JSDA Unit~d.States

"... ---- Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Fort Collins,

Colorado 80526

Proceedings

RMRS-P-3

The Future of Arid ·Grasslands:

Identifying Issues, Seeking Solutions

Tucson, Arizona

Octob,er9- 1,3, 1996

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Errors identified by the software have been corrected;

however, some errors may remain.
Abstract

Tellman, Barbara; Finch, Deborah M.; Edminster, Carl; Hamre, Robert (eds). 1998. The future of arid

grasslands: identifying issues, seeking solutions. 1996 Oct. 9-13; Tucson, AZ. Proceedings

RMRS-P-3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 392 p.

This conference was designed to provide a non-confrontational setting for a variety of people from

differing viewpoints to discuss the threats facing arid grasslands of the Southwest. Participants

included ranchers and other private economists, scientists, and students. The sessions were

organized around the major themes of understanding grasslands, identifying grassland issues,

managing grasslands, and seeking solutions to grassland issues. Many of the sessions were in the

form of panel discussions or informal presentations.

Publisher

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Fort Collins, Colorado

July 1998

Publisher's Note: Most papers in this report were reviewed only for format and style.

They did not receive statistical review. Pages were composed from copy supplied by

the authors.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please send the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1719

E-mail rschneider/rmrs@fs.fed.us

FAX (970)498-1660

Mailing Address

Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

3825 E. Mulberry Street

Fort Collins, CO 80524-8597

Cover art by Pat Oogjen, Tempe Artist

Abstract

Tellman, Barbara; Finch, Deborah M.; Edminster, Carl; Hamre, Robert (eds). 1998. The future of arid

grasslands: identifying issues, seeking solutions. 1996 Oct. 9-13; Tucson, AZ. Proceedings

RMRS-P-3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 392 p.

This conference was designed to provide a non-confrontational setting for a variety of people from

differing viewpoints to discuss the threats facing arid grasslands of the Southwest. Participants

included ranchers and other private economists, scientists, and students. The sessions were

organized around the major themes of understanding grasslands, identifying grassland issues,

managing grasslands, and seeking solutions to grassland issues. Many of the sessions were in the

form of panel discussions or informal presentations.

Publisher

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Fort Collins, Colorado

July 1998

Publisher's Note: Most papers in this report were reviewed only for format and style.

They did not receive statistical review. Pages were composed from copy supplied by

the authors.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please send the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1719

E-mail rschneider/rmrs@fs.fed.us

FAX (970) 498-1660

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

3825 E. Mulberry Street

Fort Collins, CO 80524-8597

Cover art by Pat Oogjen, Tempe Artist
The Future of Arid Grasslands: 

Identifying Issues, Seeking Solutions 

Tucson, Arizona and 

Selected Ranches in Southern Arizona, 

Southwestern New Mexico, and Northern Sonora 

October 9 - 13, 1996 

Editors: 

Barbara Tellman, Water Resources Research Center, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

Deborah M. Finch, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Albuquerque, NM 

Carl Edminster and Robert Hamre, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO 
Conference Sponsors 

Many thanks to the following for their 

generous sponsorship of the Grasslands Conference: 

The Appleton-Whittel Research Ranch of the National Audubon Society and the 

Research Ranch Foundation 

The Water Resources Research Center and the Udall Center for Public Policy, 

The University of Arizona 

The Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University 

The Turner Foundation 

The J.W. Kieckhefer Foundation 

The Arthur Dubrow Foundation 

USDA Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station and the 

Coronado National Forest 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Tucson Office 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

The Malpai Borderlands Group 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

Tucson Audubon Society and Huachuca Audubon Society 

The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 

Western Sod I Western Sere 

Charles Hummel 

Drexel Jones 
-. ·.·.·, 

CONTENTS 

Preface 

Barbara Tellman and Diana Hadley ...................................... v 

Understanding Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Northwestern Apacherian Savannas: A Description, and Review of 

Issues Concerning Human Inhabitation 

Tony L. Burgess ................................................... 3 

An Overview of Arid Grasslands in the Northern Chihuahuan Desert 

Kris M. Havstad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Mexican Grasslands and the Changing Aridlands of Mexico: 

An Overview and a Case Study in Northwestern Mexico 

Alberto Burquez and others .......................................... 21 

Factors Controlling the Structure and Function of Desert Grasslands: 

A Case Study from Southeastern Arizona 

Carl E. Bock and Jane H. Bock ........................................ 33 

II Identifying Grassland Issues .................................... 45 

Wildlife Issues 

Terrestrial Bird and Mammal Distribution Changes in the 

American Southwest, 1890 - 1990 

David E. Brown .................................................. 4 7 

Herpetology of the Sulphur Springs Valley, Cochise County, Arizona 

Philip C. Rosen and others ........................................... 65 

Age-Related Population Trends of Landbirds Migrating Through 

Southwestern Semi-Arid Grassland 

WangYong and Deborah M. Rnch ..................................... 81 

Wildlife Corridors Panel Discussion 

Rod Mandt, Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

Grazing and Fire Issues 

Grazing and Fire Management 

Larry Allen ...................................................... 97 

Historical Patterns of Surface Fire in Canyon Pine-Oak ForestsJ Savannas, 

and Intervening Semiarid Grasslands of the Southwest Borderlands 

Mark Kaib, Christopher H. Baisan, and Thomas W. Swetnam ................. 101 

Experimental Fire Research in· semi-arid Shortgrass Prairie 

Paulette L. Ford and Guy R. McPherson ................................ 107 

Burning Policies of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Dan Robinett ................................................... 117 

Ranching in Santa Cruz County: A Summary of Research Findings 

Madelene Orton ................................................. 120 

Views of a Non-traditional Traditional Rancher 

Joe Parsons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 

Exotic Plant Species 

Ecological Characteristics of Invasive Alien Plants 

John H. Brock ................................................... 137 

How Some Exotic Plant Species Reached the American Southwest 

Barbara Tellman ................................................. 144 
The Influence of Climate, Soil and Grazing on the 

Distribution of Lehmann Lovegrass 

Jerry R. Cox and George B. Ruyle ..................................... 150 

Water Quality, Erosion and Water Supply 

Riparian Areas, Watersheds, and Water Quality Panel 

Roy Jemison .................................................... 158 

Hydrology and Watershed Management in Semi-Arid Grasslands 

Malchus B. Baker, Jr. . ............................................ 159 

Using RUSLE for Erosion Control and Grassland Management 

Kenneth G. Renard ............................................... 170 

Water Supply in Grasslands Panel 

Barbara Tellman, Moderator ......................................... 175 

Arid Grasslands and Water Resources 

Charles Stockton, David Meko, and Mary F. Glueck ........................ 177 

Water Use and the Future of the Sonoita Valley 

Robert Naeser and Anne St. John, 

Ill Managing Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 

Management on a Large Scale 

Agricultural and Human Communities When Nature's Prairie is the Standard 

Wes Jackson ................................................... 203 

Natural Resources Management in the Matape Watershed 

Hector M. Arias and others ......................................... 210 

Monitoring and Information Gathering and Dissemination 

The Apacherian Savanna: The State and Future of Long-term Monitoring 

Peter Warshall and Tony Burgess ..................................... 226 

Building an Electronic Knowledge Center for Rangeland 

Management: The Arizona AgNIC Project 

Mitchell P. McClaran and others ...................................... 241 

Distribution of Chihuahuan Desert and Colorado Shortgrass 

Prairie Species Controlled by Soil Moisture Heterogeneity in a 

Desert/grassland Ecotone at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge 

Charles A.Z. Buxbaum ............................................. 242 

A Landscape Approach to Monitoring and Assessing 

Ecological Condition: San Pedro Case Study 

William G. Kepner and others ........................................ 243 

Climatic Causes and Biotic Consequences of Recent Shrub 

Increase in the San Simon Valley 

Thomas J. Valone, James H. Brown, and Charles C. Curtain .................. 245 

Non-profit and Private Grassland Management 

The role of Nonprofit Organizations in Grassland Management Panel 

Peter Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 

Grassland Management by the Animas Foundation 

Ben Brown ..................................................... 248 

Private Ranchers Cooperating on Public Lands 

Dennis Moroney ................................................. 251 

Grassland Management by The Nature Conservancy 

Tom Collazo .................................................... 256 

Use of Volunteers in Land Management 

Bill Branan ..................................................... 258 

ii 
Cascabel Management Committee: A Report to the Grasslands Conference 

Dave Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 

Public Grassland Management 

Grassland Management on Public Lands Panel 

Jeanne Wade, Moderator ........................................... 262 

The Muleshoe Cooperative Management Area 

Grant Drennen and Ed Brunson ...................................... 263 

Management of the Empire-Cienega Ranch 

Karen M. Simms, Mac Donaldson and Joe Sacco ......................... 265 

Grassland Management on Tribal Lands 

Introduction to the Panel Discussion 

Gary Nabhan, Moderator ........................................... 270 

Tohono O'odham Tribal Herd Ranch 

Erwin Juan ..................................................... 272 

Grasses and Uvestock on Native American Lands 

Homer Marks ................................................... 272 

IV. Seeking Solutions to Grasslands Problems .................... 273 

Innovations in Grazing Management 

Breaking the Mold: A New Approach to Range Reform 

Karl Hess, Jr .................................................... 275 

Restorative Grazing 

Jim Winder ..................................................... 283 

Grazing Management In Arid Grasslands 

Using Principles of Holistic Management 

Kirk Gadzia ..................................................... 285 

The Malpai Borderlands Group: Ecosystem Management in Action 

Bill MacDonald .................................................. 289 

Grassland Restoration 

Use of Native Species in Revegetation of Disturbed Sites {Arizona) 

Richard D. James ................................................ 297 

Natural Site Conditions and their Effects on 

Establishment in Grassland Restoration 

Margaret Livingston ............................................... 304 

Considering Genetic Diversity in Grassland Restoration 

Steven Smith ................................................... 305 

Revegetation of Abandoned Agricultural Fields in the Sonoran Desert 

Jerry R. Cox and Gary Thacker ....................................... 306 

Holistic Reclamation, A Natural Remediation Process 

Using Cattle and Other Natural Tools 

Terence 0. Wheeler ............................................... 312 

Planting Giant Sacaton: Initial results at Cienega Creek Natural Preserve 

Julia E. Fonseca and Ronald L. Tiller .................................. 316 

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, a Possible Tool for 

Restoration of Giant Sacaton Grasslands 

Linda Kennedy Elliott and others ..................................... 319 

Mineland Reclamation in the Arid Environments 

Stu Bengson ................................................... 323 

Revegetation of Native Grasses at a Mojave Desert Gold Mine 

Raymond Franson ................................................ 324 

iii 
Land Imprinting for Restoring Vegetation in the Desert Southwest 

Robert M Dixon and Ann B. Carr ...................................... 325 

Non-traditional Uses of Grasslands 

Nathan Sayre, Moderator .......................................... 329 

Use of Grasslands for Movie-Making 

Tom Hildebrand ................................................. 331 

Using Grasslands for Environmental Education 

Roseanne Hanson ............................................... 332 

Using Grasslands for Birding Tours 

Chris Benish .................................................... 333 

Rural-Urban Grassland Connections 

Tom Orum ..................................................... 334 

Methods for Preserving Open Space 

Economic Benefits of Preserving Natural Areas 

Bonnie G. Colby ................................................. 337 

The Future of Grasslands in Cochise County, Arizona 

Judy Anderson .................................................. 343 

The Use of Zoning to Protect Grasslands Panel Discussion 

David Yetman, Moderator .......................................... 346 

Planning and Zoning as a Land Management Tool 

Arlan Colton .................................................... 34 7 

Land Use in Santa Cruz County 

Brian Friedman .................................................. 349 

Being a Sticker 

Dan Dagget .................................................... 350 

The Value of Your Land Today and into the Future - Choices Landowners Face 

Lane Coulston .................................................. 353 

Estate Planning for Ranchers 

Gregory V. Gadarian, J.D. . ......................................... 356 

Cooperative Partnerships 

Land Management Partnerships Panel Discussion 

Ann Moote ..................................................... 359 

Strategies for Creating Successful Partnerships 

Luther Propst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 

Empowering Land Management Partnerships 

Eric Schwennesen ............................................... 364 

The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership 

Karen Simms ................................................... 366 

Conflict Resolution 

Trouble In Tortuga! A Rangeland Conflict Simulation Exercise 

Kirk Emerson, Hal Movius, and Garri Dryden ............................. 369 

Appendix 

List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 

iv 
Preface 

Barbara Tellman1 and Diana Hadley2, Conference Coordinators 

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE 

Grasslands in many parts of the Southwest and northern Mexico are facing serious threats -

from urbanization and subdivision development to spread of invasive plant species to conflicts over 

grazing policy. The conference organizers wanted to get a wide variety of people together to discuss 

the major problems facing grasslands in arid and semi-arid regions of the U.S. and Mexico and to 

seek solutions to those problems. The need to resolve conflicts in non-confrontational ways was 

stressed. 

Target groups for participation included ranchers and other private landowners, non-profit 

groups such as The Nature Conservancy, government agencies with responsibility for grassland 

management, environmental advocates, economists, scientists, students, and others. The plan 

was to offer a non-confrontational atmosphere in which people could freely discuss issues and 

advantages and disadvantages of a whole range of solutions to common problems. The emphasis 

was on practical, hands-on management methods, including spending considerable time in 

grasslands managed under a variety of techniques. 

More than 250 people attended some portion of the conference including: landowners and 

ranchers from Arizona and New Mexico; county planning department staff: state agency 

representatives from Arizona and new Mexico; representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Agricultural Research Service; Tribal representatives from the Tohono O'odham 

Nation, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and the Navajo Nation; non-profit group representatives from The 

Nature Conservancy in several states, Trust for Public Lands (Santa Fe, NM), Real Estate 

Conservation (Helena, MD, the Land Institute of Kansas, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, 

The Wildlands Project, Wildlife Damage Review, the National Audubon Society, and others; 

academics, including wildlife biologists, economists, rangeland management experts, and others 

from Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Texas, Utah, and Sonora, and students from New 

Mexico, Colorado, Mexico and Arizona. 

HOW THE CONFERENCE WAS ORGANIZED 

The first day was devoted to understanding grasslands and grasslands issues. The conference 

began with plenary talks to set a basis for understanding grasslands, or as one speaker preferred 

"savannas." Concurrent sessions on major problem areas were: Wildlife, Tourism and Urbanization; 

Fire Management and Grazing; Water Supply and Sustainability; Watersheds and Water Quality; 

Wildlife Corridors; and Exotic Plant Species. Problems of grassland management on tribal lands 

and on Mexican lands were another focus. Wes Jackson of the Land Institute of Kansas talked 

about sustainability problems on grasslands. 

1 Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

2 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona and the Audubon-Whittel 

Research Ranch Foundation, Tucson AZ. 

v 
The second day was spent looking at management of grasslands in Southern Arizona. One 

group visited a publicly owned grassland, managed for grazing, riparian proteciton, and recreation. 

A second group visited several privately owned ranches and learned about the history of the area 

and threats to its continued use as a ranchland. A third group visited two privately owned ranches 

with very different grazing styles and the Audubon-Whittel Research Ranch, where grazing was 

eliminated 20 years ago. All three groups ended up at the Research Ranch for lunch prepared by 

the Santa Cruz County Cowbelles, and for mini-workshops on paleontology, native plants, 

mammals, snakes, insect research and other topics. Some participants joined a preconference 

field trip to the Gray Ranch in southwestern New Mexico. 

The third day was spent in sessions looking for solutions to problems identified on the first day. 

Plenary speakers discussed new approaches to grazing policy and management. Major areas 

explored in sessions were: Monitoring; Land Conservation Options (including conservation 

easements, land trusts, tax law opportunities and zoning); Public and Private Land Management 

Techniques; Cooperative Partnerships; Conflict Resolution: and Rangeland Reform. 

The final day again featured field trips to nearby grasslands in southern Arizona and northern 

Sonora. 

THE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 

This volume follows the general organization of the conference, although the agenda is not 

exactly duplicated herein. Section One includes presentations on the subject of understanding 

grasslands, including the keynote speeches. Section Two includes presentations on the subject of 

managing grasslands. Section Three deals with identification of issues and problems facing 

grasslands. Section Four looks at solutions to the identified problems. Posters and abstracts of 

posters are integrated into the sections as appropriate. 

Many of the sessions were in the form of panel discussions or informal presentations. Some of 

these were difficult to reproduce in the proceedings format. Some of the articles in this 

proceedings follow the traditional format of prepared papers, complete with technical graphics. 

Others are summaries of sessions by recorders, or transcriptions from tape recordings of 

presentations. The recorders and transcribers are clearly identified in those sections. Two major 

sessions - Monitoring and Conflict Resolution - were summarized in detail by the organizers of those 

sessions. The variety of formats reflects both the character and flavor of the symposium, and the 

intention of the organizers to bring together individuals and groups who have only recently shown 

strong interest in meaningful dialog. 

THE GRASSLANDS BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Available also to readers of the proceedings is a grasslands bibliography on computer disk. This 

bibliography contains almost 4,000 references to works relating to grasslands in the arid and semiarid regions of the western United States. It was compiled by graduate students at Arizona State 

University and the University of Arizona from a large number of sources. It contains the standard 

technical works on grasslands research, as well as materials on the various subjects represented at 

the conference such as conservation easements, conflict resolution, and even grasslands history 

and poetry. The disk can be accessed by anyone with either DOS or Windows and does not require 

any other program for use. It will be sent free to all conference participants. Others may order a 

copy from the Tucson Audubon Society Gift Shop, 300 E. University Blvd., #11, Tucson AZ 85705. 

Please enclose $7 per copy to cover reproduction, shipping and handling costs. 

vi 
Chapter I 

Understanding Grasslands 

The conference and this proceedings were structured first to understand the nature of 

grasslands, then to look at major issues involved in grassland protection, then to look at 

management matters, and finally to identify possible solutions to the problems identified. 

In this chapter five plenary speakers set the framework for the conference by describing 

features of the grasslands from Texas west to California and from Sonora north to Nevada and 

Utah. This opening session was chaired by Mitch McClaran. Tony Burgess presents arguments that 

'savanna" is a more appropriate name for the grasslands of these areas and describes those areas 

and raises issues about human use of them. Kris Havstad takes a look at grasslands in the 

northern Chihuahuan Desert. Alberto Burquez uses the case study approach to talk about 

grasslands in northern Mexico. Finally Jane and Carl Bock look generally at factors controlling the 

structure and functions of desert grasslands. 

Northwestern Apacherian Savannas: A Description, and Review of 

Issues Concerning Human Inhabitation 

Tony L. Burgess .................................................. 3 

An Overview of Arid Grasslands in the Northern Chihuahuan Desert 

Kris M. Havstad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Mexican Grasslands and the Changing Aridlands of Mexico: 

An Overview and a Case Study in Northwestern Mexico 

Alberto Burquez, Angelina Martinez-Yrzarl, Mark Miller\ Karla Rojas2

, 

Mara de los Angeles Quintana\ David Yetman3 .•••.•••.••...••••.•.••.••. 21 

Factors Controlling the Structure and Function of Desert Grasslands: 

A Case Study from Southeastern Arizona 

Carl E. Bock and Jane H. Bock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

1 Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder CO. 2 Universite de Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, France. 

3 The Southwest Center, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

1 
2 
Northwestern Apacherian Savannas: 

A Description, and Review of Issues 

Concerning Human Inhabitation 

Tony L. Burgess1 

ABSTRACT 

I have focused on Apacherian Savannas in Arizona and adjacent 

areas, but it should be emphasized that related communities occur 

to the east as far as Abilene, Texas and south at least to Durango, 

Mexico. My reasons for proposing the name 'Apacherian savannas' 

to replace the term 'desert grasslands' are presented after a general 

description of their ecology. Trends in human influences upon these 

communities are summarized. I close with suggestions to integrate 

the preservation of ecological integrity with provisions for human 

opportunity. 

