Constructed Wetlands at Kachina Village Management Plan William S. Gaud Professor of Biology Northern Arizona University
INTRODUCTION The wetland at Kachina Village, AZ, (7 mi south of Flagstaff, AZ: Map 1; Map 2) was constructed as a long-term, cost-effective way to dispose of treated effluent from that community. It began operating in 1988 with a total cost of construction of over $6 million and a capacity of 0.33 million gallons wastewater per day. After secondary treatment and chlorination, the water is pumped a mile to the eight ponds on a wind-swept mesa. The water flows by gravity from pond to pond under manual control. The system is one of winter storage and summer evaporation.	PONDS DESIGN 8 Ponds 70 Acres (28.3 Hectares) 75 Million Gal (284 Million Liters) 3-4 ft Deep (1 m Deep) Winter Storage Summer Evaporation
The ponds are all shallow, ranging from a depth of 15-45 cm in Ponds 1 and 2 to a maximum of 1.4 m in Ponds 6 and 8. The water coming from the treatment facility carried high concentrations of nitrates and phosphates. The wind constantly mixed the water. Under these conditions, the abundant sunlight promoted a continual algal bloom that raised the pH of the water to values of 10.5-11.
After four years in existence, the ponds showed only a few patches of emergent vegetation - reeds and cattails - that had apparently been inoculated into the ponds by ducks. The berms had been planted with alfalfa and yellow clover, which was still obvious everywhere. In addition, various grasses had become established. Willow trees also had been planted in the water near the berms in some of the ponds, but few of these trees had survived the onslaught of the elk's summer grazing. The islands were piled with large boulders and patchy weedy vegetation.
The primary purpose of this grant was to improve wildlife habitat in these wetlands, especially for migrating waterfowl. There were several auxiliary goals and qualifications: 1) vegetation would be transplanted from nearby wetlands and only native species would be used; 2) island areas would be improved for nesting birds; 3) changes in the ponds would be monitored and reported; 4) a long-term management plan would be written to maintain the wetland character of the ponds; and, 5) the public would be encouraged to volunteer and use the area to learn more about wildlife.	TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT     DESIGN ACTUAL Flow Gal/Day 300,000 192,000   l/Day 1,135,590 726,778 BOD lb/Day 75 13   mg/l 30 8 Suspend Solids lb/Day 75 17   mg/l 30 11 Fecal Coliforms cfu/100 ml 1,000 131 pH   6.5-8.6 7.1
The purpose of this management plan is to suggest to the Kachina Village Improvement District and Coconino County guidelines for managing the area of the constructed wetlands for wildlife and education. The involvement of the Department of Biological Sciences at Northern Arizona was limited to the time span of the grants from the Arizona Game and Fish Department and from Ducks Unlimited.
INITIAL CONDITIONS
There were twelve ponds in the original design to receive effluent from the treatment plant, but only eight of these have been constructed. The two ponds on the east (Ponds 3 and 7) were dry and scheduled for repair to the berms that had been leaking. Pond 6 to the west also had a leaking berm and was scheduled for repair. The EPA permit allowed no water to leave the ponds except by evaporation. An initial survey of the ponds revealed a surprising wealth of vegetation, but little that was emergent. Ponds 1 and 2 contained chronic algal blooms but practically no other aquatic plant life. The algae was so abundant that the water was green and looked like pea soup. An examination of the water revealed that the algae were Scenedesmus.
In the other ponds, Elodea canadensis (water weed) and/or Myriophyllum exalbescens (water milfoil) were very abundant beneath the surface. During the four years in which the ponds held water, these two plants had made extensive headway in filling the ponds. Aquatic invertebrates were numerous and used these submergent plants for habitat and for food.
An examination of nearby wetland areas showed that the dominant emergent vegetation was Scirpus sp. (bulrush), Typha latifolia (cattail), and Eleocharis palustris (spike rush). A visit to Show Low/Pine Top corroborated our impression that these dominants were the primary species for transplanting and that an aggressive program of transplanting would greatly accelerate the rate of growth.
There was evidence of vandalism and tampering with control of the water flow. Seats made from the trunk of an old dead tree were tossed into the ponds. Occasionally boys with rifles or BB guns were seen walking along the berms. Sometimes shotgun shells were discovered on the berms. The boards used for depth control in the ponds now and then were removed and tossed aside. Once in a while, the metal grates on the top of the culverts were removed and tossed into the ponds or into the culverts.
ORIGINAL PLAN, MODIFICATION, AND ORGANIZATION The proposal for this project was submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Department's competitive Heritage Fund program in June 1992. Approval was obtained on December 14, 1992, after a long process to work out a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Arizona and Coconino County to ensure that treated water would continue to be pumped to the constructed wetlands for at least 20 years.
We began field work in February 1993, but the first funds did not arrive from the Arizona Game and Fish Department until April. Negotiations were underway with Ducks Unlimited, mediated by the local office of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Ducks Unlimited agreed to participate in the project in September 1993.
