnow (Gila and Yaqui) recovery plan (USFWS 1984)7 and desert pupfish recovery plan (USFWS 1993)8,

3 Jackson, W. ,T. Matinez, P. Culpin, W.L. Minckley, B. Shelby, P Summers, D. McGlothlin, and B, Van Haveren. 1987. Assessment of water conditions and opportunities in support of riparian values: BLM San Pedro River properties, Arizona, project completion report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. (pages 36-50). 4 Platz, J.E. and J.S. Mecham. 1979. Rana chiricahuensis, a new species of leopard frog (Rana pipiens complex) from Arizona. Copeia: 383-390 Platz and Mecham 5 Platz, J.E. and J.S. Frost. 1984. Rana yavapaiensis, a new species of leopard frog (Rana pipiens complex) from Arizona. Copeia: 940-948 6 Rosen, P.C. and C.R. Schwalbe. 1988. Status of the Mexican and narrow headed garter snakes (Thamnophis eques megalops and Thamnophis rufipunctatus) in Arizona. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 7 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Gila and Yaqui topminnow Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 8 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan respectively. The Gila chub (Gila intermedia) was listed in 2005 and has a draft recovery plan*. Both the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates (Rana) chiricahuensis) and Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophus eques) are federally Threatened species with management actions described in a recovery plan for the Chiricahua leopard frog (USFWS 2007)9. The recovery plan for the gartersnake has yet to be drafted. The Huachuca water umbel (Lileaopsis schaffneriana var recurva) is federally Endangered and is found in the San Pedro River within the NCA, but not in St. David Cienega, except for restored habitat at Little Joe Wetland on the western end. This plant has a Recovery Plan10 with requirements for its conservation and recovery. Another Endangered plant that may benefit from restoration of wetland is the Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes delitescens), which has no draft or final recovery plan.

Several other aquatic/wetland special status species would benefit from the proposed project as well: the lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis); Arizona eryngo (Eryngium sparganophyllum), Sonora mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense), and desert ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata) that forages in areas with lush vegetation). To be sure countless other species would benefit as well.

50 CFR §402.01 directs federal agencies to carry out conservation programs for listed species under the Endangered Species Act. Conservation is “...to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.

Public Law 100-696, Section 101 of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 provides for the establishment of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, and section 102(a) directs the Secretary of Interior to manage the conservation area in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the riparian area and other resource values. The SPRNCA Habitat Management Plan was finalized in 1993 (USBLM 1993)11. Plan objective for the re-establishment of extirpated species is stated as follows: “improve the biological diversity of the NCA by re-establishing extirpated plant, bird, mammal, and fish species, using standard AGFD and BLM procedures, by 2005.” A new Resource Management Plan has been finalized (July 2019**). Relevant management actions from the RMP:

➢ To enhance or create fish and wildlife habitat, use prescribed fire and mechanical methods to maintain and restore wetland function; continue to create wetlands where natural or adequate artesian water sources

9https://www.rosemonteis.us/documents/045774 10 https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/LilaeopsisSchaffnerianaRecurva_DraftRecoveryPlan_Final_N ovember2015.pdf 11 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1993. San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area habitat conservation plan. Safford District, Safford, AZ. * https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/GilaChub/GilaChub_DraftRecoveryPlan_Fina l_October2014.pdf ** https://www.mcintyre-environmental.com/single-post/2019/08/07/BLM-Publishes-Record-of-Decision-and- Approved-Resource-Management-Plan-and-EIS-for-San-Pedro-Riparian-National-Conservation-Area#!

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

have already been developed (Dunlevy, Kolbe, and White House artesian wells and the Saint David Ciénega)(ama-VEG-WET-2).

➢ Reintroduce, transplant, and augment fish and wildlife populations, in collaboration with AZGFD and, where appropriate, the USFWS, for the following purposes (ama-WILD-2): • To maintain or increase populations, distributions, and genetic diversity • To conserve or recover threatened or endangered species • To restore or enhance native wildlife species diversity and distribution

➢ Identify potential or suitable habitat for special status species on the SPRNCA (ama-WILD-6).

➢ Restore habitat with the potential to reach suitability for special status species on the SPRNCA (ama- WILD-7).

Wetland Restoration Design

Specific actions were designed to meet the following objectives for restoring the St. David Cienega: 1. Restore wetlands of different types that have been drained. 2. Restore and expand the surface area of wetlands. 3. Restore large areas of open water. 4. Restore the elevation of groundwater. 5. Provide habitat for the following Federally listed species and those currently being considered for listing: a. Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) b. Gila chub (Gila intermedia) c. Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) d. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) e. Northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques) f. Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) g. Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes delitescens) h. Arizona eryngo (Eryngium sparganophyllum) 6. Improve habitat for other species including the lowland leopard frog, Mexican Duck, neotropical birds, shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. 7. Naturally irrigate grasses and sedges. 8. Control invasive native and nonnative plants.

