Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Spring 2016 Biological Planning Meeting May 12 * 9AM-3PM
Draft Meeting Summary Topics Covered Welcome and Introductions Team Updates o Coordinating Team o Science Working Group o Landscape Conservation Working Group Related Efforts o Buffelgrass Working Group o Army Compatible Use Buffer o DLCC Madrean Transboundary Pilot Area o Pima County o Pima Association of Governments BLM Updates o LCNCA Plan Evaluation o Restoration EA o Operation ROAA Expansion o Las Cienegas NCA o Madrean REA o Resolution Copper Land Exchange Field Visits 1. Historic Corrals 2. Barn Restoration and Landscape Historic Studies 3. Arroyo Restoration a. Restored landscape b. Candidate Restoration Site 4. Cieneguita Overlook 5. Cattle Crossing at Cienega Creek a. Cinco Ponds b. Isotopes study c. Creek headcutting Action Items Participant List
TEAM UPDATES Coordinating team
Met a few weeks ago to discuss which indicators to use. Worked as resource-related teams to reduce the number of key indicators from the original list. Adriana is making a Google spreadsheet to detail the actions associated with getting info on indicators. She may contact other members of the Biological Planning team in the future. Kelly Mott Lacroix is moving to Washington, DC, so Larry Fisher is now the main contact for the CWP Coordinating Team Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
1
Input from Biological Planning group: need cross-jurisdictional core indicators for the watershed moving forward.
Science Working Group
Larry, Linda, and Gita are working on the Science on the Sonoita Plain meeting. It will start at 8:30AM with breakfast, then papers. o Last year, people asked for more time in the field, so field trips are a larger focus this year. o Register soon – limited to 100 places. No cost. o 2015 proceedings will be posted soon.
Landscape Conservation Working Group Updates
The Sentinel Landscape covers LCNCA, SPRNCA, Babocomari watershed, and the Cienega Creek watershed. Scott Wilbor has been working on the Sentinel Landscape project as an employee of the AZ Land and Water Trust. The effort began in 2015. Relevant grant programs: o 1. Readiness Environmental Protection Integration grant 1 – purpose is to preserve Fort Huachuca and the open space around it. The Sentinel Landscape received this grant in 2014 for conservation easements. o 2. Readiness Environmental Protection Integration grant 2 o 3. USDA Regional Conservation Partner Program – AZ Land and Water Trust received this grant in February 2016 for $5 million. Will be applied toward conservation easements and restoration. AZLWT will handle the conservation easement portion, and the NRCS EQIP program and other partners will do the restoration. o Readiness Environmental Protection Integration grant 3 – 2016. $2.6 million for conservation easements. Committees are being established to implement the grants: Steering, Conservation and Open Space, Restoration, Collaboration. Different agencies are leading different groups. o Next step is a webinar, at which the steering committee will create objectives for the subcommittees. o Restoration subcommittee is led by AZ State Forests, which also chairs SEANRCC (Southeast Arizona Natural Resources Coordination Council), which is a small-grant program for restoration and communities. SEANRCC will have roles in the Restoration
RELATED EFFORTS Catalina Ranger District Buffelgrass Working Group
A working group for buffelgrass issues has formed for the area around the Catalina Ranger District. Although buffelgrass is present in other areas, the Catalina RD has initiated an effort to involve partners and members of the public. Currently working on identifying where to treat buffelgrass – where it is feasible and most critical to eradicate. o Has held three meetings so far. Will begin strategic planning this fall. Participant question: How does this group relate to SABC? SABC coordinates partners, and has a strategic plan. The plan outlined specific sites where work could be focused around buffelgrass, and the Catalina Ranger District was one of those areas. A member of SABC is a member of the Catalina working group, and Doug is the City representative on the working group. SABC and the working group are still working on coordinating shared data. If anyone wants to be involved, contact Jim.
US Army Compatible Use Buffer
Restricted airspace is a focus area for the Army to spend money on- they want open airspace. Army Compatible Use Buffers (ACUBs) are opportunities for conservation. Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
2
At Fort Huachuca, the ACUB process involves the Fort working with partners on a yearly budget. The budget work determines the upcoming projects for the year. Some money from last year is going to the Vera Earl ranch. Easement options are being explored, and they are planning on closing the first easement soon.
Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative – Madrean Transboundary Pilot Area
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are large landscapes that together cover the entire country. Our region is within the Desert LCC. The LCCs have an initiative called Landscape Conservation Planning and Design. Within the DLCC, Sky Island Alliance, Bird Conservatory of the Rockies, and Southwest Decision Resources are coordinating the LCPD effort. The LCPD process involves “pilot areas” that will act as models for climate change adaptation. The pilot areas will integrate scenario planning, and shared goals/objectives that land management organizations will be able to draw upon throughout the DLCC. One Pilot Area is the Madrean Trans-Boundary area, which covers the Madrean Archipelago on both sides of the border. LCNCA, the Sentinel Landscape, and others can become involved. o One opportunity to participate will be at the Madrean Transboundary workshop this fall. Talk to Tahnee if you want to be involved.
Pima County
Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan will be announced in the Federal Register tomorrow. It will affect the management of ranches and other uses. Must be approved by the Board of Supervisors to go into effect. Looking for more input on the Cienega Creek National Reserve Management Plan.
Pima Association of Governments – hosting a wet/dry walk-through on June 10th.
BLM UPDATES Operation Reclaim Our Ancient Monuments (ROAM)
ROAM is a law enforcement exercise between BLM and USBP that is focused on natural resources. It coordinates surges of BLM and USBP to identify smuggling routes and do restoration. Restoration includes closing/resting unauthorized routes. o ROAM operations are occurring on LCNCA and SPRNCA for the first time this year. 4 LEOs will be present for 2 weeks. There was a cleanup on the SW corners and the Narrows of Cienega Creek to limit vehicle access. BLM and NPS have been working more closely in general with USBP to coordinate best management practices and regulatory systems. Current regulations on vehicle use are being enforced. Comment: USBP has not been present on LCNCA for five years. Charles Trost is a contact.
LCNCA Plan Evaluation
Plan evaluation began in 2013, and is now complete. The report is posted on the Adaptive Management website, and will also be posted on the BLM website. o Report document is a PDF – not a large file to download. Status of the implementation strategy – BLM has been working on it for the last few years. Amy will refine it while on her AFM detail. Question: How often will the Implementation Strategy be reviewed? o Answer: Implementation Strategy will theoretically be reviewed during planning every Fiscal Year.
Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
3
Restoration EA
BLM has initiative an EA for restoration on LCNCA and the greater watershed (covering a broad area beyond Empire Ranch). It will explore potential activities for mesquite treatments and erosion control (herbicide, prescribed burns, etc.). Status: BLM is in the early stages of writing the EA; aiming for FY 17 completion. Opportunities to coordinate now on projects for the EA. SEANRP is looking now at what requires NEPA. Trevor, Ben, and Shela are also looking at possible projects. Input from participants o May not need NEPA on private lands (maybe NRCS or other clearances?) o FS should have the BO soon for treating mesquite for FireScape. Their projects will also incorporate erosion control. o The BO for LCNCA will be revisited in 2017. This will give USFS an updated BA, and new effects, listed species, etc. Now is the time to include landscape treatments and other projects, before the BO. Need to have coordination meetings/communications among Bio Planning team members and their organizations. o Not sure if LCNCA management area is covered in the EA.
Las Cienegas NCA
SPRNCA RMP revision – getting alternatives vetted through the State Office. Analysis of the alternatives will occur through the early fall, with the Draft RMP being released in late fall/winter 2016. This timeline is relative to the State Office response and other procedural requirements. Summer work will be done on renewing the Mount Ruse grazing lease, minor film permits, and cattle trailering permits. EA on the waters for Ian’s allotment is complete. BLM’s planning regulations are in revision. Different parts of the regulations are designed to institutionalize adaptive management practices. o BLM is receiving comments on the new regulations for another two weeks. Amy worked on them during her detail in DC. Ask Amy for further details on the new regulations. o Comment: Many of the adaptive management components of the new regulations were developed during the LCNCA planning process. At the time, we had to fight for those innovations; now, they are becoming standard BLM policy. This is a success for LCNCA.
Madrean REA
The REA process resulted in publicly available data for the whole Madrean Archipelago. The data includes drivers of change and other landscape-level information. o The REA is the same document that was reviewed during Climate Change Scenario Planning; it is now finalized.