In the proposal were funds to construct a building on site for storage of field equipment, location of the boat, and initial processing of samples. In order not to lose a field season, we began work in the ponds in spring 1993. Since matching funds from Ducks Unlimited were uncertain at that time, we learned to accomplish our tasks without the building. At the end of the first field season, we applied for an extension of the project for one year and permission to use the money originally allocated for the building to cover expenses in the third year. Permission and extension were allowed.
Also in the proposal were funds to construct a bird blind that would allow scientists and the public to view ducks and other birds after the bulrushes had grown tall enough to obscure observation from the berms. In October 1995, we developed a design for a blind that would be raised on piles and have siding that would blend in with the character of the wetlands. Unfortunately, the price of wood had risen since the proposal was written with the result that it would cost twice the amount allocated for the blind. The Department of Engineering at Northern Arizona University would build the blind as a student project and stay within our budget (i.e., for the cost of materials) if we could get an extension until the end of May. The Arizona Game and Fish Department would not accede to this request, and we returned the money budgeted for the blind.
The individuals working regularly on this project consisted of a professor, a graduate student, and a variable number of other students, primarily undergraduates. Several other professors and graduate students contributed to the project, especially in the beginning stages. As the graduate student became proficient in the project, it became most productive that she worked directly with the students. The professor periodically accompanied the field team to the ponds and worked regularly with the students at the University.
Each year the students filed the results of their projects in written reports and/or oral reports at Northern Arizona University. In August 1995, the students working on the project presented formal posters at the meeting of the Arizona Water Pollution Control Association in Flagstaff.
VEGETATION The primary goal for transplanting aquatic plants into the ponds was to provide vegetation cover for migrating waterfowl (primarily ducks, but also for yellow-headed and redwing blackbirds). The introduction of plants to the islands was intended to enhance nesting sites for ducks and other birds common to wetlands, such as the spotted sandpiper. We thought that the addition of grasses would provide seeds for various waterfowl. Finally, we expected to inhibit erosion on the windward sides of the islands by planting a band of spikerush there.
Source of Plants Aquatic plants were obtained first from Ponds 6 and 7. There was a pool of water in the eastern edge of Pond 7 that contained lots of Eleocharis, a moderate amount of Scirpus, and a few individuals of Typha. Since the pond was left to dry out in preparation for berm repair and it appeared that the aquatic plants were already beginning to die, we moved them to the other ponds. Pond 6 was also scheduled for berm repair, so we obtained more Scirpus and Typha from this source. In 1993, Pond 5 dried almost completely so we "rescued" a patch of Scirpus from the northeast side of the island.
For additional plants, we found Scirpus in great abundance at Marshall Lake, not far from Flagstaff. We made numerous forays there on the east side of the lake towards the end of the road so as not to adversely affect the aesthetics of this recreational area. The plants were placed in buckets, in burlap bags, and on a plastic tarp in the back of the van. It was important to keep the plants from drying out during transportation before we could transplant them. We collected the plants at daybreak and transplanted them by noon on the same day.
We obtained Typha, Glyceria (manna grass), and Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass) from the creek bed of Pumphouse Wash in Kachina Village just east of the bridge at the junction of Kachina and Piñon Trails. We wanted to increase the diversity of vegetation with Typha, but were hesitant to introduce much because of its reputation for invasiveness. As we were transplanting the Glyceria, we noticed that there was already a fair amount of this grass that had naturally found its way onto the berms in the wetland area.
In the first spring of our field work, the local Arizona Game and Fish Department office suggested that we try to obtain plants from the Arizona State Land Department for transplanting onto the islands. In both 1993 and 1994, the State Land Department was generous in giving us some of the plants that they had not been able to sell, and we transplanted these on most of the islands. These included coyote willow, golden currant, and honeysuckle. We also tried cottonwood, but these first dried out and then flooded and died.
We obtained certain genetic strains of cottonwood from a professor at Northern Arizona University, who was doing research on their susceptibility to insect attack. These were planted on various islands. A friend supplied us with several blackberry bushes that we placed on one of the islands.
Transplanting Techniques The initial locations for transplanting Scirpus were in Pond 4. In the southeast corner, approximately 50 stalks were placed singly one or two feet apart. In other places, patches of 15-30 stalks were placed close together for mutual support against the wind. Both strategies proved extremely successful, the reeds growing vigorously and stalks multiplying vegetatively through their rhizomes.
The growth in August 1994 is on the left and in July 1995 is on the right.