The St. David Cienega was examined to determine how water leaves the wetland. It was determined that water leaves the Cienega primarily via ditches that were constructed for irrigation and drainage. Clear evidence was found that the ditches continue to remove runoff, surface water, and groundwater from the Cienega many years after they were constructed.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The St. David Cienega may be viewed as a large bucket. However, the bucket has many holes and deep notches cut along its rim. Filling and disabling the ditches would expand the size and restore the elevation of groundwater in the wetland. It is also possible that filling ditches would restore shallow water areas in the Cienega. The land near the ditch would be recontoured as part of the ditch filling project. A detailed description of the technique to be used to fill ditches may be found in the Appendix 2.

The author does not believe that filling ditches alone would meet the objective of restoring areas of open water in the St. David Cienega. Sampling completed using an auger and tile probe shows that ditches and open water wetlands up to 5-feet deep have become filled with the leaves of three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus americanus that have died back and fallen into the water. The matt of organics is so dense that one may walk over the surface without falling through into the water.

It will be necessary to use heavy equipment to restore areas of open water within the Cienega. This may be accomplished by using excavators and dozers to remove the thick layer of organics and dig deep basins into the soil below. It is recommended that wetland basins be dug up to 10- feet deep in the center to maintain open water areas too deep for vegetation encroachment.

The following criteria were used to select areas where the open water wetlands would be restored: 1. The area appeared to be open water in historic aerial photographs and historical accounts. 2. Area now dominated by dense growth of three-square bulrush. 3. Soils are saturated year around or still have perennial surface water. 4. Slopes are less than 1-percent. 5. Adjacent to upland where organic and mineral soils removed may be spread.

Ten open-water wetlands totaling 8.35-acres were designed for restoration from areas dominated by dense growth of bulrush. Restoration of open water-wetlands for Federally listed species would reduce the total area of three-square bulrush by 38-percent from 22.0 acres to approximately 13.65-acres within the St. David Cienega.

The average size of each open water wetland that was designed is 36,464ft². The average diameter of each open water wetland is 215-feet. Making the wetlands this size will allow the wetlands to be built at least 10-feet deep in the center with inside slopes of 10-percent or less. The gradual slopes will provide conditions for plant diversity and use by Federally listed fish species. Basins will be shaped uneven with numerous pits and mounds that have been found to promote colonization by a diversity of aquatic plants. A detailed description of the techniques to be used to restore open water wetlands may be found in the Appendix 2.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Planned Actions and Specifications: 1. Approximately 10-naturally appearing and functioning open water wetlands totaling 8.5-acres would be restored. The soil removed from restoring the wetlands would be used to fill ditches and be spread on higher ground that is not wetland. 2. Approximately 8,206-feet of ditches would be disabled and filled. The soil needed to fill the ditches would be obtained by restoring wetlands along the length of the ditches. 3. The natural rim of wetlands breached by ditches would be restored to match historic elevations and contours where possible. Action would be taken to restore the wetland rim at the South end where water is drained into a wide and deep ditch near the pipeline. 4. The construction of new dams is not necessary or recommended to restore the elevation of groundwater and open water wetlands within the Cienega. The author has built over 1,400 dams in the past 34-years. He has found that all dams require maintenance. Here is a list of reasons for not building dams as part of this project: a. The dams are likely to be damaged by burrowing activity by wildlife. b. All dams must have an emergency spillway that is regularly maintained. c. The dam and spillway are easily damaged by livestock, which are present in the Cienega. d. Dams appear unnatural. e. Failure of a dam can result in infrastructure such as pipelines, roads, and culverts being damaged downstream. f. Failure of a dam can result in the flooding of homes and loss of human life where people live downhill of the dam. g. Dams require frequent inspections and maintenance. 5. Areas dominated by nonnative plants would be controlled. 6. Heavy equipment with skilled operators would be used to restore the wetlands. Heavy equipment operators would be hired using a Service Agreement. Under a Service Agreement, the operators are paid by the hour to restore the wetlands. A skilled wetland restoration specialist would be onsite providing technical assistance while heavy equipment is operating. 7. Wetlands of varying sizes, depths, and shapes would be restored. 8. Gradual slopes would be established within and bordering restored wetlands to promote plant and aquatic animal diversity. 9. Ditches would generally be filled with soil obtained from restoring open water wetlands. Ditches would not be filled by simply collapsing the sides of the ditch as this would only make shallower ditches. 10. Vegetation and topsoil would be removed from ditches before they are filled with soil. Ditches would be filled with soil that is high in clay where possible. Periodic sections of soil placed in ditches will be compacted to prevent water from flowing underground in the ditch. 11. Ditches would generally be filled to an elevation equal to or higher than surrounding ground to prevent water from following the old ditch.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