ECOLOGICAL LIMITS 

Ecological communities are organized around constraints on the growth and reproduction of 

their organisms. Apacherian savannas are defined by the nature of their adversities. Their 

landscapes are recognizably similar because the vegetation has been shaped in similar ways by 

climate. 

The region is located on the polar edge of the arid subtropics, where it is heavily influenced by 

turbulent dynamics of jet streams (Neilson 1986, 1987). This situation produces recurrent 

droughts and unstable climate patterns. The complex basin-and-range topography presents a wide 

range of elevations. This context produces local, fine-scale patterns of microclimates and soil 

moisture regimes. Along elevational gradients, frequency and severity of frost range from 

subtropical to temperate values; so that cold damage to plants varies considerably from year to 

year and place to place. 

Rainfall is also erratic over time and space. Apacherian savannas experience less drought than 

those in an arid climate; hence they are usually more productive than desertscrub vegetation. On 

the other hand they get more drought than a humid climate; so they have less standing biomass 

than a woodland. The savanna vegetation is part of McAuliffe's "ecological confusion zoneu 

(1995) sandwiched between arid desertscrub in lower basins and wetter woodland or forest on 

higher mountains. This zone is a mosaic of chaparral, grassland, savanna, woodland and 

desertscrub communities that have a prominent grass stratum sometimes in some places. Within 

this zone plant species composition and vegetation structure of a site are heavily influenced by two 

kinds of factors: 

1 Biosphere II, Oracle, Arizona. 

3 
1) those that affect soil moisture availability, such as rainfall, topography, geology, and soil 

texture 

2) those that affect disturbance or vegetation removal, the most important being fire, grazing, 

and drought. 

Four important weather patterns can be recognized in this region: 

1) The arid foresummer is a hot dry period usually centered in May and June. These are usually 

the driest months with the highest daytime temperatures. 

2) Arizona monsoon storms signal the end of the arid foresummer. Wind patterns bring moist 

air into the region, and local convective thunderstorms form. Showers may be intense, but they 

seldom last long or cover wide areas. In most years these spotty storms are the major source 

of rain for Apacherian savannas. 

3) Autumn tropical storms are unpredictable, but when they enter the region, they can provide 

large amounts of rain and trigger impressive vegetation responses. 'Autumn' is used in a broad 

sense, because these storms may occur from late summer through November. 

4) Winter frontal storms bring widespread rain or snow along with cool temperatures. Winter 

storm systems, which may last two to five days, can be critical for recharging deep soil moisture 

that many trees and shrubs depend upon to survive the arid foresummer. 

Among these four patterns the arid foresummer drought is most predictable, but its duration 

and intensity vary considerably from year to year. Plant growth in Apacherian savannas is governed 

by soil moisture, which is delivered as discrete pulses separated by intervals of drought. Each year 

differs in the relative amounts of summer, autumn and winter moisture received. Trends in the 

seasonality of rainfall may persist for a decade or more (Webb & Betancourt 1992). 

Dry climate, erratic rainfall, and mount.ainous terrain with rocky or caliche soils do not create a 

setting for prosperous agriculture. But they create the context that makes ranching possible. Were 

it not for dry climate and unsuitable soils, ranchers would all be farmers, and the range converted 

to cultivated cropland, just as happened in the tallgrass prairie of Iowa. 

DIVERSE PLANT GROWTH FORMS 

Apacherian savannas support a variety of coexisting plant species, which provides rich potential 

for vegetation dynamics. Each species is adapted to exploit a particular regime of soil moisture and 

survive a given range of drought intensities. Modes of adaptation include tolerance to internal 

desiccation, root and shoot architecture, and the timing of growth and reproductive responses to 

weather events. Seedlings are more vulnerable than mature plants. Many species, especially those 

with long lives such as mesquite and ocotillo, rely on infrequent episodes when suitable climate and 

disturbance events converge to create opportunities for their seedlings to survive to maturity. 

Seedlings of each species differ in th~!r requirements to establish; some are favored by winter 

storms, others by the Arizona' monsoon. For this reason seemingly minor shifts in weather 

patterns, for example a sequence of dry winters, can ramify into substantial changes in vegetation. 

Each species is unique, but three growth form groups can be recognized inhabiting Apacherian 

savannas, each group sharing general patterns of soil moisture exploitation (Burgess 1995): 

1) Water-starers have shallow roots, rapid responses to rain, and relatively slow growth rates. 

Examples are prickly pear, sotol, yucca, and ocotillo. Plants with these growth forms are often 

called "cactus, n even though many are totally unrelated to such true cactus as cholla and 

barrel cactus. 

2) Extensive exploiters have extensive root systems which can use deeper soil moisture, These 

4 
are woody plants with relatively slow responses to rain and potentially long life-spans. 

Mesquite, juniper, and catclaw acacia are examples. Plants with this growth form are often 

lumped together as "brush.n 

3) Intensive exploiters have dense shallow root systems that allow intensive exploitation of 

shallow soil moisture, rapid responses to rain, fast growth rates and rapid colonization on open 

land. For range management, two basic types of intensive exploiters can be distinguished: 

3a) Grasses are represented by many species in Apacherian savannas. Although they all use 

shallow soil moisture, there is a range of life cycles and forms, from annuals such as red 

brome and six-weeks grama, to herbaceous perennials including tobosa and alkali sacaton, to 

half-shrub mimics including bush muhly and black grama. 

3b) Half-shrubs, also called subshrubs or chamaephytes (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 

1974), are partly woody plants, usually less than knee-high, that often die back somewhat 

during cold or drought. Examples are burro-weed, broom snakeweed, and mariola. As is 

evident from their names, ranchers tend to call such plants "weedsn because their increase 

signals less profitable trends in savanna dynamics. 

Grasses and half-shrubs often compete for soil moisture and space. Disturbances by fire and 

grazing, and weather sequences favoring seedlings of one group or another, can create a dynamic 

alternation of dominance between grasses and half-shrubs. 

Plants in the three growth form categories differ in their life cycles, and hence in the duration of 

their influence on the landscape. Long-lived shrubby trees, for example mesquite, are the most 

stable elements of savannas. In contrast, annual plants respond rapidly to seasonal weather and 

disturbances. Populations of trees, shrubs and many water-storers change over decades to 

centuries. Perennial grasses and half-shrubs seem to respond on time scales from years to 

decades; however Robert Webb's recent study of a century of change in the Grand Canyon (1996) 

indicates that even individual grass clumps can be remarkably long-lived if they are protected from 

burros and other grazers. 

What types of vegetation do these plants create? 

Much of the Apacherian savanna is currently used for cattle production. Some areas have 

grasses mixed with arid-adapted shrubs, half-shrubs and water-storers on the wet edges of the 

northeastern Sonoran Desert, the northern and western Chihuahuan desert, and the southern fringe 

of the Great Basin Desert, especially on coarse-textured soils (Schmutz et al. 1991). An example is 

the grassy scrub of black-grama and white-thorn acacia on limey slopes of the San Pedro Valley. 

Grasses can also be found mixed with shrubby trees on the dry margins of pinyon-juniper woodland 

and Madrean oak woodland. Savannas a11u grasslands occur on mountain piedmonts or bajadas, 

especially where soils have high clay content (McAuliffe 1995). Clayey soils support savannas of 

velvet mesquite and curly mesquite grass on ancient alluvial fan remnants in many parts of 

southeastern Arizona. 

These grassy plant communities and landscapes have been grouped together under labels of 

'semidesert grassland,' 'desert grassland' or 'shrub steppe' (Burgess 1995). I prefer to call them 

Apacherian savannas. They support mixtures of desert, woodland and chaparral species, but they 

have characteristic species whose ecological distributions are clearly centered within these 

landscapes. These indicator species include tobosa grass, black grama, mesquite, sotol, soaptree 

yucca, and burro-weed. Half-shrubs are usually important components of Apacherian savanna. Here 

5 
mixtures of succulents, shrubs, grasses and half-shrubs are normal, producing a diversity of 

coexisting plant growth forms much higher than expected in typical grasslands. 

Vegetation structure created by coexisting growth forms is inherently unstable. A sequence of 

disturbances or weather events can change the landscape from open savanna to dense brush or 

low half-shrub scrub, and vice versa. Diverse species composition confers ecosystem resilience 

through dominance shifts. If conditions are not favorable for grasses, the half-shrubs and shrubs 

increase to fill in gaps left as grasses decrease. 

Why do I call it savanna instead of desert grassland? To wake us up, and help us rethink its 

nature and potential. 

The term desert grassland is a legacy of Frederick Clements, who had a prairie grassland bias 

from his first work in Nebraska. He recognized the unstable dynamics of this vegetation, but it did 

not conform with his Stable Climax Theory; therefore these communities could not be recognized for 

their integrity -they were to be considered an unstable ecotone between desert and grassland; thus 

the name 'Desert Grassland' (Clements 1963). From my perspective this vegetation has floristic 

and structural integrity that was denied by the desert grassland label, and these landscapes should 

not be viewed as transitional or ecotonal. 

Calling these landscapes 'grassland' focuses on grasses and pasturage. This emphasizes the 

production of agricultural commodities, especially cattle. It also promotes comparisons with 

temperate grasslands, especially those of the Great Plains, which may not be the most appropriate 

models for understanding these places. If a landscape is considered 'grassland,' non-grasses tend 

to be viewed as 'invaders.' Accordingly, a landscape with shrubs or cactus is 'degraded' and need 

to be 'restored.' Cost-effective 'restoration' may require the introduction of exotic grasses. If a 

place is thought of as grassland, even an exotic grassland may seem somehow more appropriate 

than a landscape dominated by nativE; shrubs or cactus. 

In a savanna, coexistence of different growth forms is expected. The most stable plant 

components, trees and shrubs, are integral parts of a savanna community along with the grasses. 

The term 'Apacherian savanna' promotes comparisons with tropical savannas, where plant growth 

rhythms are governed more by rainfall than by temperature, and dynamic shifts in vegetation 

structure are expected (Knoop and Walker 1985, Laycock 1991, Walker et al. 1981, Walker and 

Noy-Meir 1982). In the drought-prone Southwest, such comparisons seem appropriate. A more 

inclusive ecosystem concept, embracing the possibilities of different vegetation conditions over 

time, provides mental models suitable for adaptive management (C. S. Holling 1996, Westoby et 

al. 1989) with flexible goals and methods. 

This is only one attempt to shift our preconceptions and promote creative insights. We came to 

this conference because we care about this region and its future. In landscapes as dynamic and 

complex as these, misunderstandings are likely. With our current technology and wealth, poorly 

conceived actions can produce ecologica! degradation, which reduces opportunities for people 

trying to live in these landscapes. Lots of different communities and landscapes are included under 

the category of Apacherian savanna or desert grassland. What are the best ways to know and live 

with these ranges? How can our culture incorporate and communicate this understanding? Where 

should this information be concentrated? Should knowledge of the range be restricted to owners 

and inhabitants, or should regional urban-dwellers be given access to the details of their 

surrounding ecosystems? 

6 
WHAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES CONCERNING FUTURE 

HUMAN INFLUENCES UPON THESE LANDSCAPES? 

These places are inhabited, and both human and non-human residents face an uncertain 

future. 

The human population and its consumption demands will almost certainly increase. Urban 

dominance will continue: the Phoenix-Mesa area is expected to add 1,391,000 people between 

now and 2015 (Kiplinger Editors 1996). The general shift from commodity-generated income to 

information and service-generated income will probably continue. Sunbelt retirees will continue to 

support gated techno-oases along with rampant land speculation. The Colorado Plateau and Sky 

Islands may continue their transformations into theme parks, restructured and managed to provide 

pleasant experiences for urban vacationers. More large land holdings will become owned by the 

independently wealthy for use as exclusive retreats or pleasuring grounds, rather than as sources of 

personal livelihood. 

Under strong pressure from land speculation, the lifestyle and the amenity value of land in this 

region often exceeds its value for producing agricultural commodities. Purchases by new residents 

are motivated more by lifestyle or intangible values than by the land's potential to generate 

agricultural income. Lifestyle value is driven by personal beliefs, thus it is more unpredictable and 

harder to measure than livestock production. These unstable, shifting value systems are changing 

the social fabric of rural communities. 

Global climate models foretell substantial change, but it is hard to predict specific climate 

trends in the Southwest. The climate may become more unstable, or flip into a new stable 

behavior that could be drier or wetter in different parts of this region. Any change in weather 

patterns will produce substantial changes in vegetation and forage production. More critical for the 

region's economy will be whether the future climate will appear more or less comfortable than other 

parts of U. S., which will affect the relocation of retirees. 

Urban growth and perhaps climate change will increase the value of water, especially in the Salt 

River watershed supporting Phoenix. There may be renewed efforts to increase runoff yield by 

denuding vegetation, in effect 'shrink-wrapping' the watersheds. 

Perhaps the greatest value of our regional landscapes is in the ecological services they provide: 

air regeneration, water purification, soil formation, etc. Unfortunately these values are usually 

externalized: they have no accountability within our economic system. If the true worth of 

ecological services could be evaluated, the quality of ecological stewardship would become a major 

criterion for subsidizing rural ranchers. 

What should happen to rural ranchers and landscapes? Is subdivision compatible with 

ecological integrity? Is ranching compatible with ecological integrity? 

ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF LAND TENURE MUST INVOLVE POWER. 

In European culture, all rights to the land are acquired by purchase or conquest. Conquest is 

the reason Apaches are no longer the dominant culture. Purchase, either outright or through taxes 

and grazing leases, is how current owners or ranchers gain the right to hold their places. If current 

inhabitants are to retain rights to their land, they must maintain their power, especially economic 

and political power, within our urban-dominated society. 

Traditionally power obtained from the land was used to secure the rights to use that land. This 

was thought to lead to the 'best use' of land, measured by the amount of wealth that could be 

7 
created from extraction or cultivation. Under the social Darwinism paradigm of the Nineteenth 

Century, those who are most adept at accumulating and sustaining power should acquire rights to 

the land (Worster 1985). The social goal is to motivate individuals to accumulate wealth, which 

they share with the state. Beyond some threshold this system leads to extraction and 

impoverishment of the land's productive potential, and can also diminish human opportunities. 

Hence this paradigm is being reconsidered in our current situation of exploding human populations 

and accelerating technological power. It is not clear that economic health, as currently defined, is 

compatible with ecological health. 

The landscapes we are concerned with, savannas, grasslands and scrublands too arid or rocky 

for industrial-style farming, pose spec!ai problems. The traditional solution to dryland inhabitation 

has been nomadic pastoralism, but our land tenure system has forced pastoralists into the fixed 

locations and defined boundaries of stable farms. This has sometimes led to unfortunate 

ecological consequences, especially during long droughts when owners could neither move nor sell 

their livestock. 

The unstable economic yield of stock-raising in drought-prone climates does not mesh well with 

current economic expectations of the U. S. As agricultural commodity markets consolidate, and 

brokers and marketers will accumulate power, and small-scale producers will suffer. Depending on 

livestock production to sustain current inhabitants is likely to lead to big changes in ownership and 

control, unless there are continuing subsidies of capital. Many ranchers already have to find 

part-time wage or service work. Ownership is shifting to people or organizations that have 

accumulated wealth from distant sources. 

Urban population in the region is increasing dramatically, which will accelerate the alteration of 

regional landscapes to meet urban expecta~ions (Cronan 1991). Rural landowners are a shrinking 

minority (Orr 1994, p. 185). They could offset their declining numerical power with additional 

wealth, but the productivity of drought-prone rangeland makes accumulation of surplus wealth from 

the land very unlikely. Furthermore, in this region much of the range is controlled by the federal 

government, hence management policy is subject to urban political influences from outside the 

region (Sheridan 1995). 

It is very unlikely that rural ranchers will eliminate urbanized democracy and install a social order 

in which power is based on land ownership. If their interests are to be secured, they must explore 

other options to consolidate power. Ranchers' cooperatives offer possibilities to spread risk and 

provide insurance against catastrophes. Rural people may be able to cultivate urban constituencies 

for political and economic clout. What could be of concern to urban dwellers? Quality meat, 

quality recreation (hunting, horse training, etc.), and quality of ecological stewardship are all 

legitimate concerns for at least some urban Americans. Note the repeated emphasis on quality. 

Value is added by the perception of quality, which is driven by belief systems. To evaluate quality, 

the producer and client must agree upon how quality is to be measured. 

The land and climate of Apacherian savannas create strong personal attachments for many 

people. This is a basis for shared values and a consensus about quality. How can ecological 

stewardship be measured in a way that a rancher and environmentalist can agree upon? Mutual 

participation in ecological monitoring could be the start of an evolving consensus about 

management goals and subsidies. 

Environmentalists, field-oriented scientists, and ranchers share many concerns. These groups 

are beginning to foster productive discussions and dialogs, including those at this conference. 

Communication among various interest groups and ecological communities should become 

complex and networked in a manner analogous to the complexity and patchiness of the Apacherian 

8 
Savannas. To be effective, everyone should maintain a flexible approach that can include 

perspectives of ranchers, bird-watchers, urban consumers, and federal managers. The 

management skills needed to coordinate discussions, monitoring and consensus-building will be 

vital for the preservation of ecological communities. It is doubtful that any private or public group 

can sustain this effort over a long period. Hence the coordinators should nurture one or more 

successors to insure continuity of the dialogs and preserve traditions of integrity and trust among 

the people involved. 

There has been considerable progress in our perception of Apacherian savannas, but we are far 

from assembling the coherent body of expertise needed for its effective inhabitation and 

management. Also, no centralized collection of knowledge can ever substitute for the accumulated 

experience of a resident ranch family with their land. The accelerating proliferation of 

communication technologies is creating an information storm that is tearing traditional cultures 

apart and perhaps even fragmenting personalities (Gergen 1991). We must not let the flood of 

new information destroy the slow knowledge accumulated by rural people living on their land and by 

passionate naturalists who have sustained a focus on some place or organism. Only through 

continued conversations, both among ourselves and with the land, will we keep a land base in our 

common culture. Through this continuing dialog we can discover ways that balance ecological 

health with human opportunity. This conference has provided a place to talk, and I am encouraged 

that, though the future may be uncertain, our dialog can endure. 

REFERENCES 

Burgess, T. L. 1995. Desert grassland, mixed shrub savanna, shrub steppe, or semidesert scrub?: 

The dilemma of coexisting growth forms. IN, M. McClaran and T. R. V. Devender (eds.) The 

Desert Grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. pp.31-67. 

Clements, F.E. 1963. Plant succession and indicators. Hafner Press, New York. 

Cronan, W. 1991. Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. 

W. W. Norton & Company, New York. 

Gergen, K. J. 1991. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. 

Basic Books 

Holling, C. S. 1996. What Barriers? What Bridges? IN, L. H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and S. S. 

Light (eds.) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia 

University Press, New York. pp.3-34. 

Kiplinger Washington Editors. 1996. Kiplinger Washington Letter Vol. 73, No. 39. 

Washington, D.C. 

Knoop, W. T. and B. H. Walker 1985. "lnter:~~tions of woody and herbaceous vegetation in a 

southern African savanna. n Journal of Ecology 73: 235-253. 

Laycock, W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American 

rangelands: a viewpoint. Journal of Range Management 44:427-433. 

McAuliffe, J. R. 1995. Landscape evolution, soil formation and Arizona's desert grasslands. IN, 

M. McClaran and T. R. V. Devender (eds.) The Desert Grassland. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. pp.68-129. 

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley 

& Sons, New York. 

Neilson, R. P. 1986. "High-resolution climatic analysis and Southwest biogeography." 

Science 232: 27-34. 

9 
Neilson, R. P. 1987. "Biotic regionalization and climatic controls in western North America.~~ 

Vegetatio 70: 135-147. 

Orr, D. W. 1994. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect, Island 

Press, Covelo, CA. 

Schmutz, E.M., E.L. Smith, P.R. Ogden, M.L. Cox, J.O. Klemmedson, J.J. Norris and L.C. 