The reeds were buoyant and tended to rise to the surface and float away unless anchored firmly in the substrate. We cut the stalks of Scirpus so that only a few inches rose above the water. Oxygen diffuses down the stalk to supply the growing tuber with air. We tried to leave some substrate attached to the tuber when we obtained it. With a trowel or shovel, we produced a wedge-like depression in the substrate to receive the tuber and then covered it over to hold it down. In cases where stalks did break free and float away, they put up a new stalk when they finally came to rest at the edge of a berm.

For added diversity, we gathered buckets of Polygonum amphibium (smart weed) and Utricularia vulgaris (bladderwort) from Marshall Lake and dropped them in the southeast corners of Ponds 4 and 8. We put them in the water among the stalks of Scirpus we had previously transplanted there so that the Scirpus would keep them from being blown away by the wind.

The substrate on the islands was thick clay and very rocky. It was almost impossible to dig in and we were apprehensive that available water would be the limiting factor for any transplanted vegetation. To improve the soil, we added an equal part of steer manure to the soil in the hole. The holes were large and we left a depression around the plant to hold rain water during the monsoons. Between placing the plants in the hole and the monsoon season, we watered each plant every 2-3 days.

Survival was not good after the first year. Plants that were exposed to the prevailing wind died. Plants that were in the leeward side of the island ridge had higher probabilities of survival. We placed wind barriers around transplanted individuals, and that seemed to help.

In the second season, we dug holes twice as large as in the first season and added sand to the mixture to increase porosity. Survival seemed to improve. Since the elk were a significant problem, we placed wire cages around the growing plants to discourage the elk from foraging on them. This tactic was successful.

Pattern Scirpus was placed, as mentioned above, as single stalks to cover an area such as the corner of a pond or in a bunch so that the stalks could provide mutual support to each other in more open areas.

We also placed Scirpus in locations where they would increase the surface area for small organisms that help process the treated effluent, nutrients, and algae. For instance, reeds were transplanted directly in front of the pipe in the northwest corner of Pond 2 so that the reeds would act as a filter for the nutrient laden water from the treatment plant.

Reeds were also placed in a ring around the culvert from Pond 2 to Pond 4 so that they would act as a filter there. Immediately outside the concrete exit to the culvert, Eleocharis was transplanted, then a ring of Typha, and finally a ring of Scirpus. The Eleocharis had the largest surface area, but the fastest growth rate. We placed the other two species outside the spike rush to see if they could act as an effective barrier to the aggressive growth of the latter. For the most part, the Scirpus was able to contain the Eleocharis. The Typha was practically eliminated by the elk, which pulled up all but one or two stalks.

While we worked, we observed the ducks and where they tended to stay in the ponds. There was a large patch of Scirpus on the northern side of the wooded island in Pond 2 in 1993 and 1994 where there were always ducks. On the assumption that this location was attractive because it afforded thick cover, we decided to place an extensive stand of Scirpus at the northern end of the island in Pond 5. In addition, we arranged Scirpus in a broken band across those islands that were L-shaped: in Ponds 1, 4, and 8. The Scirpus would eventually grow thick enough to constitute a sheltered bay between themselves and the island but with an entrance. Behind the reed shelter, the ducks and other birds would not be flushed up constantly by human visitors.

Invasion

When we began our work, there were only several isolated stems of Potomogeton amphifolius (pond weed) apparent. In the past two years, this plant has grown rapidly to cover large patches of water. Since the leaves of Potomogeton lie on the surface, they effectively remove sunlight from submerged plants. Potomogeton is reputed to be a very good food for ducks.