12. Core trenches filled with soil that is high in clay and compacted will be built around the lower edge of wetlands being restored to reduce water loss via subsurface permeable layers of soil. 13. The soil removed from restoring the open water wetlands would be spread on higher ground adjacent to the wetlands being built. 14. The soils in restored wetlands would generally not be compacted so that waters entering them will slowly soak into the ground. 15. The wetlands would be restored without using dams, pipes, water control structures, or pumps. 16. Rock would be used as needed to control erosion. 17. Woody debris would be placed in restored wetlands to improve habitat for fish and wildlife. 18. Existing wet-meadow and ephemeral wetlands will be protected during construction. 19. Desirable native plants growing within work areas would be salvaged and replanted where possible. 20. Compacted soils will be loosened to an average depth of 3-feet for native plant establishment and growth. 21. A diversity of native plants would be sown and/or planted within and around restored wetlands and filled ditches. Plants that provide for pollinators would be established on areas where soil removed from restoring the wetlands is spread. Vegetation plugs or a seed mix approved by the BLM for use on the clay bottom ecological type may be used.

10 7 9 8 6 5

The blue colored polygons show where open water wetlands may be restored. The red lines show where ditches would be filled.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Open Water Wetlands Planned Wetland # Size (feet²) Size (acres) 1 37,169 0.85 2 46,410 1.06 3 7,667 0.18 4 33,594 0.77 5 47,101 1.08 6 44,272 1.01 7 47,944 1.10 8 49,024 1.12 9 45,121 1.03 10 6,344 0.15 Total 364,646 8.35

West of planned Wetland #2 are anecdotal reports of a “Geyser Ride,” a well that had an 8-10- inch casing and flowed so strongly that teenagers would sit on it and they would be pushed up by the water. The well cannot be located in the dense vegetation. It is possible the well will be located during construction. If the well is found and the opening is closed, it may be modified to supply water to the restored wetlands.

D B

The green colored polygons show the location of dense stands of three-square bulrush in the St. David Cienega.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Three-square Bulrush Areas within the St. David Cienega Bulrush Area Size (feet²) Size (acres) A 308,923 7.09 B 483,221 11.09 C 160,060 3.67 D 6,650 0.15 Total 22.00

The open water wetland built at Little Joe Spring shows that it is possible to build open water wetlands at the St. David Cienega for Federally listed species that will not fill with vegetation with a light level of bulrush management annually.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The dark green plants in this photo show where three-square bulrush have filled what was once open water in the St. David Cienega.

A dense mat of dead three-square bulrush has filled this area of open-water once found in the St. David Cienega.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Jeff Simms shows how difficult it is to the walk through a dense mat of three-square bulrush.

Open-water wetlands would be restored within areas dominated by three-square bulrush to provide habitat for the Federally listed Desert pupfish, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Northern Mexican gartersnake, Chiricahua leopard frog, Huachuca water umbel and soon to be listed Arizona eryngo.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Jeff Simms stands in a dense stand of three-square bulrush at Two Cienega Spring that was once open water.

Invasive Species

Minimizing the spread of invasive plant species is a key concern during ecosystem restoration because large areas of soil are disturbed, creating conditions for non-native species to become established. The following measures may be taken to control invasive species: 1. Heavy equipment operators would clean machines to prevent the introduction of new non-native species to the site. 2. Heavy equipment operators would avoid using their bucket or blades while moving equipment to the site to minimize exposing soil between the access roads and the restoration sites. 3. The excavator would be used to pull non-native shrubs and trees out by the roots within the restoration area. All non-native shrub plant material would be disposed of off-site or buried under at least 1 m of soil to prevent re-growth. 4. The top layer of non-native grasses and associated soil/ seedbank would be scraped off and buried onsite. (non-native Bermuda grass and Johnson grass would be the only grasses of concern. Both are rhizomatous and love to be broken up. Johnson grass is very deeply rooted and nearly impossible to kill). Although, this takes extra time during the restoration project, it will greatly decrease the establishment of non-native plants in

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

the newly restored stream, wetland, and upland areas. Seeds and soil would be buried below a minimum of 1 m of soil to prevent re-sprouting and seed germination. 5. Thick layers of weed-free mulch (1 bale of barley or wheat straw per 10 m2) may be used to suppress weeds and retain moisture for new plantings. 6. Dense plantings of native plants both in the wetland and upland areas where soil is spread would be used to limit the space available for non-native plants to establish.

Minimizing the spread of invasive bullfrogs and invasive fishes also a concern during ecosystem restoration because large areas of open water created that will attract bullfrogs and anglers that may move nonnative fish for fishing. The BLM in cooperation with the AGFD and USFWS will determine the best approach for dealing with invasive animals.

Invasive Native and Nonnative Plant Control

The most aggressive invasive plants at the Cienega are bulrush, cattail, tamarisk, Bermuda grass and Johnson grass. Actions may be taken to prevent cattails and bulrush from dominating the new wetlands. These techniques may be used to prevent any invasive plants from taking over the restored wetlands:

1. Heavy equipment would be used to remove nonnative plants and organic material. 2. Nonnative plants would be buried or removed so they do not spread. 3. The bottom of wetlands would contain uneven areas of topsoil, and mineral soil. 4. The wetlands would be built too deep for bulrush and cattails to grow. 5. The elevations within the wetlands would be varied. 6. Ridges, mounds, tufts, and scrapes would be created within the wetlands. 7. Exposed soils would be populated with plugs of wetland plants from the cienega or seeded to a diversity of native plants the same week the wetland is completed.