Resolution Copper Land Exchange
Affects LCNCA because the majority of the acreage being added to public lands will be on the LCNCA. It includes the Audubon Research Ranch, plus a new piece of the SPRNCA near Mammoth. Scoping period will last until mid-June GIS will pub the exchange through the federal appraisal process.
Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
4
STOP 1: HISTORIC CORRALS
Las Cienegas is still managed as a working ranch, but it has many fewer animals than before. Ian uses the shipping corrals. BLM works with Ian on bringing them up to a useable standard while maintaining responsible resource management. Ian has maintained historic look and feel, and uses them 1-5 times per year to ship calves and pregnancy test cows. He has also modified his cattle work to preserve the wire. Chris and Ian next to the historic cattle scale and restored corrals. Work done on the corrals: wood façade, with pipe and sucker rod interior. All work is in compliance with SHPO. o Corral restoration work will be continued. The Southeast and Northeast corrals have old barbed wire fences that probably date to about the 1930’s/40’s. Ian and the LCNCA staff plan to reinforce with railroad ties. Items are considered “historic” if they are at least 50 years old. Not every 50-year-old item is considered historic – each state Historic Preservation Office determines historic items using national standards. Absolute historic integrity is often unattainable. o Partnerships are often what gives agencies the resources to meet historic and public safety standards. One principle of historic preservation is that using items can actually be beneficial; more resources are used to maintain the item. The corrals are usable for Ian, so they are a resource for the BLM. Group input: Historic cattle scale could have an interpretive sign.
STOP 2: BARN RESTORATION, LANDSCAPE HISTORIC STUDIES CWP Heritage Technical Team
Currently looking for the old orchard and doing the Cienega Watershed timeline. When Chris is ready, the Heritage Technical Team will work on the Hummel House and other historic items. The team is exploring what is on the land, and the historic records associated with the landscape features. o *Contributions are needed from biological and ecological experts on what the significant natural resource events were on the landscape. (Ex: grizzly bear sighting, frog die-off). Natural resource experts can look at the timeline online and identify any gaps. Talk to Doug, Gita, Shela, or Allison Bunting if you have any information. o *Do we need a workshop to get everyone together for input on important landscape-related events?
Landscape Inventory
Robin is working with Brooks Jeffrey, a preservation expert at UA, to document the historic landscape. This effort is part of the Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) program, which identifies and records important historic landscapes. o The HALS program is the third component of a larger program that includes the HABS and HARE programs. It is approved by Congress, but is currently not funded. The team is looking at sites that are already on the National Register, but for which the landscape element has not been documented. The focus is on the surrounding landscape that tells the story of what happened on LCNCA. o Currently working on the house and garden area, plus specific sites that represent LCNCA in its present form. Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
5
o
The UA class did some basic surveys on the orchard (water is pumped from the spring) and ag fields. However, further work is needed on the history of change on the landscape, up to the present day. June 13 – taking youth to the orchard Group input: The Special Collections at UA hay have relevant information such as water claims, homestead. o Info on Hay Camp – Look at the General Land Office survey under the name “House at Hay Camp.” o *Robin can contact Jeff Simms about where he got the info.
Empire Ranch National Register Nomination
The Historic Empire Ranch House, or “Vail House,” has been in the National Historic Register since 1974. The Heritage Team is looking to expand the scope of the registration from the single building to an entire Empire Ranch Headquarters Historic District. o Since the 1970’s, the National Register nomination process has become more involved. There are many buildings in the vicinity that will not be determined eligible, and the team is investigating which areas are significant. Allison Bunting is working on the application. SHPO will review the application first, then the ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will issue a final decision for the National Register. o Even if the site is not determined significant by the ACHP, the documentation process will still provide valuable information for us. The final report will be entered into the Library of Congress, and will be publicly available. Question: If the creek ends of going back to the ag fields, would this cause changes in the site from a National Register perspective? o Answer: Probably not – the physical area around the ranch will probably not be included in the project scope. However, natural resource management activities may change in response to concerns about the creek changing. If this is the case, we would return to the NEPA process.