In early fall of 1994, the first evidence of Lemna minor (duck weed) was apparent along the south edge of Pond 4. Since then, Lemna has multiplied extremely rapidly to invade the quiet areas of several ponds sheltered from the wind: in the leeward areas of berms and islands and among thick stands of Scirpus.

Vegetation Control

The transplanted reeds, when relocated in another pond, grew very successfully. In fact, it soon became obvious that they, especially Eleocharis, could grow fast enough to eliminate open water in several years. After the first couple of months during the summer of 1993, we ceased introducing Eleocharis into the ponds. The south end of Pond 6 shows the extensive stand of Eleocharis that developed spontaneously in three years. Typha is reputed to be a very invasive plant. When the seed heads mature, the wind may blow the seeds onto moist soil during a period of drawdown, resulting in the germination of thousands of individuals. During the three years of field work in these ponds, I have observed only one seedhead mature and that was soon destroyed by elk grazing. The elk invade these ponds and selectively graze on Typha, pulling up some stalks and keeping the others mowed down. So far, the elk have exerted a strong biological control on the cattails.

A few stalks of Polygonum survived in Pond 4, but the others disappeared. The most likely explanation for the loss of Utricularia is that it could not survive the high pH in these ponds. Polygonum, too, may not survive well in a high pH.

It is interesting to note that the Scirpus that we transplanted from Marshall Lake into the southeast corner of Pond 8 has not survived well or apparently multiplied. Compared to the Scirpus transplanted from other of these ponds or at other times from Marshall Lake, the plants in the south part of Pond 8 have grown extremely slowly.

We removed Scirpus and Typha from Pond 6, but did not transplant any aquatics into this pond. In the south end of the pond, Eleocharis is growing rapidly and looks as if it will soon cover the pond. During the past two years, Pond 6 was partially dried up in the summer for berm repair. The low water seems to have facilitated the rapid growth of Eleocharis.

HUMAN RISKS There are several risks to humans from the water in these ponds. First, the treated effluent has a relatively high load of nitrates. Regular consumption of such water will cause medical problems eventually.

Two of the students developed temporary rashes on days that they were transplanting vegetation from Marshall Lake to these ponds. Marshall Lake is well known for producing swimmer's itch, a dermatitis caused by the attempt of blood flukes that normally infect ducks to enter the human body through the skin. The dermatitis is an allergic reaction to the presence of the parasitic worms.

These flukes use snails as an intermediate host, but cannot survive in water with a pH greater than 8.5. We looked for evidence of such flukes in the snails from Kachina Village, but without success. We found abundant evidence of infected snails from Marshall Lake and from Mormon Lake. Apparently, the high pH in the Kachina Village ponds kills the flukes. Therefore, it is probable that the rash in the two students was caused by flukes from Marshall Lake, or by another factor in the Kachina Village ponds.

Most natural bodies of water contain Giardia. This small protozoan causes intense gastrointestinal distress. Therefore, it is unwise for anyone to directly consume water from any pond, including those at Kachina Village.

Finally, human Escherichia coli essentially has been eliminated from the treated water by chlorination. However, E. coli is deposited in the water by defecation by the numerous animals that frequent these ponds: ducks, coots, sandpipers, elk, etc. Besides the nutrient load that accompanies the effluent, the additional animal waste makes this water very rich indeed.

ANIMALS The water in all the downstream ponds comes ultimately from those with a chronic algal bloom. The algae move with the water into the next tier of ponds, but after several days are no longer evident. A cursory examination of water samples indicated that various animals consume the algae. These animals would include protozoa, rotifers, and microcrustaceans, among others.

Besides these small inhabitants, there are innumerable insects present in the ponds, both adults and larvae. Furthermore, water mites, worms, snails, and salamanders are abundant. In other words, an ecosystem with all its interactions, feedback loops, direct and indirect effects is functioning in the Kachina Village ponds.