Fierro. 1991. Desert grassland. IN, R.T. Coupland (ed.). Natural Grasslands: Introduction and 

Western Hemisphere. Elsevier, New York. 337-362. 

Sheridan, T. E. 1995. Arizona: A History. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Walker, B. H., D. Ludwig, C.S. Holling and R.M. Peterman. 1981. Stability of 

semi-arid savanna grazing systems. Journal of Ecology 69:4 73-498. 

Walker, B. H. and I. Noy-Meir 1982. Aspects of the stability and resilience of 

savanna ecosystems. IN, B. J. Huntley and B. H. Walker (eds.) Ecology of tropical savannas 

(Ecological studies; v. 42). New York, Springer-Verlag. pp. 556-590. 

Webb, R. H. 1996. Grand Canyon: A Century of Change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Webb, R. H. and J. L. Betancourt. 1992. Climatic variability and flood frequency of the Santa 

Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona. Washington, D.C., United States Geological SuNey Water 

Supply Paper 2379. 

Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not 

at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-27 4. 

Worster, D. 1985. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. 

Oxford University Press, New York. 

10 
An Overview of Arid Grasslands in the 

Northern Chihuahuan Desert 

K.M. Havstad1 

ABSTRACT 

The intent of this paper is to outline information on four 

topics regarding grasslands of the Chihuahuan desert: 1) 

general aspects of their ecological dimensions, 2) recent 

vegetation dynamics, 3) current threats, and 4) common 

ground with other desert grasslands. The Chihuahuan 

desert is a region of about 350,000 square kilometers. 

There are at least fifteen different definitions of the 

boundaries of this desert. Figure 1 is from Schmidt 

(1979) and its boundaries are based on an aridity index. 

Generally, this index reflects an area of <250 mm of 

average annual precipitation, an average mean annual 

temperature of 17 C, and an elevation of > 1200 m. 

This paper will focus on the northern region of the 

Chihuahuan desert, an area called the Trans-Pecos which 

extends from Southeast Arizona across New Mexico into 

Texas. A small portion of the Trans-Pecos occurs in west 

Texas on the upper Pecos River below the Guadalupe 

Mountains. The western border of the Chihuahuan 

Desert in Arizona is defined by the amount of 

precipitation occurring during the summer monsoonal 

months. East of this line in the So no ran desert >55% of 

the annual precipitation occurs during the summer. West 

of this line in the Chihuahuan desert <55% of the annual 

precipitation occurs during the summer months. 

ECOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS 

The Chihuahuan desert, like the Sonoran, can be referred to as a zone of ecological confusion. 

The Chihuahuan desert grasslands occur within a very dynamic mosaic of desert shrublands. 

Grasslands comprise about 10% of this region. The Chihuahuan region is the warm desert area of 

North America that exists east of the Continental Divide. The other warm deserts in North America 

are west of the Continental Divide (Figure 1). It is primarily a region of internally drained basins. 

Very little of this area seNes as watershed other than the areas drained by the Rio Grande and the 

Pecos rivers. Vegetation dynamics are strongly affected by aspects of landform, topography and 

soils. The region does have a long history, over thousands of years, of herbivory. However, most of 

that history is associated with invertebrates and small mammals. 

1 USDA-ARS-Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico 

11 
Texas 

Chihuahuan Desert as delineated by Schmidt (1979). 

Marked area of about 350,000 km2 is based on an aridity index of~ 10. 

(where I = P mm I T °C + 1 0) 

Region Includes scattered mountain masses not classified as desert. 

Figure 1. Map of the Chihuahuan Desert region as defined by Schmidt (1979). 

12 
Like most deserts these grasslands are water limited but also nutrient regulated. Biomass 

responses to water additions are based on the availability of soil nutrients, primarily nitrogen. The 

region supports about 120 mammalian species. Generally, these species are fairly common and 

are not threatened by any particular human activities. There are, however, some notable 

exceptions, and reintroductions, in particular the Mexican Wolf, have been proposed. Alien species 

are not a serious issue though there are local problems with both exotic flora and fauna. This is a 

significant area primarily because of its large dimensions. One particular concern for the 

conseNation of the desert grasslands is that these grasslands seNe as important wintering areas 

for many species, especially avian species. The region has a distinctive herptofauna and some 

species are threatened or endangered. Many of these species are linked to riparian habitats that 

exist throughout the region. Biological features of the Chihuahuan desert have been previously 

reviewed (see Wauer and Riskind 1977). 

Like other deserts, one prominent ecological dimension is the variability inherent to the region. 

Both temporal (annual and seasonal) variability and spatial variability are common. An example of 

annual variability is illustrated in Table 1. The fluctuation in biomass productivity presented in this 

table is for a sandy upland ecological site on the Jornada Experimental Range in southern New 

Mexico. This variation in annual productivity is not unusual for this or other ecological sites in the 

Chihuahuan Desert (see Herbel and Gibbens 1996). 

25 

20 

..... 

CJJ 1 5 ................................................... ·······r························································l ......................................................... ~ 

> 0 

u 

~ 10 Q 

5 

0 

1920 1940 1960 

Year 

-e- Black Grama (basal) __.._ Mesquite (aerial) 

1980 

Figure 2. Changes in basal (for black grama) and aerial (for mesquite) cover 

between 1915 and 1977 on a lightly winter grazed sandy upland ecological site 

on the Jornada Experimental Range in south central New Mexico. 

13 
Precipitation (mm) Yield± SE 

Year Crop-Year2 Seasonal3 (ka/ha) 

1960 105 52 177 ± 21 

1961 352 263 644 ± 44 

1962 298 212 797 ±58 

1963 199 124 336 ± 47 

1964 156 118 302 ± 39 

1965 138 85 182 ± 20 

1966 199 135 477 ± 40 

1967 203 154 145 ± 21 

1968 226 122 181 ± 18 ,.; 1 

1969 164 110 372 ± 29 

1970 168 97 174 ± 20 

1971 148 93 249 ± 31 

1972 284 136 473 ±57 

1973 289 81 195 ± 25 

1974 212 187 190 ± 20 

1975 297 147 344 ± 48 

1976 239 127 354 ± 18 

1977 320 219 800 ± 91 

1978 157 75 659 ± 72 

1979 290 89 156 ± 35 

1980 189 91 179 ± 28 

1981 229 156 300 ± 38 

1982 162 99 99 ± 19 

1983 182 41 38 ± 8 

1984 194 76 480 ±53 

1985 284 91 526 ± 68 

1986 276 122 550 ±59 

1987 349 139 382 ±51 

1988 305 172 500 ±59 

Average 234 131 354 

Table 1. Variation in annual forage production from a 

black grama grassland site in southern New Mexico. 1 

1 From Herbel and Gibbens (1996). 2

Crop year = Oct. 1 of previous year through Sept. 30 of indicated year. 3

Seasonal = July 1 through Sept. 30 of indicated year. 

14 
RECENT VEGETATION DYNAMICS 

In addition to the dynamics of temporal and spatial variation are the dynamics of vegetation 

change that are characteristic of this region (see Gibbens and Beck 1988). There are many diverse 

agents of vegetation change (Grover and Musick 1990). One of the key agents of change has been 

unmanaged grazing in this region, especially during the post Civil War period. Livestock grazing in 

the Trans-Pecos region has occurred for over 400 years. However, for the first 300 years that 

history of grazing was fairly localized (Hastings and Turner 1965). This pattern changed with a 

number of events after 1865, especially new technologies for pumping water and the availability in 

the west of transportation systems for shipping livestock to urban markets. Livestock numbers 

increased dramatically following the Civil War and widespread overgrazing resulted in deteriorated 

range conditions throughout the region by the early 1900's (Wooten 1908). 

The roots of the rangeland management profession actually are in these dynamics and agents 

of change. A prime motivation for the development of range science and eventually the 

establishment of principles of range management were the deteriorated conditions of southwestern 

rangelands around 1900 (Smith 1899). Recognition of the need for scientifically based 

management practices and improvement techniques was the primary motivation for the 

establishment of the first rangeland research stations in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. The first 

publications from these research stations detailed the influences of grazing management, drought 

and competition among plant species as principle factors affecting vegetation change throughout 

the Southwest (see Jardine and Hurtt 1917, and Jardine and Forsling 1922). 

We have a few well documented examples of vegetation dynamics during the 20th century as a 

result of these research stations. For example, Figure 2 presents basal cover dynamics of an 

important dominant, native perennial grass species, black grama (Bouteloua eriopida), that 

characterizes desert grasslands in the trans-Pecos region. From 1915 through the early 1930's 

scientists recorded considerable fluctuation in black grama basal cover, primarily due to periodic 

drought. However, following the intensive drought of the 1950's the cover of black gram a 

drastically declined and has not recovered. Many of these former grasslands are now dominated by 

native shrubs, such as honey mesquite (Prosopis g/andu/osa). It is currently hypothesized that 

once mesquite aerial cover exceeds 8% it becomes dominant and effectively initiates soil and 

surface alterations which restrict redevelopment of black grama cover. Thus, these shrub 

thresholds (see Archer et al. 1988) result rn significant alteration of vegetation structures in these 

Vegetation Type 

Grassland 

Mesquite Shrubland 

Creosote Shrubland 

Tarbush Shrubland 

Table 2. 

Biomass C Biomass C 

aboveground total 

131 190 

129 235 

102 159 

82 119 

Carbon Dynamics© units are g.'m2). 

Adapted from Conin et al., 1997. 

15 

Soil Organic 

MatterC 

2112 

1804 

1929 

4824 
\''• 

Time Soil Movement #of 

Period Category Points 

1935-1950 No Change 2 

Deposition 4 

Deflation 21 

1950-1955 No Change 2 

Deposition 3 

Deflation 22 

1955-1980 Deposition 18 

Deflation 9 

Maximum 

(em) 

3.2 

30.5 

3 

10.5 

25.1 

34.6 

Minimum 

(em) 

0.6 

0.6 

0.9 

0.6 

1.2 

0.3 

Mean 

(em) 

5.1 

4.8 

1.7 

3.6 

7 

7.1 

Net Loss(-) 

or Gain (em) 

-2.9 

-2.7 

23 

Table 3. Deposition and deflation of soil for an ungrazed area from 1935-1980 

(values show change from one measurement to the next). 

From Gibbens et al., 1983 (Note: textural changes associated with eolian processes). 

deserts. We do not currently have effective remediation technologies to counteract this 

degradation. 

These structural changes are accompanied by other ecologically significant changes. Pilmanis 

and Schlesinger (1996) have reported an increased spatial heterogeneity in N distribution with 

increased mesquite encroachment into desert grasslands (Figure 3). Conn in et al. (1997) have 

reported a decrease in the amount of biomass C stored in mesquite dominated communities 

compared to grasslands (Table 2). The mesquite dominated sites studied by these investigators 

was a desert grassland until the 193Qls. Gibbens et al. (1983) documented significant loss of soil 

and changes in residual texture for a mesquite duneland (Table 3). Soil losses were discontinuous, 

with large losses over the 50 year study occurring within a six year span. Finally, Fernandez {per 

communication, 1996) has reported preliminary results from controlled experiments on 

physiological differences among grass species, including relative growth rates (Table 4). Obviously, 

even replacement of perennial grass species by other grass species can create significant 

differences in biological processes within the desert. These examples illustrate an additional and 

extremely important dimension to these deserts. Ecological character of the desert is strongly 

reflected by the dominant species. Changing the dominant species, by whatever combination of 

causal agents, creates not only new structural features but significant alterations in biotic and 

abiotic features. These new conditions can be very resistant to regeneration of prior conditions 

(Schlesinger et al. 1990). In fact, it has been suggested that selecting a standard reference point 

for these grasslands as the conditions prior to the mid 19th century may be naive. It is probably 

more appropriate to think of these landscapes, and the rangeland vegetation they support, as highly 

dynamic (and episodic in their change) and adaptive to evolving environmental conditions. These 

systems not only have naturally changed, but have been altered through introduction of new 

biological agents (plants and animals), loss of some agents {predator species reductions), 

increases in atmospheric concentrations of some gasses (C02 and CH4), and restriction of some 

habitat factors (control of wildfires). With all of these alterations it is difficult to assume that even 

removal of all livestock from these deserts will result in regeneration of prior states that existed in 

the mid 19th century. 

16 
Grass Species Relative Growth Rate Leaf Area Ratio 

(g/d) (cm2

/d) 

Bush Muhly 0.12 39.7 

Mesa Dropseed 0.11 48 

Vine Mesquite 0.09 50.5 

Black Grama 0.07 13 

Tobosa 0.06 11.5 

Burro grass 0.03 3.6 

Table 4. Physiological aspects of some desert grasses, 

species not functionally redundant. 

From Fernandez, R., pers. comm., 1996. 

THREATS 

There are many issues that are relevant to current management of these desert rangelands. 

Several of these issues frequently are energetically debated by opposing parties and are common 

newspaper and television news stories. These issues include property rights, private equity in public 

lands and biodiversity. These issues, though, are normal debates about the mechanics of 

managing these lands. Though there can be strong disagreement on solutions for these issues and 

though they are very important issues, they should not be viewed as threats to the Chihuahuan 

Desert grasslands. Rather, they are obstacles to management. There are three basic threats 

confronting this ecosystem. One threat is desertification. Though this is a global phenomenon, and 

the definition of desertification has occasionally changed, the issue of degradation of these 

resources is still very relevant to North America and the Southwest. In many fashions we are still 

contending with degradation of 100 years ago. Much of our arid rangelands are slow to respond, 

or the natural recovery mechanisms are no longer functioning. In addition, we lack affordable 

technologies to remediate landscapes that have degraded. Coupled with this real threat is the 

need to develop sustainable and affordable technologies for remediating these landscapes 

(Fredrickson et al. 1996). 

Another prominent threat in this region is development. Cities throughout the Southwest, on 

both sides of the border, are some of the fastest growing population areas in North America. This 

threat is not so much the need to stop development, but to understand the carrying capacities of 

the deserts for supporting these concommittent escalations upon resource demands. A basic tenet 

of rangeland management has historically been the identification of the grazing capacity of the 

forage resources for an ecological site, and adjusting grazing use to this capacity. This is a difficult 

limit to quantify, and managers typically rely on historical knowledge of resource use. This historic 

approach will be difficult to use as increasing population pressures cause exponential increases in 

resource use. We do not have many reference points for estimating these carrying capacities. 

Contending with this threat is the very real need to identify carrying capacities for habitation in our 

deserts. Capacities need to be identified not only for available water resources, but for the full 

array of resources found within the desert. 

The last general threat is one of diatribe. The rhetoric regarding resource use issues has 

become excessively abusive. All perspectives on these issues seem to have been, at one time or 

another, engaged in diatribe. If this is not accurate, it is at least a common perception. 

17 
2.5 

QJ 2 

u 

1: 

.~ 1.5 .... 

ru 

> 

·- 1 E 

QJ 

tn - - 0.5 

0 

0 

I 

~ 

~· ~ ....... .,. ~ 

.... 

( 

-~ ~ 

~ ~ -- --- ..liF - --..lll 

r;;Y' T T T 

_.J v 

;("' 

j 

100 200 300 400 

Lag Interval (em) 

-+- grassland site --- mesquite site 

Figure 3. Semivariograph for nitrogen spatial distributions within grass and 

mesquite dominated sites. The relatively even semivariance for the grass site over 

400 em distances indicates a relatively homogenous distribution of N. The increasing 

semivariance for the mesquite with increasing distance indicates a more heterogeneous 

spatial distribution of N. These two sites are adjacent to each other, and the mesquite 

dominated site has developed on a former grassland. These data are adapted from 

Pilmanis and Schlesinger (1996). 

Unfortunately, there are relatively few people involved in debates about stewardship of our 

deserts. Realistically, more people will probably attend a sports convention in Tucson some 

weekend to trade baseball cards than will ever read articles within these proceedings. Thus, 

diatribe becomes even a larger threat when few people are even engaged in a discussion. We must 

get past this threat. It is important to argue convictions, but it must be recognized that there are 

numerous valid and different convictions regarding conservation of our deserts. Individuals that 

contribute to diatribe are a major threat to effective management of these landscapes. 

18 
COMMON GROUND 

Other people have recently articulated some very well thought out perspectives on common 

ground. In particular, Brown and McDonald (1995) have argued for staking out a position at a 

radical center. Pivotal to this perspective is the philosophy that maintaining and improving the 

health of these deserts requires keeping rural people on the land. But this use must be balanced 

with a thorough knowledge of the ecological needs of the desert grasslands. Management is an 

active, participatory process. Our scientifically based perspectives on deserts have matured today 

to the point that we understand that abandoning the land will not restore prior conditions. In 

addition, prior conditions are not ecologically realistic benchmarks for future sustainable 

landscapes. 

Our understanding of the volatile ecological dimensions of our deserts and the real threats they 

face should reinforce the need for common ground. Our deserts in the Southwest can be 

managed effectively. We have scientific institutions in place to provide objective information. We 

have forums for exchanging information and developing reasoned strategies for management. We 

need to understand what the real threats are and recognize that these problems are solvable. Our 

deserts, including the grasslands of the Chihuahuan Desert, provide crucial resources for our future 

and we are in position to find consensus strategies for their management. 

One final perception on common ground that surfaces from a review of the dimensions and 

threats to these desert grasslands is the complexity of these ecosystems. This complexity cannot 

be easily communicated. Yet, these deserts will continue to provide crucial resources to a 

significant portion of this region's human population. It is important that we not oversimplify our 

understanding of this system in our attempts to communicate our knowledge to interested 

segments of our society. Solutions to today's problems are generally not simple, and we should 

not create false expectations. 

REFERENCES 

Archer, S., C. Scifres, C.R. Bassham and R. Maggio. 1988. Autogenic succession in a subtropical 

savanna: conversion of grassland to thorn woodland. Ecol. Monogr. 58:111-127. 

Brown, J.H. and W. McDonald. 1995. Uv€stock grazing and conservation on southwestern 

rangelands. Conserv. Bioi. 9:1644-1647. 

Conin, S.L., R.A. Virginia and C.P. Chamberlain. 1997. Carbon isotopes reveal changes in soil 

organic matter production and turnover following arid land shrub expansion. Oecologia (in 

review). 

Fredrickson, E.l., Barrow, J.R., Herrick, J.E., Havstad, K.M. and Langland, B. 1996. Low cost 

seeding practices for desert environments. Restoration and Management Notes. 14:72-73. 

Gibbens, R. P., J. M. Tramble, J. T. Hennessy and M. Cardenas. 1983. Soil movement in 

mesquite dunelands and former grasslands of southern New Mexico from 1933 to 1980. J. 

Range Manage. 36:145-148. 

Gibbens, R. P. and R. F. Beck. 1988. Changes in grass basal area and forb densities over a 

64-year period on grassland types of the Jornada Experimental Range. J. Range Manage. 

41:186-192. 

Grover, H.C. and H.B. Musick. 1990. Shrubland encroachment in southern New Mexico, U.S.A.: 

An analysis of desertification processes rn the American Southwest. Climatic Change 17: 305-

330. 

Hastings, J.R. and R.M. Turner. 1965. The Changing Mile. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Herbel, C.H. and R.P. Gibbens. 1996. Post-drought vegetation dynamics on arid rangelands in 

southern New Mexico. New Mex. Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. 776, 102 p. 

19 
Jardine, J. T. and C. L. Forsling. 1922. Range and cattle management during drought. U.S. 

Dep. Agric. Bull. 1031. 84 pp. 

Jardine, J. T. and L. C. Hurtt. 1917. Increased cattle production on southwestern ranges. U. S. 

Dep. Agric. Bull. 588. 32 pp. 

Pilmanis, A.M. and W.H. Schlesinger. 1996. Spatial assessment of desertification in terms of 

vegetation pattern and available soil nitrogen. Proc. 5th International Conf. On Desert 

Development: the Endless Frontier. Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock, TX, August 12-17, 1996. 

Schlesinger, W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, W.M. Jarrell, R.A. Virginia and 

W.G. Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 24 7:1043-

1048. 