Grove House
The Grove House is located near the New Ranch House – walk through the green gate across from the new ranch house. The Grove House was the first structure built on this parcel. It was used as housing before being abandoned by the Donaldson family. Internal and partner discussions have led to a decision to rehabilitate the building for environmental education. o Money has been allocated for rehab. The first step is to address hazmat issues. After that, necessary structural improvements can be made, and we can start using it for environmental education. o We will need ongoing discussions on the purpose of the house. The BLM project management group will make a work plan, and partners can be involved.
Adobe Preservation
The barn is one of the largest adobe structures on Federal land in the Southwest in its historic form. o Adobe is brick and dried mud. Since historic adobe structures were not placed on a foundation (like the brick and rebar foundations of today), they can be especially vulnerable to instability. The adobe mud contains water, and this water evaporates more quickly on the outside of the structure than the inside. With water leaving the mud on the exterior, the walls often start rotating outward. To stabilize the barn, BLM and partners installed a latticework of angle iron and wood. Future work will include re-hanging the door, and mapping then hardening the surface of the floor. o Empire Ranch Foundation is getting funding and a contract for further rehabilitation.
Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
6
The rehabilitation effort does not aim to restore the barn back to its condition at a specific point in time. This is the difference between rehabilitation and restoration: rehabilitation does not use a single reference condition. Recent activities: Brooks Jeffries held a weeklong TCRAC workshop for earthen architecture. Participants from the US and Mexico visited LCNCA. o Workshop participants cut some cement plaster from the ranch house to determine how much it has eroded. BLM State Office engineers will make a contract to rehabilitate it. o Last week, Altar Valley Middle School re-mudded adobe for stabilization. (See above photo of the wall).
STOP 3: ARROYO RESTORATION Stops 3A and 3B were comparisons of land with restoration treatments versus land with bare ground and headcuts.
3A. RESTORED LANDSCAPE
BLM has recently used vegetation treatments on many trees between this site (see photo) and the mountains. Human use can drive landscape-level water flow patterns. Studies of the San Pedro show that the land use history has driven multiple cycles of change; earthquakes, mining, fires, fur trapping, and grazing were all shown to have impacted hydrological systems. Erosional patterns on LCNCA - Many headcuts on LCNCA may have started at the beginning of the 20th century, as a result of hydrological changes that resulted from human activities. The headcuts eventually self-induced meandering, and then headcutting started again a few decades ago. We can make the landscape more resistant to erosion by nudging the land into dynamic equilibrium. BLM is aiming to use the minimal tools concept for restoration and erosion control. One example is utilizing more local materials for erosion control structures, rather than bringing in rocks from other areas. Spending thousands of dollars to import rocks is not realistic for all projects. Restoration in the context of climate change – Scientists predict that less gentle, more high-intensity storm events will occur. The higher-intensity flows could result in less ground cover for mitigating erosion. o Focusing near points of erosional concentration can increase efficiency. o Slowing flow and adding soil can lead to production rather than accelerated erosion. o Litter dams can be visual indicators of an area’s potential for productivity.
STOP 3B: CANDIDATE SITE FOR RESTORATION Overview from BLM
This stop highlights the relationship between bare ground and areas of erosional concentration. There is bare ground at the point of concentration, and the gully has cut very near to the road. Micro roots are visible; this indicates recent erosion. A pile of soil was dumped into the gully to reduce erosion. There is vegetation on the soil pile, but the water flow patterns clearly indicate that the soil only diverted the water (did not stop erosion). Some vegetation on the soil stabilizes the system, but a more effective method could be slowing the water at the point of concentration, instead of inside the gully. Question: how old is this headcut? o Answer: Not sure - BLM aerial imagery goes back to 1992, and the headcut was present on the imagery at that time. Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
7
Each individual erosional feature needs to be explored individually; not all features need to be actively managed. The BLM mapped LCNCA and SPRNCA to identify areas to control erosion, an added a feature class for “areas of special interest” to investigate in further detail. o For this erosional feature, erosional forces are evident at both the top and bottom of the gully. A certain rate of geologic erosion is natural, and restoring the topography to the natural angle of repose could restore the erosion to its natural rate. o Management question for this feature: Do we prioritize this area to protect a road, or prioritize other erosional features that may threaten riparian areas, Sacaton grasslands, or other resources? Money is scarce, and project need to be identified for the restoration EA.