The restored wetlands may be monitored for nonnative plants, cattail, and bulrush colonization following construction. Undesirable plants that begin growing in and near the wetlands may be removed for 3 to 5 -years following construction. This action would facilitate the establishment of an attractive diversity of wetland and aquatic plants in the new wetlands, including Huachuca water umbel, Canelo Hills Ladies’ Tresses, and Arizona eryngo. Mosquitoes

The wetlands proposed for restoration can be expected to lower mosquito populations in the community. The dragonfly larvae, damselfly larvae, water boatman, water striders, frogs, toads, and fish living in the wetlands can be expected to control mosquitoes in as little as one year. Swallows, bats, and adult dragonflies flying near the wetlands will consume adult mosquitos. The wetlands can be expected to become population “sinks” for mosquitoes.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Gila topminnow and other native fish will control mosquitoes in portions of restored wetlands.

The dragonfly larvae living in the restored wetlands can be expected to control mosquito larvae

Heavy Equipment Requirements

Heavy equipment with skilled operators is recommended to restore the wetlands and streams. Each piece of heavy equipment should be operated by an experienced individual who is interested in building wetlands and streams for fish and wildlife.

A Service Contract is recommended for hiring the heavy equipment and operators to build the wetlands and streams. Under a Service Contract, the machines and operators are hired by the

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan hour to build the projects. The award of the contract is based on a combination of factors that include: ability to provide the required heavy equipment, performance operating heavy equipment, experience restoring wetlands, and price. The heavy equipment should be the size and type needed for restoring wetlands. Tom Biebighauser is available to help manage this project, which can include preparing a RFP (Request for Price) Service contract package.

Engineering Design – Service or Construction Contract?

It has been generally accepted for ecosystem restoration projects that one should first prepare a detailed Engineering Design, and then use a Construction Contract to build the wetlands- according to the Engineering Design. This traditional practice has its problems. The greatest being that unit costs are generally 10 times higher for building wetlands and streams using a construction contract compared to using a Service Contract.

Heavy equipment operators are paid by the hour for completing the work under a Service Contract. A skilled Contract Representative is on site full-time supervising the wetland project when using a Service Contract. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of preparing an Engineering Design and using a Construction Contract to build wetlands:

Advantages 1. Provides detailed drawings of how the wetlands and streams will appear. 2. Can be used as the basis for obtaining bids for a Construction Contract. 3. Profits the people preparing the Engineering Design.

Disadvantages 1. Greatly increases the cost of designing and building wetlands and streams. 2. A land survey is needed, which takes time and is expensive. The land survey generally includes an area much larger than the wetlands being built. The land survey can miss key features important to wetland construction, such as ditches, head-cuts, buried drainage structures, clay texture soil and wetland plant inclusions. 3. Does not guarantee the success of a wetland project. Many factors critical to wetland construction are often missed in the Engineering Design because one cannot see underground (i.e. buried drainage structures, subsurface permeable layers, inclusions of permeable soils and clay soils). 4. One must pay for an Engineer to mark the Engineering Design on the ground using stakes prior to construction. 5. One must pay an Engineer to remark the project during construction. Grade stakes can be difficult to find in dense vegetation and are removed daily during construction of the wetlands.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

7. No matter how many soil test holes are dug in advance, there will always be surprises when construction begins. It is often cheaper to build the wetlands than to dig enough test holes to avoid unknowns during construction. 8. The Engineering interpretation of soil test hole data is often based on road and building construction. Wetland construction is different, one needs to know the presence of groundwater, soil texture, subsurface permeable layers, compaction, and buried drainage structures to be successful. 9. One must hire someone who knows how to use AutoCAD to prepare the Engineering Design. Expect changes to be needed to the Engineering Design before and during construction, these changes take time and are expensive. 10. The person who prepares the Engineering Design rarely has experience with wetlands and wetland restoration techniques. 11. The process of preparing and reviewing the Engineering Design takes time and can be expensive. 12. The Engineers planning the wetland project must visit the site numerous times to measure features critical to construction. 13. The persons planning the wetland project is often given a false sense of security because the planned wetland is drawn by an Engineer, when the key to building a successful wetland is to work closely with heavy equipment operators to build the wetlands. 14. Regardless of how complete the Engineering Design may appear, expect critical details to have been missed, and not addressed in the Final Design. 15. It can be difficult, time consuming, and expensive to change the Engineering Design to respond to changing site conditions while the project is underway. 16. The Engineering Design does not prevent the need for making changes while the wetland project is being built. One cannot see underground, and one cannot predict where buried drainage structures and permeable layers will be found during construction. Changes must be made to any project while a wetland is being built to be successful. Making changes to the Engineering Design and Construction Contract takes time, costs money, and causes longer delays compared to having someone onsite working with the contractors to build a wetland using a Service Contract. 17. The Final Engineering Design will contain mistakes. These mistakes may be caused by incorrect elevation readings, lack of test hole data, and the fact they were prepared by individuals who are not familiar with the site.