The vegetation in the ponds provides habitat necessary for the completion of the life history of some species, e.g., the dragonfly needing to expand and dry its wings before flying away after metamorphosis. The submergents provide a deep refuge of cool water in the summer for species that need to escape from the surface water heated up by sunlight. Energy flows from the algae and higher vegetation in a food web through microbial and animal links. We estimate that the snails in these ponds can process as much as 15% of the energy from the sun. Ducks, mergansers, herons, ibises, sandpipers, blackbirds, and many others depend on plant and other animals for food on their migrations and/or to raise their young in the ponds.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Vegetation Growth and Available Open Water Vegetation provides both cover and habitat. Some vegetation is necessary for shelter, food, and nesting places. However, the vegetation in these ponds has exhibited a very aggressive pattern of growth that will eventually eliminate the open water areas that attract the water birds.

When the proportion of open water drops to half the surface area, steps will have to be taken to rejuvenate the ponds. Several options are available, none of which was included in this project.

The first option is to physically remove the reeds and other plants, either by machinery or by human labor. Then the plants would have to be disposed of. If a composting plant is built, the vegetation waste could be used as fiber.

Another option is to dry out the pond and then cut the vegetation close to the substrate. Subsequent flooding for as much as six weeks may drown the cut plants, e.g., Eleocharis and Scirpus, and return the pond to a large proportion of open water. The reeds could be cut selectively to preserve a desired pattern.

A third option is to dry a pond and burn part of the vegetation to kill it. This method is questionable since the growing tissues of the reeds are in the substrate and may be difficult to destroy. Burning will produce a nutrient-rich ash that will stimulate rapid growth when the pond is subsequently flooded.

A final method is to use herbicides to eliminate the unwanted vegetation. The dead vegetation will have to be removed before reflooding to avoid offensive decomposition.

Diversity Diversity is a desirable ecosystem objective since it tends to produce overall stability. In addition, the variety of plants and animals results in a pleasant environment for human visitors.

We carried out this project to create (or maintain) a diverse pattern of vegetation in the different ponds. Some were left relatively untreated and others were intensively managed. The result is a group of ponds that will be filled in by the growing vegetation at different times in the future.

In addition to the vegetation, we examined the possibility of introducing small fish into one or more of the ponds. We studied Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows) in Pond 6 and Rhinichthys osculus (speckled dace) in Pond 8. It is likely that the minnows that escaped into Pond 6 will survive and produce a viable population eventually. They are capable of reproducing in such a habitat. On the other hand. the dace are unlikely to reproduce in a pond habitat.

The probable impact of a population of the fathead minnows is that a number of the populations of invertebrates resident in Pond 6 will decline as they are eaten by the fish. The fish themselves may become food for kingfishers, herons, mergansers, etc. Thus, a change in one pond may enhance overall diversity of the system.

Amphibians may also find their way into these ponds. Already there are salamanders and tree frogs present. An undesirable colonist would be the bull frog, since it is non-native and will eat many other residents.

Water Levels Water levels can be used as a management tool in several ways. First, in these ponds water can enter directly into Pond 1 and/or into Pond 2. For the period during which we worked, water entered into both these ponds until late summer 1995. Until that time, both ponds supported a chronic algal bloom with green water. In about two weeks after water no longer entered directly into Pond 2, the algal bloom disappeared, the water column cleared, and it was obvious that submergent vegetation had never developed in this pond. Since sunlight can now reach the bottom of Pond 2, this pond will probably experience the pattern of succession that the other ponds did.

Secondly, during those periods when some ponds dried up, it was clear that the growth rate of the reeds was significantly inhibited. When the water is shallow or only moistens the substrate, the reeds will grow rapidly and seeds can germinate producing many new individuals. In addition, shallow water concentrates the aquatic animals and provides abundant food for foraging birds. We recommend that enough water be kept in Ponds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 to keep the vegetation alive and thriving there. Such a level would keep the aquatic vegetation - Eleocharis, Scirpus, and Typha - at the edges of the ponds moist. We do not recommend letting the ponds dry out in late summer and in the fall which could allow extensive germination of invasive species, e.g., Typha. On the other hand, Ponds 3 and 7 can be used for winter storage of water, but allowed to dry out completely in the summer and fall. Thus, the declining water level in these two ponds will provide food for foraging birds, but invasive species will not be able to germinate while the substrate is bone dry.