Schmidt, R.H. 1979. A climatic delineation of the 'real' Chihuahuan Desert region. J. Arid 

Environ. 2:243-250. 

Smith, J.G. 1899. Grazing problems in the southwest and how to meet them. U.S. Dept. Agric. 

Bull. 16. 4 7 pp. 

Wauer, R.H. and D. H. Riskind (eds). 1977. Symposium on the Biological Resources of the 

Chihuahuan Desert Region, United States and Mexico. Nat'l. Park Serv. Trans. and Proceed. 

Series No. 3. Washington, D.C. 

Wooton, E. 0. 1908. The range problem in New Mexico. N. Mex. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 66. 46 p. 

20 
Mexican Grasslands and the 

Changing Aridlands of Mexico: 

An Overview and a Case Study in 

Northwestern Mexico 

Alberto Burquez1, Angelina Martinez-Yrzar1, Mark Miller2

, Karla Rojas3 , 

Mara de los Angeles Quintana1

, David Yetman4 

ABSTRACT 

Grasslands cover about 14% of Mexico. They comprise alpine 

and subalpine grasslands, tropical savannas, arid and semi-arid 

grasslands, and induced grasslands. Arid and semi-arid grasslands 

comprise most of the grass-dominated communities in Mexico. 

There is great concern about the transformation of these into 

thornscrub through the action of several interrelated factors, mainly: 

overgrazing and diminishing fire frequency. At the same time, the 

introduction and naturalization of African grasses is changing the 

structural and functional properties of native grasslands and are 

creating new grass-dominated communities at the expense of other 

types of vegetation. In some cases the conversion has been so 

successful that consequences are irreversible in the short-term. A 

case study in the Sonoran Desert is presented where African 

buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) is being planted for the deliberate 

conversion of the desertscrub. It is now actively invading large tracts 

of central Sonora, Mexico. Its presence in desert communities 

introduce a grasS/fire cycle in assemblages of species with little 

evolution with fire. The presence of buffelgrass is creating a new, 

highly xerophytic grassland in Sonora at the expense of the 

desertscrub. The conversion changes the structure and functioning of 

the community, lowering the standing crop biomass and overall 

diversity. 

INTRODUCTION 

Grasslands in Mexico are a diffuse, ecologically diverse, and poorly known biome. In his work on 

the Vegetation of Mexico, Rzedowski (1978) grouped as grasslands all communities that had 

grasses as major structural and floristic components. These included zacatonales, pastizales , high 

1 Centro do Ecologfa, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Sonora, Mexico 

2 Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder CO. 

3 Universite de Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, France. 

4 The Southwest Center, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

21 
elevation grasslands (paramo ) , and savannas (sabana ) . Also he included segments of 

communities with shrubs and trees at various elevations, including transitional communities with a 

major component of grasses associated with pine forests, oak woodlands, mesquite forests 

(mezquitales ) , tropical deciduous forests, and thornscrub. However, given the botanical scope of 

his work, he dealt only superficially with the processes of land use. The processes of land 

conversion, modification, and disturbance are of paramount importance to arid grasslands and 

desertscrub not only ecologically, but also in economical terms because of the use of grasses as 

forage by livestock. 

Grasses are well known for their resistance to harsh environmental conditions. In Mexico, as 

happens in many other regions, grasslands are usually found on marginal habitats where extreme 

heat, cold, aridity, flooding, or special soil structure and composition are limiting to most plants 

(Rzedowski 1978, Van Devender 1995). These features coupled with the presence of fire and 

grazing have created and maintained grass-dominated communities that follow poorly understood 

rules of persistence. Mexican grasslands encompass communities governed by climatic factors, 

recurrent fires, particular soil properties, presence of specific herbivores and granivores, disturbance 

by man and cattle, or a combination of these. Such factors create a mosaic of grassland 

associations that are present over most of the country (Rzedowski 1975, 1978, Brown 1982a, 

McClaran 1995). According to COTECOCA (National Commission for the Determination of Cattle 

Stocking Rates), grass-dominated communities cover almost 14% of Mexico (Jaramillo 1994a, b, 

c). These grasslands have been divided into three major categories by Rzedowski (1978): 1) 

Grasslands (pastizal), equivalent to short-grass prairie that include all grasslands growing on steppe 

climates, 2) Savanna (sabana , or pastizal de clima caliente), that are mainly tropical or subtropical 

grass-shrub associations usually growing on heavy, poorly drained soils that experience seasonal 

cycles of flooding and dryness, and 3) Alpine and subalpine grasslands and montane meadows 

(zacatonal y praderas alpinas ) that occur in the tropical high mountains, mainly in central Mexico. 

Another major type of grassland present in Mexico is the induced grassland created by the 

transformation and conversion of other plant communities. These are usually established through 

the introduction of exotic grass species, and special cultural practices. 

Other, less extensive grasslands have high habitat specificity caused mainly by special edaphic 

conditions, or disturbance of forests. Some extreme examples of these, are the 

tidal grasslands of Distich/is palmeri in the Colorado delta (Glenn eta/. 1992), halophilous 

grasslands in some closed basins (bolsones ), gypsophilous grasslands on karstic and sedimentary 

substrates, and high elevation grasslands derived from the destruction of the oak and pine forests, 

mainly along the Eje Neovolcanico in Central Mexico. 

In this paper, we will briefly describe the major types of grassland found in Mexico, and outline 

their distribution. Later, we will try to picture the two most extensive type of Mexican grasslands: 

desert grasslands, and induced desert grasslands. We will focus on their use, historical trends, 

threats and conflicts between pastoralists and conservationists. Finally, we will explore the 

development of a new type of grassland whose future as a permanent attribute of the arid lands is 

still uncertain, but likely to persist. 

ECOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS 

Alpine and Subalpine Grasslands 

Alpine and subalpine grasslands cover about 3% of the country (ca. 18,250 ha, Jaramillo 

1994a). Except for the alpine meadows and areas above the timberline, they are derived mainly 

from disturbances of coniferous forests. These grasslands occur on top of the major mountains of 

Mexico near the timberline (between 3500-4500 m; Rzedowski 1978). Only a few mountains in 

central Mexico have sufficient vertical development to provide this habitat, and thus are highly 

22 
restricted in area. The climate is alpine (type ET), isothermal with average annual temperatures 

between 3-5°C, and annual rainfall between 600-800 mm. Beaman (1965) and Cruz (1969, in 

Rzedowski 1978) are among the few authors that have dealt with these communities, which 

according to Rzedowski (1978) are distinctly Mexican in term of species endemisms (70%). The 

maritime grasslands are more related at the specific level to South America than North America (18 

vs 0% of total species), but at the generic level, holartic affinities predominate over neotropical (17 

vs 12%). Typical grasses in these grasslands are: Muh/enbergia quadridentata, Calamagrostis 

tolucencis, Festuca tolucencis, and F. livida growing along with many Asteraceae and prostrate 

representatives of many other families. 

On lower, but still high elevation sites in central Mexico, and along the major ranges some 

grasslands develop after the destruction of oak and pine forests and are kept in this sera I stage by 

burning, cattle grazing, and use of their roots for broom manufacturing. These are similar to the 

alpine grasslands with the same tussock grasses plus many representatives of other genera with 

affinities to more arid communities, including Andropogon, Aristida, Bouteloa, Hilaria, Stipa, and 

Trachypogon. Such grasslands are much more extensive than their alpine counterparts, but still 

have small areal extent (ca. 515,000 ha, Jaramillo 1994a). 

Tropical Savannas 

Natural grasslands in tropical Mexico cover a rather small area (less than 1% of the country, 

Jaramillo 1994b). Most of the tropical grasslands have been classified as savanna (ca. 1,234,520 

ha, Jaramillo 1994b). However, some very small patches can also be described as halophyte grass 

associations. Mexican savannas are tropical climate grass-shrubland associations that occur in 

periodically flooded lowlands. Proper savanna occur only in type A climates on heavy, argillaceous 

soils along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Pacific basin from Sinaloa to Chiapas 

(Rzedowski 1978). The precipitation exceeds 1000 mm distributed in a well defined wet season 

during summer. In winter, most savannas experience a well defined seasonal drought. 

There has been great debate over the origin and original distribution of tropical savannas. Some 

authors favor the idea that savannas are the final stages of evolution of tropical soils coupled with 

the periodic effects of fire (Miranda 1958, Rzedowski 1978), while others suggest that savannas 

are the product of disturbance by man, mainly by clearings for agriculture that have changed 

irreversibly the structure and drainage of the soil (Sarukhn 1968, Pennington and Sarukhn 1968). 

Disregarding their origin and precolumbian distribution, tropical savannas owe their existence to 

the very same mechanisms proposed for the persistence of desert grasslands by McAuliffe (1995): 

the presence of an impermeable layer on the soil that permits little infiltration to deeper layers. In 

humid-seasonal climates, that layer causes flooding during the wet season, and xeric conditions 

during the dry months, limiting the development of trees and shrubs to isolated pockets of better 

drained terrain. Common woody species are: Byrsonima crassifolia, Curatella americana, 

Crescent/a alata, C. cujete, Quercus oleoides, Coccoloba spp, and species of Melastomateaceae 

(Pennington and Sarukhn 1968, Rzedowski 1978). Grasses are mainly species of Paspalum, 

Andropogon, Aristida, lmperata, Digitaria, Leptocoryphium, and Axonopus, growing along with 

many Cyperaceae. 

Arid Grasslands 

Arid grasslands, desert grasslands, semi-desert grasslands (including the Apacherian mixed 

shrub savanna of Burgess [1995]) form extensive areas with dominance or co-dominance by 

grasses. These have been described from northeastern Sonora, a long strip running on the eastern 

flank of the Sierra Madre Occidental from northwestern Chihuahua, to northeastern Jalisco on the 

Mexican Northern Plateau (Mesa del Norte ) , and a sizable area within the Mexican Central Plateau 

(Altiplano Central ) . These can be viewed as an extension of the large grasslands of the North 

23 
American mid-west (Shreve 1942, Rzedowski 1978, McClaran 1995). Such a broad distribution 

area include a multiplicity of climatic, soil and disturbance variants, producing grasslands with 

different structural, functional, and floristic features. The discussion by Burgess, and other authors 

in McClaran and Van Devender (see McClaran 1995) on the features of the desert grasslands is 

crucial in highlighting their inherent structural and functional instability, and their close relationships 

with other types of vegetation, mainly desertscrub, thornscrub and oak woodlands. 

About 90% of the Mexican grasslands are concentrated in the arid and semi-arid regions 

(24,334,273 ha, Jaramillo 1994c). More than half of these (13,643,423 ha) can be grouped as 

short grass prairies, while the rest comprise different associations of tussock, bunch and halophyte 

grasses (Jaramillo 1994c). These extensive arid and semi-arid grasslands form a nearly continuous 

belt bordered by desertscrub and thornscrub at the lower elevations and woodlands and forests in 

the mountains and higher elevations. Most of these form a climatic climax according to Rzedowski 

(1978). However, more recent studies indicate that the role of soils and soil history play a major 

role in determining the presence of grasslands or other types of vegetation in a given area 

(McAuliffe 1995). This feature is particularly applicable to some of the western USA and Mexican 

grasslands that are present on bajadas and extensive alluvial fans along the flanks of the Sierra 

Madre Occidental, foothills of Basin and Range mountains, and the slopes and plains north of the 

Eje Neovolcanico. 

Typically, Mexican grasslands develop on areas with steppe climate (type Bs). This feature is 

reflected on the close correlation between Bs climate and the distribution of grasslands (Gentry 

1957, Rzedowski 1978, Schmutz eta/. 1991, McClaran 1995). However, the most xeric 

grasslands can be found at the lower elevations in desert climates (type Bw), as happens near 

Moctezuma, Sonora; Delicias, Chihuahua, and Gomez-Palacio, Durango. Also, some grasslands in 

Mexico occur on exposed, southern slopes with shallow, argillaceous soils overlying a rocky 

impermeable layer. The latter occur in temperate mesothermal climates (Cw), as those 

encountered in intermediate elevations on both sides of the Sierra Madre Occidental. Even in Bs 

climates, where grasslands are more prevalent, other types of vegetation can be found. These are 

the extensive and highly structured thornscrub communities found on the western side of the Sierra 

Madre Occidental, and large tracts in the Bajfo region that have a close affinity to tropical 

deciduous forests. These seem to replace grasslands in areas with warmer, more dependable 

weather (Rzedowski 1978, Burquez, Martinez and Felger in press). 

Floristically, endemism at the species level is very important in Mexican grasslands. Two thirds 

of the grassland species in Durango, Mexico are endemic, and their phytogeographic affinities at 

the generic level are mainly tropical (Gentry 1957, Rzedowski 1975). This interpretation can be 

extended to most Mexican arid grasslands (Rzedowski 1978). Dominant grass species include 

many representatives of Bouteloa, Aristida, Andropogon, Muhlenbergia, Setaria, Stipa among 

others. Members of the Asteraceae are exceedingly common, along with herbs and shrubs 

prevalent on desertscrub and oak woodlands. 

The New Desert Grasslands 

Grasslands derived from other types of vegetation are common. Some have been already 

mentioned, as those derived from the destruction of pine and pine-oak forests in high elevation 

ecosystems. Others are the result of intentional conversion of one type of vegetation into 

grasslands. In most cases, once the pressure of the disturbance factor is released, the 

communities follow a trajectory that returns to conditions resembling those prior the disturbance. 

However, in some cases irreversible changes occur, leading to a new vegetation equilibrium. These 

sorts of phenomena are most evident in arid ecosystems where succession does not, even grossly, 

conform with the Clementsian paradigm. We will illustrate this issue with a case study: the 

conversion of large tracts of the Sonoran Desert into induced grasslands, and the seeming 

24 
evolution of the community from desertscrub to a new grassland equilibrium. 

Modification and Conversion 

Land used for human activities alter the land cover or vegetation. This alteration takes two 

major forms: modification and conversion. Modifications include the alteration of the quantity and 

quality of the land cover by subtle changes in use, while conversion is the replacement of one 

community type by another. Grazing is a common land modifier. The environment we see today in 

southwestern USA and northwestern Mexico is, in part, the consequence of land modified by the 

recent introduction of cattle. Historical documentation shows, for some areas like the San Pedro 

and San Rafael Valleys on the border between Arizona and Sonora, a lush, green valley laden with 

thick sacaton grasslands, and walnuts, ashes and willows in the canyons and wetlands. These have 

changed toward a more xeric condition (Bahre 1991). Now the vegetation cover and diversity have 

decreased, and many riparian habitats are impoverished. The process of land modification has 

been taken to its extreme, modifying, and in some cases, converting the former grasslands to 

thornscrub because of several interrelated factors that include changes in the periodicity of fire, and 

overgrazing by cattle as major elements (Fieishner 1994). 

Although land cover modification effects are seldom considered in models of global change, 

their importance is beginning to permeate the current modeling of global biogeochemical cycles, by 

considering how they increase the greenhouse gases concentration, and lower the carbon storage, 

and biodiversity in natural communities. We will not elaborate more on this phenomenon, which has 

been treated exhaustively in the literature, but will only remark again that it is prevalent and 

widespread in the arid lands of Mexico and southwestern USA. 

Conversion can occur by deliberate clearings and subsequent changes in the soils or by the 

natural invasion of new organisms into the land. The ecology of invasion has well documented 

examples. The prickly pears in Australia and the Klamath weed in America are examples of 

unexpectedly successful land conversion and later rehabilitation by appropriate biological control. 

Arid land conversion -the replacement of desertscrub by another vegetation- occurs by deliberate 

transformation of the land mainly by extirpating the desertscrub to transform it into agricultural land, 

and by the replacement of the desertscrub by induced grasslands to increase the stocking rate for 

cattle. This section deals with the present impact of the desert conversion and subsequent invasion 

by buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) in Sonora and with how diversity is affected, and how, even the 

low desert carbon productivity, is being released into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts. 

Buffelgrass Ecology and the Sonoran Drylands 

African buffelgrass has altered the landscape of large tracts of land in Australia and America. In 

central Australia and western North America it has established a strong foothold (Cox eta/. 1988a, 

Cox 1991). It is the dominant herbaceous plant in large tracts of the southwestern USA and 

northern Mexico (8-10 million ha according to Cox 1991). In the Sonoran Desert it is actively 

invading natural desertscrub and thornscrub communities. Buffelgrass, 30 years after its 

introduction to NW Mexico, is altering the landscape at a fast pace( as happened to sizable areas of 

NW Australia, see Cox eta/. 1988a, Ibarra eta/. 1995). It is fully naturalized in Central Sonora and 

is establishing itself northwards with no recognition of national boundaries (Burgess eta/. 1991, 

Yetman and Burquez 1994). 

Buffelgrass is native to the arid lands of eastern Africa. It has been successfully used as a 

forage in South Africa, where it has been encouraged by cultural practices and the introduction of 

more productive strains. In the 1940s the Soil Conservation Unit of USDA imported it to the 

Americas as an alien plant suitable for erosion control. By the sixties major efforts to release it into 

Mexican arid lands were made, resulting in its massive introduction to northern Mexico. There is an 

official estimate of 1.5 million ha already cleared purposely for buffel, and Sonora has now more 

25 
than 600,000 ha officially planted with buffelgrass (Cox eta/. 1988a. Johnson and Navarro 1992, 

Yetman and Burquez 1994). The government provides subsidies for desertscrub clearings for buffel, 

and permits are issued annually to increase their extent. Clearings are usually larger than officially 

granted, and many areas are converted illegally without government permits. These factors give a 

conservative estimate of about 1.2 million ha deliberately cleared in the state of Sonora. The prime 

habitat for conversion, as recommended by range managers of COTECOCA is central Sonora 

(Navarro 1988). These technicians have determined that about one third of the state (ca. 

6,000,000 ha) was suitable for conversion into buffelgrass. Buffelgrass thrives in sites with 

precipitation between 150-600 mm, concentrated mainly during summertime. It prefers warm, 

frost-free weather, and flourishes in most soil types (Ibarra eta/. 1995). The area proposed by 

government agencies cover most of the Sonoran Desert subdivision Plains of Sonora, and portions 

of the Foothills of Sonora, and tropical deciduous forests (Navarro 1988, Johnson and Navarro 

1992). 

Originally, buffelgrass was established by clearing the natural desertscrub by chain, and blade 

bulldozing, a process called desmonte (Hanselka and Johnson 1981). These started in the 

neighborhood of Carb in central Sonora in the 1970s. At the same time the CIPES (Centro de 

Investigaciones Pecuarias del Estado de Sonora) was created in Carb with the mission of 

developing new forms of exploitation of the range (CIPES 1989). Special emphasis was given to the 

conversion of the desert into managed induced grasslands. As a result, large areas can now be 

seen mostly devoid of arborescent desert, grossly on a circle 200 km in diameter centered around 

Hermosillo. Today, new desmontes are carried out under new government directives that 

encourage leaving about 20% of the original tree cover in the plains, and 100% along 

watercourses. However, given the invasive nature of buffelgrass, soon these ratios change towards 

a greater grass dominance. 

Conversion has been beneficial to cattle growers because trials have shown that buffelgrass 

can increase the stocking rate of the land up to 3 times (CIPES 1989, Hanselka and Johnson 

1991, Johnson and Navarro 1992). However, at the time of its introduction, several ecological 

considerations were not taken into account, mainly its ability to naturally spread into the 

desertscrub (See Cox eta/. 1988a, Ibarra eta/. 1995), particularly into heavily overgrazed 

desertscrub (Sonora averages 60% overstocking and in some areas up to 400%; Aguirre 1980, 

Johnson 1990). This capability created unexpected sequels difficult to assess at the time of 

introduction, but with far reaching consequences. Among these are the effect of supplanting key 

desert species, the weedy behavior creating problems mainly with the agriculture of perennials, and 

the overwhelming increase in the uncommon desert fires. 