Watershed Management Group prioritization process
Watershed Management Group and partners are working on a landscape-level watershed prioritization process: o 1. Identify potential areas of focus Technical teams will use maps and other existing materials to identify important hydrological features, the resources they may impact Design a prioritization scheme for restoration projects (develop criteria, decision-making process, etc.) o 2. On-the-ground restoration through workshops with stakeholders (local landowners, land managers, restoration practitioners, etc.) These workshops would accommodate participant schedules – cognizant that ranchers cannot spend multiple days away from work o 3. Community engagement - Interpretation and education about landscape-level restoration (guidebook, field trips, etc.) Question: Is this part of RCPP grant? No, but the effort will fit nicely into the grant activities. o Answer: Need to coordinate project prioritization with BLM EA process as well as the Sentinel Landscape collaboration. o EA - Use info from BLM (existing cultural clearances, etc.) to evaluate potential watershed projects, and draw from knowledge gained in the prioritization process to suggest projects for the EA. o Sentinel Landscape – Coordinate with steering committee, working groups as appropriate. State Forestry is collecting data for Sentinel Landscape effort.
Next Steps for Restoration
Trevor/WMG coordinate with the following stakeholders on the prioritization process: o CWP Cultural, and Upland, and Riparian Technical Teams o Local landowners and ranchers o BLM (in context of EA) o Sentinel Landscape project leaders and teams (AZLWT, DoD, NRCS, others)
STOP 4: CIENEGUITA OVERLOOK Overview
Army Corps of Engineers gave AZGFD money for wetlands restoration. Some of this money was used on LCNCA, and resulted in this wetland as well as the Cinco Wetlands. There are around 30 wetlands on LCNCA, as surveyed by the Desert Botanical Gardens. No official monitoring is being done on them. Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
8
Role of cattle in restoration/maintaining land health - The cattle help maintain the open water for wetlands by walking, wallowing, and eating the veg. Cows and fire both help remove biomass. o The fence line contrast at this site shows the effects of grazing versus excluding cattle. o Wetland habitats are rare, and support T&E species. Cattle can help achieve goals for T&E species habitat. Ex: Cinco Wetlands has been fenced off from cattle, and now has an impenetrable cover of bulrushes and cattails. If grazing were allowed, the exclusion areas may be much more open, and support more diverse wildlife habitat. The main question here is what the best methods are for achieving management goals. Do we want an open wetland? What are the best methods for meeting the management goals? The degree of cattle presence will depend on the desired conditions.
Discussion
Question: is this project meeting its objectives? o Answer: Visual observations indicate that the wetlands are meeting project objectives in general. However, no quantitative monitoring has been done to confirm whether objectives are being met. Question: Was another element involved in causing the standing water we see in the wetlands? o Answer: Probably not; floods do not reach this area besides in the form of sheet flow, and probably deposit sediment to the system. The wetlands are a result of the high water table. Many wetlands are grazed every year. Gardner and other areas could get seasonal grazing and stay healthy. One issue with excavated ponds is that cattle eat deposited material, so no vegetation grows. Putting the deposited material away from established waters could help support vegetation growth. Native American use – you can see why there was no need for irrigation in this area; the water table was probably at least as high as it is now.
STOP 5: CATTLE CROSSING AT CIENEGA CREEK Cinco Ponds overview
Origin of Cinco Ponds – Excavated in 2013 into 6 ponds, each 3’ deep. Cleared the vegetation, and then planted desired species. o Since then, BLM has been pulling out some unwanted saplings to maintain diversity. o Bulrushes have been extremely successful, and have lowered the temperature of the area surrounding ponds. However, they are invasive. Fish status – Pupfish and topminnow are thriving in most ponds, with one pond having a fluctuating depth, and some die-off has occurred. Cinco Ponds used to be in bad ecological health. It has taken work to get them to the current condition. o 450 head of cattle are on either side of the fence. There has been no opposition of utilizing cattle; this is a working landscape. The cattle have been instrumental in opening up the wetlands.