Ponds 3 and 7 provide an opportunity to sow grasses that could later provide forage for ducks. As the ponds dry in late spring, millet or other grass could be broadcast on the most ground to germinate. If the monsoons are favorable, the grasses may survive. When the seeds mature, these ponds could be flooded to attract ducks which would use the seed heads as food. Grass seed is an obvious food item for birds, so many more seeds would have to be sown than the resident birds could consume. Reflooding the ponds in the fall would run the risk of providing an appropriate substrate for Typha. It will be important to modify management practice in response to events.

Island Plants and Refugia The plants we transplanted to the islands may need to be watered between spring and the monsoon season to prevent wilting and death. In addition, until the cottonwoods grow high enough to escape the elk, the cages need to be enlarged to protect them. The advantage of the islands lies in the success of the nesting birds. The more difficult it is for predators to find the nests, the more young will be produced and reach adulthood.

Filamentous Algal Blooms In July 1995, the filamentous algae that had built up over the previous two months in Pond 4 suddenly died. The rapid release of large amounts of organic material from the algal death fueled a corresponding rapid growth of decomposing bacteria. There was an associated drop in pH and dissolved oxygen. The result was an immediate decline in habitat quality as the pond stunk from anaerobic decomposition of the organics.

After a week, the smell in Pond 4 had disappeared. Some additional water was released from Pond 2 into Pond 4, and that helped to bring the dissolved oxygen back up somewhat. Filamentous algae have increased tremendously in Pond 8 and somewhat less so in Pond 5. The danger of a crash in these two ponds exists.

To avoid the switch to anaerobic decomposition after the crash, it has been suggested that nitrate fertilizer be broadcast over the pond to provide an oxidized nitrate source for the bacteria. Another possibility is to mechanically aerate the pond. If such algal crashes become an annual event and are obnoxious, we recommend experimenting with these or other approaches.

Community Relations The Kachina Village ponds have already developed into an excellent recreational and educational resource. Local residents walk and jog on the berms. Various individuals come to watch birds. The area has been the focus of the Northern Arizona Audubon Society bird walk during the past two Flagstaff Festivals of Science. Numerous students from Northern Arizona University and some from the high schools have conducted their projects there.

The self-guided tour needs to be maintained by keeping the numbered posts in the ground and providing a supply of brochures. The bulletin board needs to be supplied periodically with new information. Since KVID manages the ponds, they may be willing to continue to maintain this public image. We could supply KVID with the brochure copy and a supply of information for the bulletin board.

Another method to maintain public interest and maintain the recreational and educational aspects of the ponds is to develop a community volunteer organization. The group could be composed of adults that meet once a month with a focus, e.g., bird watching. It could also be a boy scout troop or a 4-H club that takes over the ponds as a project.

INITIAL ADVICE For help in setting up a management strategy for a young wetland, there are two obvious sources of information. First, there are experienced managers who have worked with wetlands. Visit their wetland areas and seek their advice. Ask for their suggestions on species to transplant and species to be wary of . As we discovered, aggressively transplanting aquatic vegetation greatly increases plant cover. Furthermore, introduction of the vegetation permits the manager to control the pattern of growth, e.g., at edges, around islands, etc. All regional aquatic species will probably eventually reach the wetlands with animal vectors. Managers should concentrate on controlling the dominant species, as nature will contribute diversity.

Secondly, visit natural wetlands in the region. An examination of the species composition of these natural areas will reveal which plants thrive locally. Furthermore, natural wetlands are a source of plants that can be transplanted to the young wetland. Obtain these plants from places that will not injure the natural area and will not decrease its value for visitors.

Remember that succession is a natural process in wetlands, so they will inevitably change. Managers have the opportunity to influence the pattern and rate of that change.

Cite this report as: Gaud, William S., Kerry J. Brough, and Daniel J. Lueder. 1996. Improvement of Wildflie Habitat in a Constructed Wetland. Arizona Water & Pollution Control Association. Annual Meeting. Tucson, Arizona. May 3. William S. Gaud, Northern Arizona University Kerry J. Brough, Brown & Caldwell Daniel J. Lueder, Kachina Village Improvement District.

Student Reports: 1. Bowers, Lisa C., and Memi V Heeder. 1995. Distribution of Mullein (Verbascum thapsus L.) Among the Kachina Wetlands Ecosystem, Flagstaff, Arizona 2. Holiday, Curtis R., and Memi V Heeder. 1995. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos L.) Nesting Success in the Kachina Wetlands, Flagstaff, Arizona