Construction Monitoring

Regardless of whether a Construction Contract or a Service Contract is used to build the wetlands, someone who is familiar with wetland and stream construction techniques should be on the site at all times serving as a Contract Inspector/Representative to monitor the completion of the project. This person must know about wetland and stream construction, be

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan dedicated, and communicate effectively with the contractor and heavy equipment operators. Another great value in having the Contract Inspector/Representative on the site is that they can meet and talk with the many people in the community who will likely visit the site and ask questions during construction.

The Contract Inspector/Representative would be onsite monitoring soil texture, groundwater elevations, surface elevations, slopes, and compaction during construction. This person’s judgment would be critical in deciding if and how to modify the design based on what is found when the equipment begins to dig. Having the best Engineering Design and Construction Contract in the world does not excuse the critical need of having a person who knows how to build wetlands on site monitoring the construction of the wetland project. The rewards of having a highly experienced Contract Inspector/Representative onsite supervising the wetland project are great. Not only is a significant amount of money saved, but a much higher quality project is built.

Buried Utilities

From a safety perspective, a check for buried utilities prior to construction should be conducted. All buried utilities in the area must be marked so they can be avoided. The wetlands should not be built over buried electric, gas, phone lines, water lines, or drain-lines. This applies especially to the El Paso gas pipeline.

Climate Change

The wetlands to be restored will sequester carbon by tying up large quantities of organic material in the saturated soils of restored wetlands. In working to restore wetlands Tom Biebighauser has found trees, shrubs, leaves, and grasses in the saturated soils that have been buried and preserved for thousands of years. These finding show that organic material buried in the sediment of restored wetlands can be sequestered for thousands of years.

The project will restore a diversity of native flowing plants that will benefit pollinators such as bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and moths. These pollinators will help insure the survival of a diversity of plants that covert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

The restored wetlands will replenish groundwater over large areas of land. This groundwater will provide cool water to streams and rivers under low flow conditions. At this time runoff is being directed off old fields via a system of constructed ditches. This project will naturally capture runoff and inject this water into the ground. The additional surface area of wetland vegetation created will result in the sequestration of additional carbon.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Project Implementation

Tom Biebighauser is available to assist with the design, planning, and implementation of this project. He is willing to instruct training sessions while the project is taking place where agency personnel, nonprofit personnel, and private landowners can learn how wetlands are restored to improve habitat for wildlife and fish by becoming involved in the actual design and restoration of wetlands. You are encouraged to contact him early to reserve dates for his assistance.

Budget

An estimated budget was prepared for the St. David Cienega Wetland Restoration Project. The budget does not include the costs of applying for permits, NEPA documentation, or for preparing a separate engineering design if desired. This project may be funded in part or whole over a number of years. The author would assist the BLM and partners in identifying the highest priority actions if partial funding is received to implement the project.

Producti Heavy Heavy on rate Total Heavy Dozer Logs Native Equipment Equipment Length Excavator Excavator #1 Excavator Excavator #2 Dozer #1 Dozer #2 Dozer #2 Dump truck Dump truck Rock Needed Rock Project Action Area (ft²) ft² per Equipment #1 Needed Log Cost Plants & Contract Contract Total Cost (feet) #1 Hours Cost #2 Hours Cost Cost Hours Cost hours cost (yards³) Cost hour/ma Hours Hours (20-foot) Planting Cost Supervision Supervision chine Hours Cost

Open water wetland 1 37169 450 83 21 $ 4,130 21 $ 4,130 21 $ 5,162 21 $5,162 4 $800 $1,707 25 $2,726 $23,817 Open water wetland 2 46410 450 103 26 $ 5,157 26 $ 5,157 26 $ 6,446 26 $6,446 4 $800 $2,131 31 $3,403 $29,539 Open water wetland 3 7667 450 17 4 $ 852 4 $ 852 4 $ 1,065 4 $1,065 8.5 $639 4 $800 $352 5 $562 $6,187 Open water wetland 4 33594 450 75 19 $ 3,733 19 $ 3,733 19 $ 4,666 19 $4,666 4 $800 $1,542 22 $2,464 $21,603 Open water wetland 5 47101 450 105 26 $ 5,233 26 $ 5,233 26 $ 6,542 26 $6,542 4 $800 $2,163 31 $3,454 $29,967 Open water wetland 6 44272 450 98 25 $ 4,919 25 $ 4,919 25 $ 6,149 25 $6,149 4 $800 $2,033 30 $3,247 $28,215 Open water wetland 7 47944 450 107 27 $ 5,327 27 $ 5,327 27 $ 6,659 27 $6,659 4 $800 $2,201 32 $3,516 $30,489 Open water wetland 8 49024 450 109 27 $ 5,447 27 $ 5,447 27 $ 6,809 27 $6,809 4 $800 $2,251 33 $3,595 $31,158 Open water wetland 9 45121 450 100 25 $ 5,013 25 $ 5,013 25 $ 6,267 25 $6,267 4 $800 $2,072 30 $3,309 $28,741 Open water wetland 10 6344 450 14 4 $ 705 4 $ 705 4 $ 881 4 $881 4 $800 $291 4 $465 $4,729 Ditch filling and contouring 8206 287210 100 82 21 $ 4,103 21 $ 4,103 21 $ 5,129 21 $5,129 1300 $ 52,000 $6,593 25 $2,708 $79,765 Total 892 223 $ 44,619 223 $ 44,619 223 $ 55,774 223 $55,774 8.5 $639 1300 $ 52,000 40 $8,000 $23,336 268 $29,449 $314,210