Discussion
BLM on Gila River needs poles for planting – could coordinate with LCNCA on collecting downed unwanted trees. Management options for Cinco Ponds: o Wetlands half-fenced o Switch sides for cattle activity Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
9
o Use different treatments on different ponds o Keep a control pond o Alternate years of cattle use o Completely close 2 ponds, completely open 2 others, keep 1 as control o Spread cattle use over double the area, to decrease stress on water sources Question: Do cattle put waste products into the ponds? o Answer: Yes, cattle products can be detrimental to fish. Cattle use needs to be balanced with the rest of the needs of the system. Question: is the area of the ponds expanding with cattle use? o Answer: Not sure, but it seems like it. Question: Does the current condition of the ponds meet RMP standards? o The RMP asks for a 90% cover standard, and we are meeting this goal. Even if some of the ponds were not fully vegetated, we would still meet the standard. Therefore, we should still be able to meet the cover standard if we introduce more grazing. Question: Is BLM actively attracting T&E species at the ponds? o Answer: No. We translocated Chiricahua Leopard Frogs here in 2012, but they jumped out when the water dried up (the frogs simply jumped into different water). Some recreationalists may come through this area and believe that cattle are ruining the land health. It is important for people to understand that the cattle are actually benefitting the area. More interpretation about the success of these wetlands could be helpful.
Isotopes study
Jeanmarie has been studying water flow patterns around LCNCA. Desert Botanical Gardens ad UA sampled the cienegas and wetlands, and Preserve. Jeanmarie put the existing sampling methods together, and identified where more study is needed. The main source of water is snowmelt from the surrounding mountains. Floods also recharge the floodplain sediments, through which water flows and reaches main channels months later. Preliminary findings – most water in the Cienega is regional groundwater recharge. There is not as much stormwater runoff at Cienega compared to the San Pedro. This may indicate a barrier between the snowmelt, groundwater, and recharge. o Jennifer will present more findings at Science on the Sonoita Plain. A map has been developed for future sampling sites. Some permission from landowners has been acquired for these sites. o If you see a request for hydrological study by Jeanmarie/UA DBG at these sites, it’s for collecting rainfall data. Thanks to BLM for funding the study. Otherwise, it would have been difficult to understand the wells and isotopes. There is a network of electronic gauges in the Nogales district. Jeanmarie will share the info with Rachel.
Creek Headcutting
Lost about 40% of June surface water between 1990 and now. Headwaters to the narrows used to flow, and had fish. Headcuts have been encouraged by tree die-off. Trees dieroot structure disappearsno stabilizationheadcuts Areas of concern: o Water gauge area - Maps indicate that there is a headcut at the water gauge. The shale is crumbling, and more incision could cause habitat alteration. o Pump canyon area – may self-heal, but could change from riparian to xeroriparian habitat.
Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
10
o
Apache Canyon area – Trees have died, and the root structure is breaking down. Apache Canyon is becoming too full of sediment. There are now 2 prongs to the headcut. Similar to the Preserve – small headcuts with fingers. o ------- - no longer a good gallery or herbaceous understory. Potential causes of headcutting could be groundwater pumping or drought.
Discussion
Look at the piezometer measurements over time for these areas. Sometimes the clayey portions of soils collapse, and allow groundwater levels to fall. This collapse could be enough to impact vegetation and erosion patterns.
OTHER UPDATES
Crayfish were discovered at Apache Springs Ranch. This may have been the last major stream without crayfish in Arizona. This location is close to the perennial reach of Gardner. o AZGFD is working with the ranch owner to install fence around the pond, but crayfish are extremely difficult to control. Small crayfish can get through fences. o If fish reach Gardner, it is almost certain that they will get into Cienega. o Crayfish detections will be done in May. Rosemont - The sources of water for LCNCA are regional, and the models being used by Rosemont show that they are not regional. A model is being worked on in cooperation with the Center for Biological Diversity that will show the regional influence of Rosemont on hydrological patterns. Deborah at BOR is leading an erosion control/Adaptive Management workshop.
TAKEWAYS FROM PARTICIPANTS Public Education about LCNCA Efforts
Some issues are hard to express to the public, but we need an effort to educate people about what we do and why we do it. Future of the landscape and the collaborative management depends on public education. Some public education is done at the State of the Watershed meeting. LCNCA has been a working landscape not just for 150 years of ranching, but 1000 years of agriculture. We need to make information about what the Biological Planning participants are doing available to the public. Individual projects, using cattle for managing habitat diversity are all successes to communicate. o Shela and Robin are working on a cultural values component for LCNCA. We are all required to tie research back to public education. Newsletter is largely sent amongst the Bio Planning team. If we want to spread news about our efforts, there are 800 people on the CWP email list. People outside of the BLM need to have a sense of what BLM is doing; many people do not know where the rivers, ranches, and wetlands are. We need to be cognizant of climate change and Rosemont, and to let people know what is at stake to lose.