In addition to the clearings of desertscrub for buffel grasslands, large areas have been invaded 

by buffelgrass, mainly urban and suburban plots, and highway shoulders. A conservative estimate 

indicates that between 1,000-10,000 ha of pure stands of prime buffelgrass are distributed along 

the major Sonoran highways (Highways: 15, 16, 20, and 21). These highly disturbed communities 

are well watered by runoff from the tarmac, allowing almost a continuous production of seed 

throughout the year. Indeed, these are the main sources for commercial seed collection. However, 

only a small fraction of their seed output is gathered, and undoubtedly most of the seed crop 

disseminates along an ever increasing, vast, linear (more than 600 km along major roads), 

dispersal source to colonize the desertscrub. The response of buffelgrass to disturbance of the 

cryptobiotic crust of the desert is almost immediate germinating in the small depressions formed 

after breaking it. The process of natural colonization usually starts near roads or near deliberately 

induced grasslands. The grass progresses along watercourses - which are naturally disturbed during 

the rainy season, and which provide ample moisture- and finally radiates to the more fertile, slightly 

disturbed areas beneath tree crowns (MM and AB unpubl. data). 

The presence of buffelgrass produces an increase of the fine-fuel, easily flammable fractions 

26 
that start a fire cycle in a community with species with no adaptations to fire (D'Antonio and 

Vitousek 1992, McPherson 1995). Indeed, suburban fires in the Hermosillo area, virtually unknown 

before buffelgrass, increased in frequency to almost one every two days during the dry summer 

months prior to the rains (unpublished data assembled from recent reports at local newspapers, 

but see Bahre 1985, Humphrey 1987). 

Some common desert species, mainly brittlebush (Ence/ia farinosa) and cholla (Opuntia 

fulgida) recolonize buffel grasslands, but these are not palatable to cattle (Ibarra eta/. 1985). The 

usual recommendation by range managers to maintain the grasslands has been prescribed burning 

(Cox eta/. 1988b). However, cattlemen use it only as a last resort because burning is a sacrifice of 

valuable forage. Induced buffel grasslands are subjected to heavy grazing and ordinarily remain 

relatively open with a moderate accumulation of fine litter. Only after a good year of rains, or in 

stands not severely used, enough fuel accumulates increasing the chances of fire. No statistics are 

available, but most buffel grasslands in central Sonora have suffered at least one fire in the last 20 

years, and many have been subjected to fires every few years. In more inaccessible areas, such as 

hillsides near highways or near buffel grasslands, the naturalized stands of buffelgrass are 

becoming dominant. As these are not so heavily grazed, there is enough litter accumulation as to 

start a natural fire cycle after a few years following colonization, and thus enlarging the affected 

area, and providing new seed sources. 

Structure and Functioning of Buffel grasslands 

It is well known that the fertility of the soil and the diversity of plant and animal life is much 

higher under the canopy of trees that outside their shade (Garca-Moya and McKell 1970, Burquez 

and Quintana 1994). Once trees are removed, a large guild of associated animals and plants 

disappear from the area. Paired sampling of neighboring plots with induced buffelgrass and 

desertscrub (with naturalized buffel) have shown that plant species richness decreases up to 4 

times, and diversity goes down up to 10 times. Also, vertical heterogeneity of the vegetation 

t~hanges from highly complex 2-3 strata to a single stratum (AB unpubl. data), suggesting 

<.,.:>rresponding effects on the fauna. Soils in converted desertscrub change dramatically. Buffelgrass 

exposes the soil to higher insolation, and changes soil features by increasing the organic matter 

content (Ibarra eta/. 1995). Also, buffelgrass quickly deplete the soil nutrients, both by the net 

export of nutrients taken by cattle, and by the volatilization of nitrogen and secondarily of 

phosphorous and potassium after the recurrent fires. 

Conversion from desertscrub to buffel grasslands changes the aboveground standing crop 

biomass by about 3-4 times (1-4 Mgtha buffel vs 5-20 Mgtha natural vegetation, AM and AB 

unpubl. data). That produces a release between 4-16 Mgtha of carbon, mostly as carbon dioxide 

since nearly all the removed vegetation is burned after the clearings. Gross estimates indicate that 

about 5 million Mg have been already released into the atmosphere and, if the government goal is 

effected about 50 million Mg will be released. These figures are highly conservative because they 

only consider the land officially designated as buffel grasslands, and do not include the 

transformation that is occurring naturally, the numerous illegal clearings, and the contribution of 

below-ground biomass. For arid lands, these figures are staggering. 

The Sonoran Savanna Revisited 

Since Shreve (1951) described the vegetation of the Sonoran Desert, some changes have 

been made to the original boundaries. These include the segregation of the subdivision Foothills of 

Sonora into thornscrub (Brown and Lowe 197 4, Felger and Lowe 1976, Brown 1982b, Turner and 

Brown 1982), the mention of the subtle boundary between some sections of the Arizona Upland, 

arid grasslands and thornscrub (Turner and Brown 1982), and the recognition that large sections of 

the Plains of Sonora subdivision were, and some still are, distinctly savannoid in appearance, 

27 
dominance and composition (Shreve 1951. Brown 1982c, VanDevender eta/. 1990). The 

successful introduction of buffelgrass into the Plains of Sonora seems to prove that a marginal 

advantage in water use, coupled with increased incidence of fire and disturbance by cattle, can shift 

dramatically the dominance from desert arborescent forms to desert grasslands in the deep alluvial 

soils of central Sonora .. 

HISTORICAL TRENDS AND CURRENT THREATS 

Although a sizable portion of the land designated as Mexican arid grasslands might represent a 

climatic climax, most of their present area can be ascribed to cultural or biological factors 

(Rzedowski 1978). The instability of arid grasslands is best exemplified by the major changes that 

occur once recurrent disturbance agents come into play. Slight changes in the frequency and 

intensity of herbivory, granivory, and fire produce large changes in the structural and functional 

properties of the grassland, to the extreme of irreversibly (in the ecological sense) shifting the 

community into a new equilibrium state (Rzedowski 1978, Fleishner 1994, Burgess 1995, 

McPherson 1995, Jeltsch eta/. 1996). There is a persistent idea that woody xerophytes have 

recently invaded the arid grasslands. However, the evidence comes mainly from anecdotal accounts 

gathered by ranchers and broad surveys by range managers that perceived the decreasing ratio of 

grasses to woody perennials as detrimental (as is to cattle, indeed, see Bahre 1991). The visually 

dramatic change from a community dominated by grasses to one with more vertical complexity 

might not represent an invasion of previously absent woody species, but the alteration of the 

dominance hierarchy of species already present in the area (Hastings and Turner 1965, Humphrey 

1987). Several entangled factors are involved, perhaps fire suppression and overgrazing being the 

most relevant players (Bahre 1991). 

Livestock was bred in Mexico before its introduction in the present USA. Major herbivores were· 

brought to central Mexico right from the start of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards, and 

horses represented a major technological advantage over the native Mexicans (Daz del Castillo 

1984). Cattle was reared during the colonial times providing meat and animal traction mainly for 

the mining industries (Ezcurra and Montana 1988). The pristine American landscape seen by the 

conquistadores regained some of the megafauna lost during the Holocene (see Martin and Klein 

1984), and some localized areas near major population centers and mines were impacted by 

increasing deforestation and overgrazing. Twenty years after the arrival of Spaniards into central 

Mexico, a large herd of livestock was carried along with the Coronado expedition marking the start 

of the cattle industry in the arid lands of northern Mexico (Wagoner 1952). Our perception of 

pristine is rather romantic, as large tracts of land were already altered by agriculture, urban and 

engineering developments, and large-scale use of forests and drylands to provide fuel (see for 

example Ezcurra [1992] for an account of the deforestation caused by the construction of the 

Teotihuacan pyramids). However, it was not until the development of the haciendas, during the 

nineteen century, that large-scale cattle production started, leading to extensive overgrazing. A 

respite from the large-scale overgrazing occurred during the Mexican revolution in 1910, when 

herds were heavily culled (Wagoner 1952). This episode caused a marked, but short-lived, 

reduction of the cattle herds, allowing some recovery of the arid grasslands. By the 1930s the 

Mexican government started a process of land distribution that lasted almost sixty years and 

allocated most of the federal land in Mexico, either to private individual holders, or to communal 

holders, mainly in the form of ejidos . The process of redistribution to private land holders allowed a 

maximum property size based on an estimate of the sustainable stocking rate (enough land to 

sustain 500 head of cattle). As in any legislation, many legal loopholes were and are exploited to 

increase the land controlled by investors, increasing their share of the land at the expense of 

ejidatarios who did not have, until the very recent modifications to the constitution, access to 

28 
',-,, .. :·.; 

credit. Grassland resilience has been abused by overstocking, creating a less productive system. In 

the near future little can be done to ameliorate the pressure imposed upon these tenuouslybalanced communities. The search for new forms of use of the range has now focused on the 

desertscrub and one avenue has been its conversion into a new form of grassland disregarding the 

ecological and economical imbalances that are produced by the introduction of highly aggressive 

alien species. 

COMMON GROUND BETWEEN ECOLOGISTS AND PASTORALISTS 

Grasslands are extremely important to mankind because of their use by domestic livestock, 

mainly cattle. At least one third of the Mexican cattle industry take advantage of the forage present 

in drylands, of these, a large proportion are localized in arid grasslands (Ezcurra and Montaa 1988). 

Most grasslands in Mexico have been used intensively and extensively for cattle, both by private 

and communal exploitation (Wagoner 1952) Ruiz 1988). Factors such as land tenure, better roads, 

increasing local population pressures, shifts from subsistence to market economy, and new cultural 

practices are likely to result in ecological change of grasslands than does climate (see Humphrey 

1987, Fleishner 1994). The former are all interrelated. The opening of new and better roads, 

coupled with better transportation facilities has opened tracts of grassland previously unavailable for 

intensive local and export exploitation. The development of new techniques to provide water to 

cattle, the transference of large tracts of land from small-scale farmers to cattle barons, have all 

shifted the balance from a subsistence economy into a market economy (see contributions in 

Camou 1991, Prez 1992, 1993). The owners of most of the large cattle herds live in large cities 

mostly detached from the rural environment, and the small holders and ejidatarios are constrained 

by economic pressures with the need to share their range with many comrades. Both strategies 

overexploit the scant drylands resources because the land management has been aimed to a single 

resource: cattle raising. From a previous state of local ranching, subsistence farming and gathering, 

pastoralists have shifted to a single commodity. This scheme points to an ever increasing 

impoverishment of the drylands at the expense of a rich ecological heritage of multiple use of 

resources. 

REFERENCES 

Aguirre, R. 1980. Recursos naturales, su utilizacion y futuro en Sonora. V Simposio sabre el Media 

Ambiente del Golfo de California, Memoria lnstituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, 

SARH. p. 147-161. 

Bahre, C. J. 1985. Wildfire in southeastern Arizona between 1859 and 1890. Desert Plants 

7:190-194. 

Bahre, C. J. 1991. A Legacy of Change: historic human impact on the vegetation of the Arizona 

borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 231 pp. 

Beaman, J. H. 1965. A preliminary ecological study of the alpine flora of Popocatepetl and 

lztaccihuatl. Bol. Soc. Bot. Mex. 29:63-75. 

Brown, D. E. 1982a. Semidesert grassland. In Brown, D. E. (ed). Biotic Communities of the 

American Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4): 123-131. 

Brown, D. E. 1982b. Sinaloan Thornscrub. In Brown D. E. (ed) Biotic Communities of the American 

Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4): 101-105. 

Brown, D. E. 1982c. Sonoran savanna grassland. 1982. In Brown D.E. (ed) Biotic Communities of 

the American Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4):137-141. 

29 
Brown, D. E. and Lowe, C. H. 197 4. A digitized computer-compatible classification for natural and 

potential vegetation in the Southwest with particular reference to Arizona. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 

9:1-56. 

Burgess, T. L. 1995. Desert grassland, mixed shrub savanna, shrub steppe, or semidesert scrub?: 

the dilemma of coexisting growth forms. In McClaran, M. P. and Van Devender, T. R. (eds). The 

Desert Grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. p. 31-67. 

Burgess, T. L., Bowers, J. E. and Turner, R. M. 1991. Exotic plants at the Desert Laboratory, 

Tucson, Arizona. Madron 38:96-114. 

Burquez, A. and Quintana, M. A. 1994. Islands of diversity: ironwood ecology and richness of 

perennials in a Sonoran Desert biological reserve. In: Nabhan, G. P. and Carr, J. L. (eds). 

Ironwood: an ecological and cultural keystone of the Sonoran Desert. Occasional Papers in 

Conservation Biology 1:9-28. 

Burquez, A., Martinez-Yrzar, A. and Felger, R. S. (in press). Biodiversity at the southern desert edge 

in Sonora, Mexico. In Robichaux, R. (ed) .. Conservation and Habitat Diversity in the Sonoran 

Desert. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Camou, E. (ed). 1991. Potreros, vegas y mahuechis: sociedad y ganadera en Ia sierra Sonorense. 

Gobierno del Estado de Sonora, Hermosillo. 

Cipes. 1989. 20 arias de investigacion pecuaria en el CIPES. Centro de Investigaciones Pecuarias 

del Estado de Sonora. Hermosillo. 

Cox, J. R. 1991. El zacate buffel: historia y establecimiento, un acercamiento internacional para 

seleccionar sitios de siembra e implicaciones en Ia agricultura del futuro. In Aguirre, A., 

Candanosa, E. and Gomez de Ia F., E. (eds). Memoria Simposium lnternacional 

Aprovechamiento Integral del Zacate Buffel. Sociedad Mexicana de Manejo de Pastizales AC. 

Cd. Victoria. 

Cox, J. R., Martin, M. H., Ibarra, F. A., Fourie, J. H., Rethman, N. F. G., and Wilcox, D. G. 1988a. 

The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. J. Range Manage. 

41:127-139. 

Cox, J. R., Ibarra, F. A., and Martin, M. H. 1988b. Fire effects on grasses in semiarid deserts. ln. 

Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. USDA, USFS. Technical 

Report RM-191. Fort Collins. 

D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire 

cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:63-87. 

Daz del Castillo, B. 1984. Historia Verdadera de Ia Conquista de Mexico. 

Historia 16, Madrid. (2 v). 

Ezcurra, E. 1992. La ecologia en los tiempos del clera. Eplogo. Ciencias 28:73-78. 

Ezcurra, E. and Montaa, C. 1988. La evolucion del uso de los recursos naturales renovables del 

norte rido de Mexico. In Montaa, C. (ed). Estudio integrado de los recursos, vegetacion, suelo 

y agua en Ia reserva de Ia biosfera de Mapim. Institute de Ecologia, AC, Mexico DF. p. 

269-290. 

Felger, R. S. and Lowe, C. H. 1976. The island and coastal vegetation and flora of the northern part 

of the Gulf of California. Contributions to Science Natural History Museum Los Angeles 

285:1-59. 

Fleishner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8:629-644. 

Garca-Moya, E. and McKell, M. C. 1970. Contribution of shrubs in the economy of a desert wash 

community. Ecology 51:81-88. 

Gentry, H. S. 1957. Los Pastizales de Durango. lnst. Nac. Rec. Nat. Ren. Mexico, DF. 

30 
Glenn, E, W., R. S. Felger, A. Burquez and D. S. Turner. 1992. Cienega de Santa Clara: 

endangered wetland in the Colorado river delta, Sonora, Mexico. Natural Resources Journal 

32(4):817-824. 

Hanselka, C. W. and Johnson, D. 1991. Establecimiento y manejo de praderas de zacate buffel 

comn en el sur de Texas yen Mexico. In Aguirre, A., Candanosa, E. and Gomez de Ia F., E. 

(eds). Memoria Simposium lnternacional Aprovechamiento Integral del Zacate Buffel. Sociedad 

Mexicana de Manejo de Pastizales AC. Cd. Victoria. 

Hastings, J. R. and Turner, R. M. 1965. The Changing Mile: an ecological study of vegetation 

change with time along the lower mile of an arid and semiarid region. University of Arizona 

Press Tucson. 317 pp. 

Humphrey, R. R. 1987. 90 years and 535 miles: vegetation changes along the Mexican border. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Ibarra, F., Martin, M., Cox, J. R., and Prieto, S. 1985. Is walking stick cholla control worthwhile in 

Mexico? Rangelands 7:66-69. 

lbarra-F, F. A., Cox, J. R., Martin-R, M. H., Crowl, T. A., and Call, C. A. 1995. Predicting buffelgrass 

survival across a geographical and environmental gradient. J. Range Manage.48:53-59. 

Jaramillo, V. 1994a. Revegetacion y Reforestacion de las Areas Ganaderas en las Zonas Templadas 

de Mexico. Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidrulicos. Mexico DF. 40 pp. 

Jaramillo, V. 1994b. Revegetacion y Reforestacion de las Areas Ganaderas en las Zonas Tropicales 

de Mexico. Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidrulicos. Mexico DF. 38 pp. 

Jaramillo, V. 1994c. Revegetacion y Reforestacion de las Areas Ganaderas en las Zonas Aridas y 

Semiaridas de Mexico. Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidrulicos. Mexico DF. 48 pp. 

Jeltsch, F., Milton, S. J., Dean, W. J. R. and Van Rooyen, N. 1996. Tree spacing and coexistence in 

semiarid savannas. J. Ecol. 84:583-595. 

Johnson, D. 1990. lmpacto ecolgico del pastoreo del ganado sabre los recursos naturales de los 

agostaderos. Fomento Ganadero (Nov-Dec): 21-27. 

Johnson, D. and Navarro, A. 1992. Zacate buffel y biodiversidad en el Desierto Sonorense. In 

Moreno, J. L. (ed). Ecologia, Recursos Naturales y Medic Ambiente en Sonora. El Colegio de 

Sonora, Hermosillo. p 117-122. 

Martin, P. S. and Klein, R. G. (eds). 1984. Quaternary Extinctions. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Miranda, F. 1958. Estudios acerca de Ia vegetacion. In Los Recursos Naturales del Sureste y su 

Aprovechamiento. lnst. Mex. Rec. Nat. Ren. Mexico DF. 

McAuliffe, J. R. 1995. Landscape evolution, soil formation, and Arizona's desert grasslands. In 

McClaran, M. P. and VanDevender, T. R. (eds). The Desert Grassland. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. pp. 100-129. 

McClaran, M. P. 1995. Desert grasslands and grasses. In McClaran, M. P. and Van Devender, T. R. 

(eds). The Desert Grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. pp. 1-30. 

McPherson, G. R. 1995. The role of fire in desert grasslands. In McClaran, M. P. and Van 

Devender, T. R. (eds). The Desert Grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. pp. 100-129. 

Navarro, A. 1988. Areas en el estado de Sonora con potencial para praderas de temporal. 

Fomento Ganadero (Nov-Dic):18-23. 

Pennington, T. D. and Sarukhn, J. 1968. Manual para Ia identificacion de campo de los principales 

arboles tropicales de Mexico. INIF/FAO, Mexico. 

Prez, E. P. 1992. La ganadera bovina sonorense: cambios productivos y deterioro del medic 

ambiente. In Moreno, J. L. (ed). Ecologia, Recursos Naturales y Medic Ambiente en Sonora. El 

Colegio de Sonora, Hermosillo. p. 197-216. 

Prez, E. P. 1993. Gandera y campesinado en Sonora: los poquiteros de Ia Sierra Norte. Consejo 

Nacional para Ia Cultura y las Artes, Mexico DF. 

31 
Rzedowski, J. 1975. An ecological and phytogeographical analysis of the grasslands of Mexico. 

Taxon 24:67-80. 

Rzedowski, J. 1978. Vegetacion de Mexico. Limusa, Mexico DF. 

Ruiz, R. E. 1988. The people of Sonora and Yankee capitalists. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

326 pp. 

Sarukhn, J. 1968. Anlisis sinecolgico de las selvas de Terminalia amazonia en Ia Planicie Costera 

del Golfo de Mexico. Tesis Colegio de Posgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico. 