St. David Cienega Wetland Restoration Project The prices listed are estimates and are not based on actual prices received from contractors. Open water wetlands would be built up to 10-feet deep in the center with inside slopes of 10-percent or less. Soil would be spread on higher ground adjacent to wetlands being built. Rock cost estimated at $40.00/cubic yard delivered on site. Rock is not rounded and averages 8-inches in diameter, estimate that 10-buried vertical grade control structures will be built. The Production Rate of ft²/hour/per machine applies to wetland areas excavated, and are based on similar wetland projects that have been completed. Total Heavy Equipment Hours Needed = Area to be excavated/production rate per machine Excavator Cost (200-Series Excavator) equivalent to a John Deere 210G = $200/hour includes mobilization Dozer cost (CAT D-6T LGP or equivalent) = $250.00/hour includes mobilization. Estimated cost of $200.00 for each 20-foot long log . The logs would cut from live cut trees, approximately 20-inches in diameter, and 20-feet long Native plant or seed cost = Total wetland area/43,560 x $2,000.00 Heavy Equipment Contract Supervision Hours by Thomas R. Biebighauser = #hours for Excavator #1 x 1.2 Heavy Equipment Contract Supervision Cost = (# Heavy Equipment Contract Supervison Hours) x ($110.00/hour), includes all costs, i.e. salary, airfare, lodging, car rental, meals, & survey & marking equipment.

Summary

Areas of open water and the elevation of groundwater would be restored in the St. David Cienega to provide habitat for the Federally listed Chiricahua leopard frog, Desert pupfish, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Northern Mexican gartersnake, Chiricahua leopard frog, Huachuca water umbel, and Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses. The restored wetlands are expected to also provide habitat for the, lowland leopard frog, Mexican Duck, waterfowl, shore birds and migratory birds, and Arizona eryngo (in process of being listed). Ten naturally appearing and functioning open water wetlands totaling 8.5-acres would be restored by filling ditches and by excavating naturally appearing and functioning wetlands that do not use pipes, pumps, or diversions to maintain water levels. Approximately 8,206-feet of ditches that are controlling the size of the St. David Cienega would be filled and re-contoured to restore groundwater

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan elevations in the wetland. The project would improve wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities, and be designed to require little, if any maintenance except for the periodic control of nonnative plants, and cattails and bulrushes.

Funded by:

This plan and design were funded by the Community Watershed Alliance.

Prepared by:

Thomas R. Biebighauser Wetland Ecologist & Wildlife Biologist Wetland Restoration and Training LLC 3415 Sugar Loaf Mountain Road Morehead, KY 40351 USA

Email: [email protected] Home phone: 606-356-4569 Cell Phone: 606-356-4569 Website: www.wetlandrestorationandtraining.com

About the Author:

Tom Biebighauser has restored over 2,400 wetlands and streams across Canada, in 26-States, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and Taiwan since 1979. He retired in 2013 after working 34-years for the USDA Forest Service as a Wildlife Biologist, where he started wetland and stream restoration programs across the United States. Having built over 1,400-dams, he has since decommissioned over 300 -dams. Tom learned about drainage and irrigation from contractors who spent their lives destroying wetlands. Tom has developed highly effective and low-cost techniques for building wetlands and streams for rare species across North America. He builds habitats that require little, if any maintenance, and do not involve the use of diversions, dams, dikes, pipes, or pumps. Tom has written 4-books about wetland restoration, and instructs online college and field courses on the topic. He received the United States National Wetlands Award for Conservation and Restoration in 2015.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Appendix 1: Photos Showing Wetlands Constructed in Arid Regions by the Author

Harkey Wetland, Sierra Vista Ranger District, Coronado National Forest

House Pond, Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wild Duck Pond, Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista, Arizona

Wild Duck Pond, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona

Carr Barn #1, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona (wetland is 6-months old in this photo). The wetland was built to provide water rare species, and for fire suppression, using a helicopter for dipping.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Carr Barn #1, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona (The wetland is 6-months old in this photo). The wetland was also built to provide water for fire suppression, using a helicopter for dipping, explaining why little large woody debris was placed in and around the water.