Value of the Biological Planning Team
Thanks to the collective wisdom of the long-term experience some of the group members have of this area. Encouraging to be here to see so many people involve in saving this area. Good to hear what other projects are going on – what’s working, and what’s not. There are some things we haven’t all heard about that will be key for collaborations moving forward. We are poised on the edge of what’s happening next. Always good to learn something new. Helpful to bounce ideas off of each other, instead of talking within normal office groups. Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
11
We are trying to accommodate for many changes and stressors on this landscape. We need to think beyond the boundaries. As a first visit to LCNCA, liked seeing the land after having seen it on a map. It takes a lot to make this group persist, and it is the spirit of collaboration that drives innovative change. Interesting to see management from a non-ranching side. Good to see collaboration and adaptive management on the ground after having read about it.
Meeting Logistics
Having Bio Planning twice per year is a good amount of time to make enough progress to tell each other about. Will be good to see what solutions people come up with regarding erosion problems. Good to have the RMP objectives on the agenda – makes it relevant to tie discussions back to the RMP. Positive effects of cattle on wetlands was useful to learn about. Eye opener to hear about using cattle as a land health tool. Beavers are also part of riverine health. Hearing about the isotope study and other projects from other Planning Team members can affect our decisions going forward Learning more about historic preservation work ties a lot of things together about what really matters on the landscape. Liked the mirroring of natural and cultural resource subjects today.
Next Steps
Coordination of restoration actions – SIRC, SIA, SEANRC, DOD, NRCS, and others need to get organized. It is great that other people are doing the same things at the same level across landscapes, and we need to think of the larger picture for coordinating across areas of interest. It will be good to have this up-front work for the proposed action in the BLM Restoration EA. BLM needs more credit for making this happen. Key individuals who make it happen may go away – we’re worried that it won’t continue. We need to push at upper levels to keep LCNCA staffed and funded. We are at a tipping point for taking this collaboration to the next level of sharing and using information. We need to push the effort forward to make this happen.
ACTION ITEMS Watershed Management Group, Sentinel Landscape participants, BLM: Follow-up conversations on restoration projects that could utilize partnerships; focus on the BLM EA. Biological/ecological experts: Contribute info on relevant natural resource events to the Heritage Technical Team (Doug, Gita, Shela, Allison Bunting). Robin: contact Jeff Simms if you need more info on the Hay Camp documents. BLM: Coordinate on possible transfer of downed tree poles from Cinco Ponds to the Gila river area. All: Consider increasing education and interpretation about the success of using cattle as a management tool at Cinco Ponds and Cienega Creek. Jeanmarie: Share info on electronic gauges in Nogales district with Rachel. BLM: Look at piezometer measurements over time for headcut areas. They could indicate whether collapse of the clayey soil later may be contributing to water loss. 2016 Spring Biological Planning Participants
Adam Milnor, BLM Alicia Phipps, NRCS Alyson Head, University of Arizona Amy Markstein, BLM Ben Lomeli, BLM Bill Shock, Santa Cruz NRCD Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
12
Brian Powell, Pima County Parks and Recreation Brooke Gebow Chris Oryza, BLM Dennis Caldwell, FROG Project Gita Bodner, TNC Holly Hicks, AZGFD Jacob Lingley, Vera Earl Ranch Jeanmarie Haney, TNC Jeff Simms, BLM Jennifer Condon, Coronado NF Julia Sittig, Southwest Decision Resources (meeting summary) Linda Kenney, Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch Melissa Warren, BLM Phil Heilman, Southwest Watershed Research Center Robin Pinto, Cienega Watershed Partnership/ Landscape historian Roger Cogan, National Wildlife Society Scott Jones, University of Arizona Scott Wilbor, Arizona Land and Water Trust Shela McFarlin, Cienega Watershed Partnership Tahnee Robertson, Southwest Decision Resources (facilitation) Trevor Hare, Borderlands Restoration
Draft Notes -- Las Cienegas NCA Biological Planning -- Spring 2016
13