Schmutz, E. M., Smith, E. L., Ogden, P. R., Cox, M. L.,Kiemedson, J. 0., Norris, J. J., and Fierro, L. 

C. 1991. Desert grassland. In Coupland, R. T. (ed). Natural Grasslands, Introduction and 

Western Hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Elsevier, Amsterdam 

Shreve, F. 1942. Grassland and related vegetation in northern Mexico. Madron 6(6):190-198. 

Shreve, F. 1951. Vegetation of the Sonoran Desert. Carnegie Institution Publication 591. 

Turner, R. M. and Brown, D. E. 1982. Sonoran Desertscrub. In Brown D. E. (ed) Biotic 

Communities of the American Southwes~-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4). p. 

181-221. 

Van Devender, T. R. 1995. Desert grassland history: changing climates, evolution, biogeography, 

and community dynamics. In McClaran, M. P. and Van Devender, T. R. (eds). The Desert 

Grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. p. 68-99. 

Van Devender, T. R., Toolin, L. J., and Burgess, T. L. 1990. The ecology and paleoecology of 

grasses in selected Sonoran Desert plant communities. In Betancourt, J. L., Van Devender, T. 

R., and Martin, P. S. (eds) Packrat middens: the last 40,000 years of biotic change. University 

of Arizona Press, Tucson. p. 326-349. 

Wagoner, J. J. 1952. History of the cattle industry in Southwestern Arizona 1540-1940. University 

of Arizona Soc. Sci. Bull 20:8- . 

Yetman, D. and Burquez, A. 1994. Buffelgrass -Sonoran Desert nightmare. Arizona Riparian Council 

Newsletter 7:1, 8-10. 

32 
Factors Controlling the Structure and 

Function of Desert Grasslands: a Case 

Study from Southeastern Arizona 

Carl E. Bock and Jane H. Bock1 

ABSTRACT 

Twenty-eight years1 field work at and adjacent to the AppletonWhittell Research Ranch in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, have focused 

on the effects of livestock grazing, fire, drought, and establishment 

of non-native glasses on the vegetation and wildlife of this desert 

grassland site. Grazing reduces grass cover and fire frequency, while 

encouraging shorter-stature grasses and wildlife typical of lower 

elevation desert sites. Fires cause temporary declines in grass cover 

and some shrubs, and temporary increases in herbs and seeds, 

while favoring birds, rodents, and insects dependent on seeds and 

preferring more open habitats. Droughts cause temporary declines in 

shrubs, certain herbs and grasses, and associated wildlife. One key 

grass species, plains lovegrass, appears to survive drought better if it 

has recently burned. The independent and interactive impacts of 

drought, fire, and grazing have created temporal and spatial mosaics 

of native plant and animal assemblages. However, the establishment 

of non-native African lovegrasses threatens to permanently diminish 

many native populations of both plants and animals. Future integrity 

of the site depends upon reversing the spread of these exotics. 

INTRODUCTION 

Precipitation, fire, and ungulate grazing are major factors determining the structure and 

function of most of the world1

S grasslands, including those of western North America (Anderson 

1982, Sims 1988, McClaran and VanDevender 1995). However, grazing by large hooved 

mammals has been a relatively unimportant force pre-historically in the American Southwest, due 

to scarcity or absence of North Americals only abundant native grazer, the bison (Mc~""'onald 1981, 

Truett 1996). Historically, two powerful anthropogenic forces have been added purposefully to the 

repertoire of factors influencing arid grasslands of the Southwest: livestock grazing and exotic 

grasses, particularly African love grasses of the genus Eragrostis (Anable et al. 1992, Bahre 1991, 

1995, Roundy and Biedenbender 1995).2 

Understanding the independent and interactive effects of fire, drought, grazing, and colonizing 

species depends upon long-term comparisons among areas variously affected or immune from 

these environmental forces. The Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch is a 3,160-ha sanctuary of the 

National Audubon Society on the Sonoita Plain - a high desert grassland in Santa Cruz County, 

1 Both at the Department of EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder CO. 

2 See Appendix for scientific names of all species. 

33 
southeastern Arizona. A former operating cattle ranch, the site has been ungrazed by livestock and 

generally undisturbed since 1968, and so has had the potential to seNe as a site for monitoring 

post-grazing ecological changes, including fuel accumulations resulting in the return of wildfire to 

something perhaps resembling prehistoric frequency and intensity. In addition, the Research Ranch 

continues to support stands of exotic African love grasses planted prior to its establishment as a 

sanctuary. 

Our objective in this paper is to review studies conducted on and adjacent to the sanctuary 

since 1968, and to summarize what they suggest about the ways the precipittion, fire, livestock 

grazing, and alien grasses may generallly affect the assemblages of native plants and animals 

comprising desert grassland communities. 

STUDY AREA AND METHODS 

The Research Ranch includes rolling semiarid grasslands, oak savannas, and riparian bottom 

lands along largely seasonal watercourses, between the Santa Rita and Huachuca Mountains, in 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Elevations range from 1400 to 1560 m. Predominant soils are gravely 

loams (Richardson et al. 1979). Between 1968 and 1995, mean daily low January temperature 

was -2.1 oc, mean daily high June temperature was 32.1 oc, and mean annual precipitation was 44 

em (range 27 to 73). About 60% of annual precipitation falls during the summer monsoon season, 

between July and early September, which is the period of peak plant productivity. 

Grassland habitats dominate the northern two-thirds of the sanctuary, where most of our 

studies have been conducted (J. Bock and C. Bock 1986). Broad floodplains are dominated by big 

sacaton, a tall grass frequently growing in nearly pure stands, interspersed with patches of blue 

grama, vine mesquite, and native dicots. Slopes adjacent to floodplains support diverse mixtures of 

mid- and short stature grasses, including side oats grama, blue grama, plains love grass, purple 

three awn, Texas bluestem, tangle head, spruce top grama, and curly mesquite. Level to rolling 

uplands are dominated by stands of blue grama, plains love grass, wolf tail, purple three awn, hairy 

grama, spruce top grama, and curly mesquite. Uplands also support scattered mesquite trees and 

various shrubs, including burro weed, yerbe de pasmo, and cat claw mimosa. 

Research on the sanctuary has been carried out using standard field and analytical methods 

for quantifying and comparing abundances of vegetation and animal populations among areas with 

known differences in land-use history. 

Vegetation line-point intercept transects and quadrants, bird transects and point counts, rodent 

live-trapping, and grasshopper hoop counts are among the field methods that have been employed 

(Onsager and Henry 1978, Verner 1985, Krebs 1989). Readers are referred to the REFERENCES 

below for details of these procedures, but in each case an attempt was made to compare areas 

differing only in terms of the variable of interest. These have included comparable mesa tops 

transected by boundary fences separating the sanctuary from adjacent grazed lands, grassland 

communities sampled before and after wildfire, stands dominated by exotic love grasses vs. 

adjacent topographically similar areas without the exotics, etc. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Understanding the effects of livestock grazing in arid grasslands depends upon the existence of 

ungrazed control areas for comparison. No such exclosures were established at the time livestock 

were introduced into the Southwest, although the impacts of grazing during the drought years of the 

18901S doubtless were extreme (Bahre 1995). Ecological changes on exclosures established since 

1900 cannot tell us with certainty what desert grasslands looked like prior to the time of Coronado, 

but they can help us to rank species in terms of their sensitivity to livestock grazing. 

34 
LIVESTOCK 

/GRArNG~ . 

Shift to Short- Reduced Litter Reduced F1re 

Stature Grasses and Grass Cover Frequency 

~ Alteredtildlife/ 

Community 

INCRE~~SE WITH GRAZING 

Merriam's Kangaroo Rat 

Scaled Quail 

Mourning Dove 

Homed Lark 

Lark Sparrow 

Fall Grasshoppers 

Curly Mesquite Grass 

Black Grama 

Sprucetop Grama 

Hairy Grama 

DECREASE WITH GRAZING 

Hispid Pocket Mouse 

Western Harvest Mouse 

Grasshopper Mouse 

Fulvous Cotton Rat 

Montezuma Quail 

Botteri's Sparrow 

Cassin's Sparrow 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Bunchgrass Lizard 

Summer Grasshoppers 

Three-awn Grasses 

Wolftail Grass 

Sideoats Grama 

Cane Beardgrass 

Plains Lovegrass 

Figure 1. Effects of livestock grazing on native flora and fauna of the AppletonWhitten Research Ranch Sanctuary in southeastern Arizona. 

Cross-fence comparisons were not conducted on the Research Ranch when livestock were first 

removed in 1968, although a vegetation analysis of the sanctuary did occur in 1969-1971 

(Bonham 1972). Because the land-use history of the sanctuary was similar to that of the Sonoita 

Plain as a whole prior to 1968 (Bahre 1977), it is reasonable to assume that subsequent 

cross-fence differences between the sanctuary and adjacent operating cattle ranches have been 

the result of livestock exclusion. 

Brady et al. (1989) sampled vegetation canopy cover in 1984 on some parts of the sanctuary 

originally inventoried by Bonham (1972), and coupled this with cross fence comparisons. Their 

results showed approximate fivefold increases in the canopy cover of mid-height grasses, both 

cross-fence and over time within the sanctuary, while other components of vegetation were not 

significantly different. We compared grass canopy cover across fence lines on eight sites around the 

perimeter of the sanctuary in 1990, 22 years after livestock removal (C. E. Bock and J. H. Bock 

1993). Total grass canopy cover was significantly higher on the ungrazed portion of each site, due 

largely to relative increases in abundances of taller bunch grasses. There was a strong positive 

35 
correlation between flowering height and amount of positive response to release from grazing 

among the ten most common grass species. Taller species such as plains love grass, cane beard 

grass, and side oats grarna were much more abundant inside the exclosure, while shorter-stature 

grasses such as blue grama, spruce top grama, black grama, and curly mesquite did not differ 

across fence lines, or were more common in grazed areas (Figure 1). 

Woody plants have responded variously to livestock removal. Kenney et al. (1986) found that 

one of the two most abundant shrubs in the region, yerbe de pasmo, was more abundant on than 

off the sanctuary, apparently because livestock will browse it in winter. However, mesquite and 

burro weed did not differ across fence lines (C. Bock et al. 1984). 

Animals responding positively to livestock exclusion have been species generally characteristic 

of taller and denser grasslands, while those we have found to be more common outside the 

sanctuary are species associated with relatively open and/or desert-like habitats (C. Bock et al. 

1984, 1990, Jepson-Innes and Bock 1989, Stromberg 1990, C. Bock and J. Bock 1991). For 

example, songbirds counted more often on grazed lands included such open-ground species as 

scaled quail, horned larks, and lark sparrows, while common grassland species were common on 

the sanctuary. In fall, common grasshoppers were species that fed primarily on forbs, and most 

were relatively common in grazed habitat. 

In conclusion, comparative studies indicate that livestock directly and dramatically influence 

the composition and structure of grass communities, favoring shorter grass species, while reducing 

grass canopy and litter (Figure 1). These changes in turn affect the relative abundances of birds, 

rodents, reptiles, and insects. When stocked at economically meaningful rates, livestock have 

controlling influences on ecosystem structure and function that qualify them as keystone herbivores 

in the desert grasslands of the Sonoita Plain. They do not preclude native flora and fauna, but they 

determine which species will increase and which will decrease. An additional effect of livestock 

grazing is reduction in the intensity and frequency of fire, which we shall consider in the next section 

of this paper. 

Fires once were common natural events in desert grasslands. They doubtless had a major 

impact on ecosystem structure and function, including keeping grasslands in a relatively shrub-free 

state (McPherson 1995). However, livestock grazing, beginning especially in the 1880•s, reduced 

fine fuels and therefore fire frequencies (Bahre 1991). Lightning and human-caused wildfires have 

occurred with some regularity on the Research Ranch since the early 197o•s, probably related to 

increased fuel accumulations after livestock removal. Therefore, the sanctuary has afforded an 

opportunity to study the ecological effects of fire in a desert grassland under circumstances perhaps 

more closely resembling prehistoric conditions than is usually the case. 

We studied the effects two upland wildfires that occurred in 197 4 (J. Bock et al. 1976), two 

sacaton bottom land fires in 1975 (C. Bock and J. Bock 1978), and the results of small upland 

prescribed burns in 1984 (J. Bock and C. Bock 1992b). Particularly important were studies of a 

large and unusually intense lightning-caused wildfire that burned nearly one-third of the sanctuary in 

July, 1987 (C. Bock and J. Bock 1991, 1992, J. Bock and C. Bock 1992a). Related to other 

studies, we had sampled a variety of areas affected by the 1987 burn prior to its occurrence, and 

so we were in a position to measure pre-and post burn plant and wildlife populations, and to 

compare these results with data from a similar array of unburned control plots. Several consistent 

patterns emerged from these various studies (Figure 2). 

Fires caused little if any grass mortality, but temporarily reduced the canopy cover of most 

species, including sacaton, for two or sometimes three growing seasons. Herbs usually increased in 

abundance and variety for about the same period, probably as a consequence of the reduced grass 

canopy. We found no long-term fire effects on woody plants, except for burro weed, which suffered 

virtual 100% mortality, as has been found elsewhere (Martin 1975). Scattered mesquite on the 

sanctuary rarely died in fires, although they suffered considerable loss of outer limbs and frequently 

36 
re-sprouted from their lower trunks. 

Wildlife responses to fire on the Research Ranch have been complex, but consistent with fire 

effects on their preferred habitats. Increased seed production by grasses and by short-lived 

perennial dicots during first post-fire growing seasons dramatically increased abundances of 

wintering sparrows on recently burned areas. Animals dependent on heavy grass cover, such as 

fulvous cotton rats and various nesting sparrows, declined on burned plots until grass canopy had 

recovered to pre-burn levels. Others preferring relatively open habitats, such as kangaroo rats and 

horned larks, temporarily increased on burned areas. We found no evidence of direct fire-caused 

mortality of any animal species, except a few reptiles and certain grasshoppers. 

Two-Year Reduction of 

Grass Cover and Litter 

Increased Drought Tolerance 

of Plains ~ss 

Woody Plant 

Mortality 

One-Year Increase in 

Seed Production 

! 

Increased Winter 

Altered Wildlife 

Community 

Bird Populations 

INCREASE AFTER FIRE 

Hispid Pocket Mouse 

Merriam's Kangaroo Rat 

Homed Lark 

Lark Sparrow 

Mourning Dove 

Vesper Sparr ow 

Savannah Sparrow 

Band-wing Grasshoppers 

Four Herb Species 

Plains Lovegrass 

DECREASEAFTERFIRE 

Fulvous Cotton Rat 

Cassin's Sparrow 

Botteri's Sparrow 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Eastern Meadowlark 

Other Grasshoppers 

Burro Weed 

Other Grasshoppers 

One Herb Species 

Sacaton Grass 

Grama Grasses 

Three-awn Grasses 

Figure 2. Effects of fire on the native flora and fauna of the Appleton-Whittell 

Research Ranch Sanctuary in southeastern Arizona. 

37 
In conclusion, most plants and animals of the Research Ranch appear to tolerate fire, and 

sometimes to benefit from it, but not to be fire-dependent. A conspicuous exception is plains love 

grass, one of the characteristic upland bunch grasses on the sanctuary. This species has suffered 

heavy mortality apparently due to drought, except in areas that have burned within the previous 

three years (C. Bock et al. 1995). It is not clear why fire might increase plains love grass• 

survivorship during drought, but long-term dominance of this species may depend on relatively 

frequent burning. 

PRECIPITATION 

Changes in amounts and seasonal distribution of precipitation doubtless affect the composition 

of desert grasslands, but the relative influence of climate versus fire and grazing in shaping the 

structure and function of these ecosystems remains unclear (Hastings and Turner 1965, Neilson 

1986, Schlesinger et al. 1990, Bahre and Shelton 1993, McPherson 1995). Livestock exclosures 

such as the Research Ranch have value in this regard, because the effects of precipitation can be 

studied in the absence of exotic grazers and in the presence of more natural fire regimes. 

Studies at the sanctuary began only in 1968, and so their results cannot yet reveal the 

consequences of any possible long-term changes in climate. Furthermore, because precipitation is 

uncontrolled, studies of drought and its consequences are correlational only and cannot be planned 

in advance. Nevertheless, projects designed for other purposes have yielded data on population 

trends of vegetation and wildlife, which we could then correlate with precipitation data collected on 

the site. In particular, data from control plots that were parts of studies evaluating the impacts of 

grazing, fire, and exotic vegetation revealed short-term changes in grassland community 

composition that could be compared with trends in amounts and seasonal distribution of rainfall on 

the sanctuary .Declines in vegetation cover and in some animal populations have correlated with 

decreases in annual precipitation, but most of these changes have been short term and have 

reversed themselves as soon as precipitation increased (Figure 3; C. Bock et al. 1986, C. Bock and 

J. Bock 1992, J. Bock and C. Bock 1992a,b). One of the most important ecological changes 

related to drought is reduced seed production, which in particular has affected the abundance of 

migratory songbirds wintering on the sanctuary (Pulliam and Brand 1975, Pulliam and Dunning 

1987). 

Three plant species have shown relatively dramatic and longer-term changes that appear to be 

related to precipitation. Plains love grass is a mid-height perennial bunch grass that is particularly 

sensitive to grazing, and that has become locally very common on the sanctuary since livestock 

removal (C. Bock and J. Bock 1993). However, this otherwise dominant species experienced 

widespread mortality during a relatively dry period between 1989 and 1990, and had only 

recovered to pre-drought levels by 1993 (C. Bock et al. 1995). As noted above, plains love grass 

that had been burned within three years prior to the drought did not suffer comparable mortality. 

This observation deserves further study. 

Two shrubs on the Research Ranch, burro weed and yerbe de pasmo, have fluctuated in ways 

suggesting their positive association with winter rains (C. Bock and J. Bock, in press). Both species 

increased between 1982 and 1985, a period of relatively wet winters, declined during the dry 

winters of 1986-1990, and then increased through 1995, coincident with a second wet period. 

Burro weed in particular showed dramatic population fluctuations, increasing from a low of 20 

plants/200m2 in 1982 to a high of 80 plants/200m2 in 1985. Similar fluctuations in burro weed 

have been observed in other desert grasslands, also related to winter precipitation (Martin 1975). 