Carr Barn #2, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona (The wetland is 6-months old in this photo)

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Carroll Spring, Upper Pond, Arizona Game and Fish Land, near Payson, Arizona

Carroll Spring, Center Pond, Arizona Game and Fish Land, near Young, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Carroll Spring, Lower Pond, Arizona Game and Fish Land, near Young, Arizona

Wet-meadow wetland restored at the Southwest Research Station, Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wet-meadow wetland restored at the Southwest Research Station, Portal, Arizona

Wet-meadow wetland restored near a spring at the Southwest Research Station, Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wet-meadow wetland restored near a spring at the Southwest Research Station, Portal, Arizona

Brown Canyon House Wetland Spillway, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Brown Canyon House Wetland Spillway, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona

Wild Duck Pond Wetland Spillway, Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wet-meadow wetland restored on the Coronado National Forest, Hereford, Arizona

Southwestern Research Station, Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Southwestern Research Station, Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Southwestern Research Station, Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Southwestern Research Station, Portal, Arizona

Halfmoon Ranch, Coronado National Forest, Douglas, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Halfmoon Ranch, Coronado National Forest, Douglas, Arizona

Porter Spring, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona. Photo was taken the day after the wetland was restored. Straw was used for mulch around the new wetland.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Bill Dick Spring, Coconino National Forest

Ramsey Canyon, The Nature Conservancy Land, near Hereford, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Ramsey Canyon, The Nature Conservancy Land, near Hereford, Arizona

Straw spread for mulch at Ramsey Canyon, The Nature Conservancy Land, near Hereford, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

McDaniel Wetland, Appleton Whittell Audubon Research Ranch, Arizona

Porter Spring, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Ash Spring, Coronado National Forest, Portal, Arizona

Land owned by Wynne Brown Land, near Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Land owned by Wynne Brown, near Portal, Arizona

Cave Creek Ranch near Portal, Arizona

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wetlands are being built without using dams or water control structures, like the one shown here on the Winecup Gamble Ranch in Nevada. The soil removed from digging the wetlands would be spread on higher ground. The new wetlands would expose groundwater and capture runoff. They would not impound flowing water.

The wetlands would be built to have different sizes, shapes, and depths, providing a diversity of habitat to wildlife and fish. A Sandhill Crane can be seen using this wetland on the Winecup Gamble Ranch in Nevada.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

This wetland was built with a livestock watering ramp near Kamloops, British Columbia

Emergent and wet-meadow wetland constructed in Owyhee County, Idaho

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Emergent and wet-meadow wetland, Owyhee County, Idaho

Wet-meadow and emergent wetland restored in Owyhee County, Idaho. The wetlands are less than one-year old in this photo.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

It is now possible to restore wetlands that would be used by high numbers of waterfowl

Signs may be placed describing the purpose of wetland restoration projects.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wetland restored on the Appleton-Whittell Audubon Research Ranch near Elgin, Arizona in 2017 using an aquatic-safe liner.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wetland restored on the Appleton-Whittell Audubon Research Ranch near Elgin, Arizona in 2017 using an aquatic-safe liner.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

This wetland was restored in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area on the west end of St David Cienega by the BLM, not the author, in 2011. The wetland is only 5-years old in this photo. The spring fed a stock tank which became choked with bulrush and the spring discharge was nearly extinguished due to soil compaction by livestock before the wetland was restored. A diversity of native sedges and rushes now grow around the restored wetland. The restored wetland area was planted with plugs including the Federally listed Huachuca water umbel. It is fenced to keep out livestock. Periodic control of bulrush is required in shallow areas.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Appendix 2: Wetland Construction on Saturated Soils

The author has developed highly effective techniques for building large and deep wetlands on fields with saturated soils at a reasonable price. He has used these techniques to build wetlands over 10-acres in size and 10-feet deep in Nevada, Utah, and British Columbia, Canada.

Logs are recommended for keeping the excavators afloat during construction of the wetlands. Wood mats (excavator pads, crane mats, swamp mats, tundra mats, dragline mats) may also be used instead of logs to support the excavators in saturated soils. However, the author’s experiences find that logs work better than wood mats, and they allow for large wood to be placed in the water for wildlife and fish habitat as the wetlands are being built. One can expect some of the logs to break as they are being used. These broken logs may be placed in the wetland to provide waterfowl with loafing sites, turtles with places to bask, and birds with perches.

The soils on the site are saturated. An excavator can be expected to sink into the ground once it starts digging. Often times the excavator will become stuck trying to move through soil it has removed and spread on the ground.

The author builds an average of 100-wetlands each year on similar sites with saturated soils. Logs or mats are used for floatation on every project, regardless of the size of wetlands being built.