38 
DROUGHT 

:Plains Lovegrass ~ ~Reduced Grass 

~~~ c~ 

Reduced Seed Shrub 

Production 1tfortali~ 

I 

? \ ;· 

Reduced Wildlife 

INCREASE WITH DROUGHT 

None? 

Populations 

DECREASE WITH DROUGHT 

Fulvous Cotton Rat Yerbe de Pasmo 

Winter Sparrows Burro Weed 

Eastern Meadowlark Plains Lovegrass 

Grasshopper Sparrow Some Herbs 

Mourning Dove Grama Grasses 

Homed Lark Three-awn Grasses 

Figure 3. Major effects of short-term reductions in precipitation on native flora and fauna of 

the Appleton-Whitten Research Ranch Sanctuary in southeastern Arizona. 

EXOTIC GRASSES 

Certain love grasses (Eragrostis spp.) native to Africa were purposefully introduced into 

southwestern grasslands as a range restorative tool, beginning in the 193o•s (An able et al. 1992, 

Bahre 1995). Lehmann•s love grass in particular has spread subsequently into thousands of 

hectares in the region, because of its prolific seed production, positive response to fire, and wide 

range of environmental tolerance (Ruyle et al. 1988, Cox et al. 1988). Because exotic love grasses 

continue to be seeded in the Southwest, it is important to understand the consequences to native 

flora and fauna. 

In the 194Q•s and 195o•s, both Lehmann•s and Boers love grass were planted on certain 

mesas in the Sonoita Plain that subsequently became part of the Research Ranch. In 1984-1985, 

we compared three sites on the sanctuary dominated by African love grasses with comparable 

areas lacking these exotics (C. Bock et al. 1986). Results of that study suggest that introduction 

and spread of the alien grasses significantly reduced native biodiversity of the areas affected. The 

exotic grasses have formed near-monocultt..:res on the sanctuary, at the expense of most native 

vegetation. Furthermore, the love grass plantations supported a greatly reduced variety and 

39 
PLANTING EXOTIC 

/ LOVErRASSES~ 

Reduced Cover of Reduced Cover and Reduced Cover 

Native Grasses Variety ofNative / of Shrubs 

~ Het 

Reduced Abundance 

and Variety 

INCREASE WITH EXOTICS 

Fulvous Cotton Rat 

Botteri's Sparrow 

One Grasshopper Species 

of Wildlife 

DECREASE WITH EXOTICS 

All Native Grasses Loggerhead Shrike 

All Native Herbs Homed Lark 

Burro Weed Cassin's Sparrow 

Groundsel Grasshopper Sparrow 

Hispid Pocket Mouse Savannah Sparrow 

Pygmy Mouse Vesper Sparrow 

Western Harvest Mouse 

Eastern Meadowlark 

Nine Grasshoppers species 

Figure 4. Major effects of African lovegrasses on native flora and fauna of the AppletonWhitten Research Ranch Sanctuary in southeastern Arizona. 

abundance of native wildlife, including grasshoppers, rodents, and birds (Figure 4). Among 

vertebrates, the only exceptions were the fulvous cotton rat and BotterPs sparrow, species 

characteristic of very heavy grass cover, such as provided by the exotic grasses. 

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Episodes of fire and drought once maintained a natural mosaic of grass and grass/shrub habitats 

in lowlands of the American Southwest. Livestock grazing historically reduced fire frequency and 

exacerbated the effects of drought, generally increasing woody species at the expense of grasslands 

(Humphrey 1987, Bahre 1991, 1995, Bahre and Shelton 1993, McPherson 1995). At the lowest 

elevations, alterations in soil nutrient distribution may have rendered these grazing-induced changes 

essentially permanent (Schlesinger et al. 1990). However, our work at the Appleton-Whittell Research 

Ranch suggests that, at somewhat higher elevations such as on the Sonoita Plain, grasslands released 

from the controlling influence of livestock can move fairly quickly toward a new dynamic equilibrium, 

dominated by different species of plants and animals that may be more indicative of conditions as they 

existed prior to the eighteenth century. The grazed lands themselves continue to support diverse 

communities of vegetation and wildlife, so that a mosaic of landscapes in various stages of post-grazing 

ecological succession is likely to support the full complement of native plants and animals. 

40 
As long as management plans include significant numbers of large and permanent livestock 

exclosures, as refuges for those species especially sensitive to the activities of large herbivores, we do 

not perceive responsible grazing as a threat to regional biodiversity of southwestern grasslands in 

relatively mesic sites, if stocking rates are adjusted to variations in precipitation. Planting alien grasses 

is quite another matter. While the African exotics may help to stabilize soils in degraded sites, and 

provide some forage, they apparently do so at the expense of much of the native flora and fauna. There 

is no sign on the Research Ranch that native grasslands are replacing the exotics, even after 28 years 

without livestock or other anthropogenic disturbances. In fact, both Boers and Lehmann's love grasses 

appear to be spreading on the sanctuary (W. Branan, pers. comm.), as they are in other grasslands 

of the Southwest both with and without livestock (An able et al. 1992). The African exotics therefore 

resemble other successful alien species, in their apparent abilities to invade undisturbed as well as 

disturbed sites, and to significantly change resulting ecosystem structure and function (Crawley 1986, 

Vitousek 1986, Rice and Mack 1991). 

Future integrity of many arid southwestern ecosystems, including those on the Sonoita Plain, 

depends upon finding ways to reverse or at least halt the spread of alien grasses. This should be a top 

research and management priority for all individuals and organizations committed to the stewardship 

and conservation of these extraordinary grasslands. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Colleagues, students, and field assistants too numerous to list have helped us with our field work 

over the years. We particularly thank Ariel Appleton and the managers of the Research Ranch for 

their help and support: Vern and Nancy Hawthorne, Mark and Barbara Stromberg, Eugene and 

Grace Knoder, and Bill and Laura Nell Branan. We thank the Brophy and Jelks families for 

generously permitting access to their well-run cattle ranches. Our research in southeastern Arizona 

has been supported by the following individuals and organizations: National Audubon Society, 

National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, The Lindbergh Foundation, Earthwatch and the Center for Field Research, The 

Research Ranch Foundation, Joseph and Helen Taylor, and the University of Colorado. 

REFERENCES 

Anable, M. E., M. P. McClaran, and G. B. Ruyle. 1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann love grass 

(Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees) in southern Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 61: 

181-188. 

Anderson, R. C. 1982. An evolutionary model summarizing the roles of fire, climate, and grazing 

animals in the origin and maintenance of grasslands: an end paper. Pp. 297-308 in (J. R. 

Estes, R. J. Tyrl, and J. N. Brunken, eds.) Grasses and grasslands; systematics and ecology. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 

Bahre, C. J. 1977. Land-use history of the Research Ranch, Elgin, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona 

Academy of Science 12: 1-32. 

Bahre, C. J. 1991. A legacy of change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Bahre, C. J. 1995. Human impacts on the grasslands of southeastern Arizona. Pp. 230-264 in 

(M. P. McClaran and T. R. Van Devender, eta.) The desert grassland. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Bahre, C. J., and M. L. Shelton. 1993. Historic vegetation change, mesquite increases, and climate 

in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Biogeography 20:489-504. 

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. 1978. Responses of birds, small mammals, and vegetation to burning 

sacaton grasslands in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Range Management 31 :296-300. 

41 
Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. 1991. Response of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) to wildfire in 

a southeastern Arizona grassland. American Midland Naturalist 125:162-167. 

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. 1992. Response of birds to wildfire in native versus exotic Arizona 

grassland. Southwestern Naturalist 37:73-81. 

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. 1993. Cover of perennial grasses in southeastern Arizona in relation to 

livestock grazing. Conservation Biology 7:371-377. 

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. Shrub densities in relation to fire, livestock grazing, and precipitation in 

an Arizona desert grassland. Southwestern Naturalist, in press. 

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, M. C. Grant, and T. R. Seastedt. 1995. Effects of fire on abundance of 

Eragrostis inter media in a semi--arid grassland in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Vegetation 

Science 6:325-328. 

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, K. L. Jepson, and J. C. Ortega. 1986. Ecological effects of planting African 

love grasses in Arizona. National Geographic Research 2:456463. 

Bock, C. E., H. M. Smith, and J. H. Bock. 1990. The effect of livestock grazing upon abundance of 

the lizard, Sceloporus scalaris, in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology 24:445-446. 

Bock, J. H., and C. E. Bock. 1986. Habitat relationships of some native perennial grasses in 

southeastern Arizona. Desert Plants 8:3-14. 

Bock, J. H., and C. E. Bock. 1992a. Vegetation responses to wildfire in native versus exotic Arizona 

grassland. Journal of Vegetation Science 3 :439446. 

Bock, J. H., and C. E. Bock. 1992b. Short-term reductions in plant densities following prescribed 

fire in an ungrazed semidesert shrub-grassland. Southwestern Naturalist 37:49-53. 

Bock, J. H., C. E. Bock, and J. R. McKnight. 1976. A study of the effects of grassland fires at the 

Research Ranch in southeastern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 

11 :49-57. 

Bonham, C. E. 1972. Ecological inventory and data storage retrieval system for the Research 

Ranch. Colorado State University, Range Department Science Series 14, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Brady, W. W., M. R. Stromberg, E. F. AI don, C. D. Bonham, and S. H. Henry. 1989. Response of s 

semidesert grassland to 16 years of rest from grazing. Journal of Range Management 

42:284-288. 

Cox, J. R., M. H. Martin-R, F. A. lbarra-F, J. H. Fourie, N. F. Rethman, and D. G. Wilcox. 1988. The 

influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range 

Management 41:127-139. 

Crawley, M. J. 1986. The population biology of invaders. Transactions of the Royal Society of 

London, B, 314:711-731. 

Hastings, J. R., and R. M. Turner. 1965. The changing mile. University of Arizona Press, Tucsons 

Arizona. 

Humphrey, R. R. 1987. 90 years and 535 miles: vegetation changes along the Mexican border. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Jepson-Innes, K., and C. E. Bock. 1989. Response of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) to 

livestock grazing in southeastern Arizona: differences between seasons and subfamilies. 

Oecologia 78:430-431. 

Kenney, W. R., J. H. Bock, and C. E. Bock. 1986. Responses of the shrub, Baccharis pteronioides, 

to livestock exclosure in southeastern Arizona. American Midland Naturalist 116:429-431. 

Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper and Row, New York. 

Martin, S. C. 1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semidesert grassshrub ranges: the 

status of our knowledge. Research Paper, USDA Forest Service, RM-156. Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

42 
McClaran, M. P., and T. R. Van Devender (eds.). 1995. The desert grassland. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

McDonald, J. N. 1981. North American bison, their classification and evolution. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California. 

McPherson, G. R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grasslands. Pp. 130-151 in(M. P. McClaran 

and T. R. Van Devender, eds.) The desert grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Neilson, R. P. 1986. High-resolution climatic analysis of Southwest biogeography. Science 

232:27-34. 

Onsager, J. A., and J. E. Henry. 1978. A method for estimating the density of rangeland 

grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Acrid a 6:429-431. 

Pulliam, H. R., and M. R. Brand. 1975. The production and utilization of seeds in the plains 

grasslands of southeastern Arizona. Ecology 56: 1158-1166. 

Pulliam, H. R., and J. B. Dunning. 1987. The influence of food supply on local density and diversity 

of sparrows. Ecology 68: 1009-1014. 

Rice, K.J.,and R.N. Mack. 1991. Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum. I. A hierarchical analysis 

of phenotypic variation. Oecologia 88:77-83. 

Richardson, M. L., S. D. Clemmons, and J. C. Walker. 1979. Soil survey of Santa Cruz and parts of 

Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

D.C. 

Roundy, B. A., and S. H. Biedenbender. 1995. Revegetation in the desert grassland. Pp. 265-303 

in (M. P. McClaran and T. R. Van Devender, eds.) The desert grassland. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. 

Ruyle, G. B., B. A. Roundy, and J. R. Cox. 1988. Effects of burning on germ inability of Lehmann 

love grass. Journal of Range Management 41 :404406. 

Schlesinger, W. H., J. F. Reynolds, G. L. Cunningham, L. F. Huenneke, W. M. Jarrell, R. A. Virginia, 

and W. G. Whit ford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science · 

24 7:1043-1048. 

Sims, P. L. 1988. Grasslands. Pp. 265-286 in (M. G. Barb our and W. D. Billings, eta.) North 

American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 

Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

Stromberg, M. R. 1990. Habitat, movements, and roost characteristics of Montezuma Quail in 

southeastern Arizona. Condor 92:229-236. 

Truett, J. 1996. Bison and elk in the American Southwest: in search of the pristine. Environmental 

Management 20:195-206. 

Verner, J. 1985. Assessment of counting techniques. Pp. 24 7-302 in Current ornithology, val. 2 (R. 

F. Johnson, ed.). Plenum Press, New York. 

Vitousek, P. 1986. Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference? 

Pp. 163-176 in (H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake, eds.) Ecology of biological invasions of North 

America and Hawaii. Springer Verlag, New York. 

43 
APPENDIX 

Common and Scientific Names of Species 

Grasses 

cane beard grass (Bothriochloa barbinodis) 

Texas bluestem (Schizachyrium cirracus) 

blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) 

sideoats grama (B. curtipendula) 

hairy grama (B. hirsuta) 

spruce top grama (B. Chondrosioides) 

black grama (B. eriopoda) 

plains love grass (Eragrostis inter media) 

Boers love grass (E. curvula var. conferta) 

Lehmann1

s love grass (E. Lehmanniana) 

curly mesquite (Hilaria belangeri) 

vine mesquite (Panicum obtusum) 

big sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) 

tangle head (Heteropogon contort us) 

purple three awn (Aristida purpurea) 

wolf tail (Lycurus phleoides) 

Woody Plants 

burro weed (Haplopappus tenuisectus) 

yerbe de pasmo (Baccharis pteronioides) 

mesquite (Prosopis velutina) 

cat claw mimosa (Mimosa dysocarpa and M. biuncifera) 

groundsel (Senecio doug/asit) 

Vertebrates 

bunch grass lizard (Sceloporus scalaris) 

scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) 

Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae) 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) 

homed lark (Eremophila alpestris) 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Cassin1s sparrow (Aimophila cassinii) 

BotterPs sparrow (A. botterii) 

vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) 

savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 

grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savanna rum) 

eastern meadow lark (Sturnella magna) 

hispid pocket mouse (Chaemerops hispictus) 

Merriam1

s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys Merriam I) 

western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys mega/otis) 

northern pygmy mouse (Baiomys Taylori) 

southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus) 

fulvous cottar. i~~ (Sigmodon fulviventer) 

bison (Bison bison) 

44 
Chapter II 

Identifying Grassland Issues 

This chapter presents a series of sessions that examined a range of issues related to grasslands 

and human use of them. David Brown presented the results of his study of changes in bird and 

mammal distribution changes in the southwest. Rod Mandt chaired a panel on wildlife issues which 

included changes in bird and mammal distribution, migrating birds, and wildlife corridor issues. A 

paper by Phil Rosen and others that was not actually presented at the conference on reptiles and 

amphibians was added here to broaden the coverage. George Ruyle chaired a session on grazing 

and fire management and the connection between grazing and fire including a look at historical 

patterns of fire, experimental fire research, burning policy and ranching. John Brock led a session 

on the role of exotic plants with papers by two authors who look at ecological characteristics of 

invasive alien plants, means of exotic plant introduction (a poster), and Lehmann lovegrass. Finally, 

Roy Jemison and Barbara Tellman led sessions on water quality, erosion, and water supply issues 

that are addressed with papers about hydrology and watershed management, water supply and 

sustainability, and a case study of water supply determination in southeast Arizona. 

Wildlife Issues Session 

Terrestrial Bird and Mammal Distribution Changes in the 

American Southwest, 1890 - 1990 

David E. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 

Herpetology of the Sulphur Springs Valley, Cochise County, Arizona 

Philip C. Rosen, Shawn Sartorius, Cecil R. Schwalbe, 

Peter A. Holm, and Charles H. Lowe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 

Age-Related Population Trends of Landbirds Migrating Through 

Southwestern Semi-Arid Grassland 

Wang Yong and Deborah M. Finch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 

Wildlife Corridors Panel Discussion 

Rod Mondt, Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

Grazing Management and Fire Issues Session 

Grazing and Fire Management 

Larry Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

Historical Patterns of Surface Fire in Canyon Pine-Oak Forests, Savannas, 

and Intervening Semiarid Grasslands of the Southwest Borderlands: 

An Abstract of Work in Progress 

Mark Kaib, Christopher H. Baisan, and Thomas W. Swetnam ............. 101 

Experimental Fire Research in Semi-arid Shortgrass Prairie 

Paulette L. Ford and Guy R. McPherson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 

Burning Policies of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Dan Robinett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 

Ranching in Santa Cruz County: A Summary of Research Findings 

Madelene Orton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 

45 
Views of a Non-traditional Traditional Rancher 

Joe Parsons ................................................ 133 

Exotic Plant Species 

Ecological Characteristics of Invasive Alien Plants 

John H. Brock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 

Stowaways and Invited Guests: 

How Some Exotic Plant Species Reached the American Southwest 

Barbara Tellman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 

The Influence of Climate, Soil and Grazing on the 

Distribution of Lehmann Lovegrass 

Jerry R. Cox and George B. Ruyle ................................. 150 

Water Quality, Erosion and Water Supply 

Riparian Areas, Watersheds, and Water Quality Panel 

Roy Jemison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7 

Hydrology and Watershed Management in Semi-Arid Grasslands 

Malchus B. Baker, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 

Using RUSLE for Erosion Control and Grassland Management 

Kenneth G. Renard ........................................... 170 

Introduction to the Water Supply in Grasslands Panel 

Barbara Tellman, Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 

Arid Grasslands and Water Resources 

Charles Stockton, David Meko, and Mary F. Glueck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 

Water Use and the Future of the Sonoita Valley 

Robert Naeser and Anne St. John, 

with Introductory Remarks by Bill Branan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 

46 
Terrestrial Bird and Mammal 

Distribution Changes in the 

American Southwest, 1890 - 1990 

David E. Brown1 and Russell Davis2 

ABSTRACT 

Distribution changes over the past one hundred years are 

summarized for a number of terrestrial mammals and birds in 

Arizona and New Mexico. At least 39 species appear to have been 

extirpated or suffered range restrictions, while 55 others have 

experienced range expansions. Even when exotics are excluded, the 

biodiversity of endotherms is now greater than in 1890. As expected, 

the ranks of the 11 losers11 contain a disproportionate number of large 

predators and grassland-associated animals. By way of contrast, the 

majority of the 11Winners11 were forest and/or scrubland-adapted 

species. More germane to this study was the fact that more than 70 

percent of the 11Winners11 were species that have their primary biotic 

affinity south of the U.S.-Mexico border. Few Rocky Mountain, Great 

Basin, or Great Plains species increased in distribution. Possible 

reasons for these phenomena are discussed including the potential 

effect of increasing winter temperature minima on plant distributions 

and the availability of invertebrates. 

Much well-deserved concern has recently been expressed regarding an increase in the number 

of endangered species and a loss in biodiversity. Each year sees additional animals proposed for 

state or federal listing as 11 threatened11 or 11endangered11 species. But, although much effort is 

expended to determine the actual status of these animals, the stated reasons for their decline are 

often vague and subjective. Rarely, and only recently, have overall changes in the status of an 

animai 1S habitat and its associated biota been properly evaluated and appreciated. To achieve a 

better perspective of the possible influence of an overall environmental change, we examined the 

distributional status of terrestrial mammals and birds in the states of Arizona and New Mexico 

during the past 100 years. 

THE STUDY AREA 

The states of New Mexico and Arizona in the American Southwest provide an ideal study area 

for a long term analysis of the effects of climatic change on endothermic animals, The regionls 

southern position astride the Continental Divide, and its great range in elevations from less than 30 

1 Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

47 
m where the Colorado River enters Mexico to more than 4,000 m atop Wheeler Peak in the Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains, provide climates ranging from subtropical to arctic-boreal. Also, depending on 

location, mean annual precipitation can be as low as 75 mm to greater than 780 mm. The result is 

that almost every biome found in North America -- alpine tundra, boreal conifer forest, temperate 

deciduous forest, evergreen woodland, chaparral, grassland and desert-- can be found somewhere 

in these two states. Moreover, the Southwest's othography provides both mountain and valley 

corridors extending northward into the Rocky Mountains and Great Basin as well as southward into 

Mexico. Thus, birds, and many mammals, can, in a single day, travel from an environment in which 

freezing temperatures may occur at any time of the year to those which rarely experience a 24-hour 

freeze. 

The American Southwest's biotic diversity is also due to its special evolutionary history. Most of 

the region was not covered by ice sheets during the Pleistocene Epoch. Although the alternating 