The author builds a number of wetlands each year with excavator operators who have 30-years of experience or more. All require logs or large and heavy wood mats to use or they will not attempt to build wetlands on saturated soils.

An excavator with a thumb attachment and operator may be needed on site to unload the logs from the truck and trailer.

Wood mats are usually moved using a chain, cable, and hooks. Therefore, it is necessary to have a laborer on site working with the excavator operators to attach and detach a chain from each mat each time one needs to be moved. This adds time and cost to the project. Mats can also be damaged or destroyed during construction, and often need to be replaced at considerable expense.

It is recommended that at least 20-logs be made available for each excavator to use at one time. The logs are easily moved by an excavator using a thumb attachment. Some of the logs can be expected to break, while others may be lost in the mud while building the wetlands. Broken logs can be placed as large woody debris, or snags for wildlife as the wetlands are being built.

The logs should average 20-inches in diameter, and be approximately 20-feet long. The logs should be of similar diameter along their length to prevent the excavator from rocking and slipping. The logs may vary from 18 to 22-inches in diameter along their length. Logs that are

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan too long are difficult to move and get in the way of piling soil. Logs that are too short may tip, allowing the excavator to slide off and become stuck. Logs too small in diameter will break.

The logs should be cut from live trees, not dead trees, as they are stronger. Tree species that work well for logs include fir and larch. Cedar and hemlock are too soft and are likely to break. A chainsaw and safety gear should be on site to trim the logs as needed.

The logs should be ordered in advance and piled where the excavators can access them. A load of logs may be purchased from a logger in the area. A full-size logging truck and trailer should be able to deliver up to 45-logs, 40-feet in length, at a time. Delivering the logs with a self- loading or “hook” truck makes it easy to unload them at the site.

Here is the minimum number and specifications of logs needed for the project:

• 24-logs (12-logs per excavator) • 16 inches in diameter or larger (smaller diameter logs will break) • The diameter of each individual log should not vary more than 4-inches from one end of the log to the other. The logs may be trimmed so they are uniform in diameter. • Minimum length = 18-feet (20-feet recommended length) • Cut from live trees not dead trees so they are stronger

Logs used for floatation may be placed in the restored wetlands when the project is finished to provide perches for birds and hiding places for fish. Or, they may be saved for use on other wetland projects.

Telephone poles should not be used. They are too small of diameter, treated with chemicals, and are likely to break.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Logs like those shown are used to keep the excavators from becoming stuck when building wetlands on saturated soils.

Here an excavator with a thumb attachment carries two-logs from the log pile to a wetland restoration site.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Logs averaging 20-inches in diameter and approximately 20-feet log are placed by the excavator to form a working and moveable platform when building a wetland on saturated soils.

The excavator mounts the logs to prepare for digging the wetland

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The excavator does not slide off the logs, as they are even in diameter along their length

The logs prevent the excavators from sinking while building wetlands on saturated soils

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Wetlands that are 10-feet deep may be built on saturated soils using the techniques described.

Here a logger uses a self-loader to unload 45-logs at a wetland restoration site. Each log is 40- feet long. A chainsaw is used to cut the logs in 20-foot lengths.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The excavators are used to dig soil to build the basin while the dozer is used to push soil away from the excavators.

Two-dozers and one excavator are being used to build this large and deep wetland in Nevada. The dozers are pushing the soil over 300-feet away from the wetland being built.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The dozer is used to push soil away from the excavators. Its’ tracks are wide with low ground pressure so it does not become stuck. The blue ribbons were hung to show the operators where to dig.

The dozer works close to the excavators to move soil.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The dozer is generally not able to dig or it will become stuck. The dozer can push soil as long as it stays on the vegetation and does not dig into the ground using its blade.

This photo shows how the excavators and the dozer form a relay to efficiently move soil for building the wetland.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Here the soil removed from digging a large wetland is graded using the dozer, after it is allowed to freeze for several days.

Wood mats may also be used to keep excavators from sinking. However, these are generally more expensive and take longer to use than logs.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

Here an excavator builds a wetland while being supported by wood matts.

Logs provide the floatation needed to keep the excavator from sinking while it’s digging.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

The logs provide a platform that can be moved quickly and easily by the excavator.

Two excavators and one dozer are generally used to build large wetlands on sites where soils are saturated. The dozer must be LGP (low ground pressure) or it will get stuck.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

This large and deep wetland is being built in a Nevada desert on saturated soils.

This 2-acre wetland was built for the Redband Rainbow Trout on saturated soils in Nevada. The wetland filled within 2-days of construction.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

This photo shows a 1-hectare size wetland built by the author near Cranbrook, British Columbia in December, 2017. The wetland was built in a saturated field dominated by reed canary grass, using a dozer and 2-exavators. The project was completed in 3-days.

The techniques allow for the construction of large wetlands on saturated soils during the winter at a low cost.

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan

One of 9 large wetlands built on the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area in British Columbia in December, 2016 using these techniques.