drying and cooling that accompanied glacial advances and retreats had an immense effect on 

Southwest environments, the region's great topographic relief, manifested in such features as the 

Grand Canyon and Mogollon Rim, coupled with it southern latitudes, served to provide 

warm-temperate refugia for a number of endemic Pleistocene plants and animals. These features, 

coupled with the erratic but overall drying and warming trend that accompanied the onset of 

Holocene times about 11,500 years ago, have resulted in the Southwest being the location of 

isolated Pleistocene forests on mountain-tops, relict mild-winter conifers and water-dependent 

deciduous forests beneath the Mogollon Rim, and a tension zone of diminishing areas of grasslands 

and evergreen woodlands between 1000 and 2000 m elevation. The most recent phenomenon has 

been the development and advance of the four North American deserts, parts of all of which occur 

in the Southwest (see e.g., VanDevender et al. 1987). The result today is a great mixing of old and 

new plant and animal species that have segregated out into a mosaic of Tertiary, Nearctic and 

Neotropical habitats (Lowe and Brown 1982). 

This biodiversity, coupled with the region's general aridity, has made the Southwest a focal point 

of study for a variety of environmental disciplines. During the last 100 years the Southwest has 

provided a unique field laboratory for zoologists, botanists, ecologists, archeologists and 

paleontologists. Not only has the region's abundant fossil record been much investigated (see e.g., 

Harris 1985), much of the pioneering and ongoing work on fossil pollen analysis, tree-ring 

chronology and other techniques to measure climatic change have been focused in or near the 

Southwest. Especially germane to this effort is the work of Hastings and Turner (1965) and their 

successors who have demonstrated important landscape changes over the past 100 years through 

the use of repeat-photography. The result is that few if any regions of North America have a more 

complete fossil and recent history of faunal and vegetative changes. That these changes have 

been dramatic and have been shown to have continued into modern times, both facilitates and 

lends impetus to the work at hand. 

Another factor contributing to our understanding of the Southwest's biota was its relatively late 

settlement by Western Man. Acquired by the United Stated from Mexico in the mid-19th Century, 

New Mexico Territory had remained virtually uninhabited by either Spaniards or Mexicans. This 

circumstance enabled American scientists to report on the region•s landscapes and biota prior to 

large scale ranching and agricultural development (see e.g., Davis 1982). Moreover, this late 

settlement, combined with the region's rugged topography and general aridity, prolonged the 

settlement process. Even as late as 1880, few settlements existed outside of the river valleys and 

the environs of mining camps. The late entry of Arizona and New Mexico into the Union in 1912 

also allowed for the inclusion of sizable tracts of land within National forests and parks before they 

48 
were irreversibly impacted by a long history of unregulated grazing, land clearing and other 

ecologically disruptive influences. 

Last, but not least, the American Southwest was visited by a number of competent naturalists 

around the turn of the century. People like Elliot Coues, E.A. Mearns, Herbert Brown, H.S. Swarth, 

Vernon Bailey and Florence Merriam Bailey made systematic attempts to inventory the birds and 

mammals of Arizona and New Mexico and reported on their habitat affinities and status (e.g., 

Swarth 1914). Other investigators conducted studies on the distributions of particular species of 

birds and mammals as well as the natural history of specific locales (e.g., Merriam 1890). These 

studies have continued to the present day, allowing for a progression of comprehensive treatments 

on the region•s mammals and bird (e.g., Coues 1867, Mearns 1907, Ligon 1927, Bailey 1928, 

Bailey 1931, Hall 1946, Ligon 1961, Phillips et al. 1964, Findley et al. 1975, Hubbard 1978, 

Monson and Phillips 1981, Hofmeister 1986). Also relevant to this study is the fact that 100 years 

of climatological data are now available for a number of New Mexico and Arizona stations (see e.g., 

Karl et al. 1989, Sellers et al. 1985). 

STUDY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 

Using as base references the basic works on avian and mammalian distribution noted above, 

state endangered animal summaries (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1988, New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish 1992), specific journal articles (e.g. Hock 1952, Hubbard 1977, 

Lomolino et al. 1989) and our own work (e.g. Brown 1973 and 1989, Davis and Dunford 1987, 

Davis and Brown 1989, Davis and Callahan 1992), we listed those species of terrestrial mammals 

and birds, that appear to have increased or decreased their Southwest distributions during historic 

times. For comparative purposes we have also listed terrestrial species of exotics which are deemed 

to have established self-sustaining populations. To determine if the distribution of animals in certain 

habitats had changed more than in other habitats, each species was assigned the biotic community 

or communities with which it is primarily associated. These lists were then commented on and 

added to by John Hubbard, Gale Monson and Barry Spicer. Dr. Hubbard and Mr. Monson are 

recognized authorities on the status of birds in New Mexico and Arizona, and Dr. Hubbard and Mr. 

Spicer have been involved in the preparation of status reports on rare and endangered species for 

their respective state agencies. Their enthusiastic assistance was a major contribution to this study. 

Bird names follow Hubbard (1978) and Monson and Phillips (1981). Mammal names follow 

Jones et. al. (1992). The biotic community affiliations are those discussed in Brown (1982, 1994) 

and mapped by Brown and Lowe (1980, 1990). 

Our lists only include those species of terrestrial birds and mammals known to have bred in the 

Southwestern states of Arizona and New Mexico since 1890. Subspecies are not included. This 

limited geographical perspective is due both to a lack of comparable historical data for the Mexican 

states of Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua and to the fact that we have less experience with 

conditions in these states as well as those in California, Nevada and Texas. Regrettably, 

comparable historical data and experience are also lacking for the Southwest's herptile and 

invertebrate faunas. Such information could have contributed greatly to the breadth of our analysis. 

The massive changes that have occurred in the Southwest's riparian and other wetland habitats 

also precludes a comparable analysis of the regionls aquatic and wetland faunas. However, it is 

important to point out that the dire status of the Southwest's native fishes and their extensive 

displacement and replacement by llexotics11 has been well documented (see e.g. Minckley and 

Deacon 1991). It goes without saying that endothermic animals such as the River Otter (Lutra 

49 
canadensis) and Beaver (Castor canadensis) have experienced similar displacements. Nonetheless, 

it should also be noted that a number of wetland birds including the Bald Eagle (Halieatus 

leucocephalus), Clapper Rail (Rallus /ongirostris), Mexican duck (Anas diazi), Black-bellied Whistling 

Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis) and Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) now enjoy a greater distribution in 

these two states than they did in 1900. 

There are, of course, a number of problems inherent in any comparative analysis of patterns of 

past and present animal distributions. Perhaps the foremost of these is that any knowledge of the 

actual previous (and present) distribution of a species is imperfect and open to interpretation. The 

age-old question of whether a new locale for a species represents a range extension or merely a 

lack or failure of previous sampling efforts will never be answered in every case to everyone•s 

satisfaction. The distributions of some species, especially those at the edge of their range, are 

especially dynamic and the occurrence of these species in Arizona or New Mexico is inherently 

sporadic (e.g. the Ghost-faced Bat (Mormoops mega/ophylla) and Rosethroated Becard 

(Pachyramphus aglaiae) in Arizona. These species are either omitted from our analysis or indicated 

with a question mark. Moreover, the status and distribution of some species such as the 

Long-nosed Bat (Leptonycteris curasoae = sanborni) is a matter of some debate (see e.g., Howell 

and Roth 1981, Cockrum 1991). For purposes of this analysis, we have excluded those species 

which are known to irregularly occur in the American Southwest or whose past and present 

distributional status is considered questionable by biologists involved in their study. Since this is a 

study of the dynamics of distribution, we have considered only changes in the distribution of 

species, not an increase or decrease in population sizes. 

RESULTS 

Nine species have been extirpated in Arizona and New Mexico (Table 1). Not surprisingly, three 

of these are large carnivores that were systematically hunted as livestock predators. One other, the 

black-footed ferret, may have been lost as a result of prairie dog control efforts, although the 

animal's demise due to one or more introduced pathogens is a distinct possibility. Two large game 

animals, the elk and bison, formerly present and subsequently extirpated, have since been 

reintroduced, the former with marked success. The remaining three extirpated species are 

grassland-associated birds. 

Thirty-four species are still present but appear to have experienced range reductions since 

1890 while 55 species now seem to enjoy an expanded distribution (Tables 2 and 3). Although 

human-assisted introductions and the occurrence of artificial feeding and watering sites can explain 

some of the increases in distribution, the reasons for most are unclear and cannot be explained by 

direct human intervention. Conversely, introduced diseases, competition with exotic animals and 

grazing by livestock have been implicated as reasons for many of the species now having decreased 

distributions. 

Only 19 exotics (13 mammals and six birds) appear to have become established in Arizona and 

New Mexico by 1890. The two camels have since been eliminated and the status of several other 

species (e.g., Swine, Chukar Partridge and Black Rat) may be tenuous. A surprising result of the 

analysis was that even when exotic animals are excluded and extirpated species included, more 

animals appear to have experienced range expansions (55) than declines (43). As far as terrestrial 

birds and mammals are concerned, biodiversity is now greater in the American Southwest than it 

was in 1890. 

Tables 5 and 6 summarize the formation-types, biotic community affinities and centers of 

50 
biogeographic distributions of 39 mammals and birds which appear to now have reduced 

distributions in the American Southwest. The majority (59%) of these are grassland-affiliated 

species. Nearly all of the biogeographic provinces are represented, with nearly as many species 

having their centers of distribution to the north or northeast (49%) as to the south or southeast 

(51%). 

Formation-class affinities and biogeographic centers for the 55 species of mammals and birds 

breeding in the American Southwest and which have experienced range expansions are presented 

in Tables 7 and 8. Twenty-nine, or more than half (53%), of these "winners" are forest and 

woodland species. Another seven (13%) are associated with chaparral or other scrublands, only 

seven are grassland-associated species and, oddly enough, only three (5%) are desert species. The 

most surprising statistic, however, is the number of species having their biogeographic center of 

distribution to the south of the American Southwest (Table 8). More than half of the "winners" have 

their nearest ecological center in either Mexico's Sierra Madre (27%) or the forests and scrublands 

of Sonora and Sinaloa (29%). None of the "winners" are headquartered in the Great Basin and only 

two mammals and two birds can be considered as Rocky Mountain species. 

The above distributional changes strongly suggest recent changes in both landscape character 

and climate. Indeed, a change in vegetation from open grasslands and woodlands to more closed 

communities of forest and scrubland has been well documented for Arizona by Hastings and Turner 

(1965) and in New Mexico by Dick-Peddie (1993). While climatic change has been going on in the 

Southwest since the advent of the Holocene (see e.g., Houghton et al. 1990, Davis and Shafer 

1992), the amount of this occurring within a time frame of only 100 years is difficult to assess. 

Climatic data since 1890 show no appreciable trends in either summer or winter precipitation 

amounts in Arizona (Sellers et al. 1987) and changes in minimum temperatures are often masked 

by the effects of urban warming (Kirby and Sellers 1987, Sellers 1990). Nonetheless, regional 

climatic data which has been corrected for the effects of urban warming shows a significant 

increase in winter, summer and annual temperature minima since ca. 1960 for the "Southern 

Deserts" which encompass southern New Mexico and Arizona (Karl et al. 1989). No such trend is 

apparent for the "Great Basin" and "Southern Rockies" regions. Clearly, further investigation into the 

possible effects of short-term climatic change are warranted. It may be instructive to monitor and 

evaluate short-term (50 to 100 year) changes in the distributions of selected species of terrestrial 

ectotherrns (invertebrates and herptiles) to determine what role, if any, climate change might also 

be playing on their distributions in the American Southwest. 

51 
REFERENCES 

Davis, R. and C. Dunford. 1987. An example of contemporary colonization of montane islands 

by small, nonflying mammals in the American Southwest. Am. Nat. 129:398 406. 

Dick-Peddie, W.A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present and future. University of New 

Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Findley, J.S., A.H. Harris, D.E. Wilson and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 

Harris, A. H. 1985. Late Pleistocene vertebrate paleoecology of the West. University of Texas Press, 

Austin. 

Hastings, J.R. and R.M. Turner. 1965. The changing mile: an ecological study of vegetation 

change with time in the lower mile of an arid and semiarid region. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Hock, R.J. 1952. The opossum in Arizona. J. Mammal. 33:464-4 70. 

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Tucson and Phoenix. 

Houghton, J.T, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums, (eds.) 1990. Climatic change: the IPCC scientific 

assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change. The Press Syndicate, University of 

Cambridge, NY. 

Howell, D.J. and B.S. Roth. 1981. Sexual reproduction in agaves: the benefits of bats: the cost of 

semelparous advertising. Ecology 62:3-7. 

Hubbard, J.P. 1977. The status of Cassin1s sparrow in New Mexico and adjacent states. Amer. 

Birds 31:933-941. Publ. 6:1-110. 

Hubbard, J.P. 1978. Revised check-list of the birds of New Mexico. New Mexico Ornithol. Soc. 

Jones, J.K., Jr., R.S. Hoffman, D.W. Rice, J. Jones, R.J. Baker and M.D. Engstrom. 1992. 

Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional papers. The 

Museum, Texas Tech University. No. 146, 23 pp. 

Karl, T.R., R.G. Baldwin and M.G. Burgen. 1989. Time series of regional season averages of 

maximum, minimum and average temperature and diurnal temperature range across the 

United States: 19011987. Nation. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. Hi st. Climatol. Ser. 4-5. 

Nation. Climat. Data Cen., Asheville, NC 

Kirby, S.F. and W.D. Sellers. 1987. Cold air drainage and urban heating in Tucson, Arizona. J. 

ArizNev. Acad. Sci. 22: 123- 128. 

Ligon, J.S. 1927. Wildlife of New Mexico: it's conservation and management. New Mexico State 

Game Comm., Santa Fe. 

Ligon, J.S. 1961. New Mexico birds and where to find them. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque. 

Lomolino, M.V., J.H. Brown and R Davis. 1989. Island biogeography of montane forest 

mammals in the American Southwest. Ecol. 70: 180- 194. 

Lowe, C.W., Jr. and D.E. Brown. 1982, 1994. Introduction. Pp. 8- 16 In Biotic communities -

Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Mearns, E.A. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States -- a descriptive 

catalogue of the species of mammals occurring in that region with a general summary of the 

natural history and a list of trees. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 56: 1-530. 

52 
Merriam, C.H. 1890. Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountains region and 

desert of the Little Colorado in Arizona. USDA N. Amer. Fauna 3:1-136. 

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon (eds.). 1992. Battle against extinction: native fish management 

in the American West. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Monson, G. and A.R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona 2nd ed. Univ. 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1992. Checklist of the extinct, extirpated and 

vanishing wildlife of New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. 

Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. 

Sellers, W.D. 1990. Greenhouse warming and Arizona. ln Global climatic change: the meeting of 

science and policy. Udall Center Issue Paper 1:12-18. 

Sellers, W.O., R.H. Hill and M. Sanderson-Rae (eds.). 1987. Arizona Climate: the first 100 

years. University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Swarth, H.S. 1914. A distributional list of the birds of Arizona. Pacific Coast Avifauna 

10: 1- 133. 

Van Devender, T.R., R.S. Thompson and J.L. Betancourt. 1987. Vegetation history of the deserts 

of southwestern North America; the nature and timing of the Late Wisconsin-Holocene 

transition. Chap. 15ln W.F. Ruddiman and H.E. Wright, Jr., eds. North America and 

adjacent oceans during the last deglaciation. Geol. Soc. No. Am., Vol. K-3. Boulder, CO. 

53 
Species 

Ursus arctos, Grizzly Bear 1 

Canis lupus, Gray Wolf 1 

Muste/a nigripes, Black-footed Ferret 2• 

3 

Panthera onca, Jaguar 1 

Cervus elaphus, Elk 4 

Bos bison, American Bison 4 

Primary Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

MAMMALS 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Forests and Grasslands 

downward to Madrean Evergreen Woodland and 

Interior chaparral 

Rocky Mountain Montane Forests downward through 

Plains Grassland and Madrean Evergreen Woodland to 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland 

Great Basin Grassland 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland and Riparian 

communities upward to Rocky Mountain Conifer 

Forest 

Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest and Meadow 

Grassland 

Plains Grasslands in West Texas and New Mexico 

BIRDS 

Falco femora/is, Aplomado Falcon Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland 

Centrocercus urrophasianus, Sage Grouse 5 Great Basin Desertscrub with Wet Meadows 

Pediocetes phasioanellus, Sharp-tailed Grouse 5 Intermountain Grassland interspersed with Scrub 

Table 1. Nine species of terrestrial mammals and birds breeding in the American 

Southwest in 1890 and that were extirpated prior to 1990. 

1. Purposefully extirpated through direct human intervention. 

2. Inadvertently extirpated through direct human intervention. 

3. Shown to be susceptible to diseases transmitted by introduced animals. 

4. Successfully reintroduced after 1912. 

5. Populations shown to be susceptible to livestock grazing and changes in land use. 

54 
Species Primary Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

MAMMALS 

Lepus alieni, Antelope Jackrabbit 

?Spermophilus tridecemliniatus, 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel 

Cynomys Judovicianus, 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 1 

Cynomys gunnisoni, Gunnison1S Prairie Dog 1 

?Tamius minimus, Least Chipmunk 

?Crategeomys castanops, 

Yellow-faced Pocket Gopher 

Microtus pennsylvanicus, Meadow Vole 2 

Sigmodon arizonae, Arizona Cotton Rat 

Zapus hudsonius, Meadow Jumping Mouse 2 

Vulpes velox, Kit Fox, Swift Fox 1

• 3 

Ursus americanus, Black Bear 1 

Odocoileus virginianus, White-tailed Deer 

Antilocapra americana? Pronghorn 

Ovis canadensis, Bighorn Sheep3 

Sonoran Savanna Grassland, Sonoran Desertscrub, 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland 

Plains and Great Basin Grasslands 

Plains and Chihuahuan Semidesert 

Grasslands 

Great Basin Grassland 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane 

Conifer Forests and Montane Meadows 

Plains Grassland 

Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Meadows 

and Marshlands 

Grassy areas within Sonoran Desertscrub and 

various Riparian Biomes 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane 

Meadows; Marshlands 

Sonoran, Mohave and Chihuahuan 

Desertscrubs; Plains Grassland 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane 

Conifer Forests 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland, Chihuahuan 

Semidesert Grassland and Riparian Forest 

within Interior Chaparral and other Biomes 

Plains and Chihuahuan Semidesert 

Grasslands; Sonoran Desertscrub (Lower 

Colorado River Valley subdivision) 

Sonoran and Mohave Desertscrub; 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland; various 

Great Basin and Rocky Mountain Biomes 

Table 2. Thirty-four species of terrestrial mammals and birds breeding 

in the American Southwest and experiencing range reductions since 1890. 

1. Some isolated populations extirpated through direct human intervention. 

2. Largely a wetland species in the Southwest 

3. Shown to be susceptible to diseases transmitted by introduced animals. 

4. Also successfully introduced to non-native habitats. 

5. Populations shown to be susceptible to livestock grazing and/or browsing. 

55 
Species 

Buteo rega/is, Ferruginous Hawk 

Buteo nitidus, Gray Hawk 

Caracara cheriway, Caracara 

Meleagris gal/opavo, Wild Turkey 3

• 4 

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus, 

Lesser Prairie-chicken 5 

Lagopus /eucurus, White-tailed Ptarmigan 5 

Callipepla squamata, Scaled Quail 

Colinus virginianus, Bobwhite 5 

Cyrtonyx montezumae, Montezuma Quail 5 

Columbina passerina, Ground Dove 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus, 

Red-headed Woodpecker 

BIRDS 

Glaucidium brasilianum, Ferruginous Pygmy Owl 

Tyrannus tyrannus, Eastern Kingbird 

Epidonax fulvifrons, Buff-breasted Flycatcher 

?Vireo vicinior, Gray Vireo 

Primar; Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

Great Basin Grassland 

Sonoran and adjacent warm-temperate 

Riparian Woodlands of Mesquite and 

Cottonwood trees 

Sonoran Desertscrub 

Madrean and Rocky Mountain Conifer 

Forests, Riparian Deciduous Forest 

Plains Grassland 

Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra and Shrubland 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland 

Plains Grassland; Sonora Savanna Grassland 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland Savanna 

Weedy fields within Chihuahuan Semidesert 

Grassland and Sonoran Desertscrub 

Riparian Deciduous Forest and telephone 

poles and trees within Plains Grassland 

Sonoran Desertscrub (Arizona upland subdivision) 

Riparian Deciduous Forest and other Wooded 

Habitats within Plains Grassland 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland and Chaparral 

Great Basin Conifer Woodland, 

Interior Chaparral 

?Pafjserina ciris, Painted Bunting Riparian Deciduous Woodlands 

Ammodramus savannarum, Grasshopper Sparrow Plains Grassland, Chihuahuan Semidesert 

Aimophila carpalis, Rufous-winged Sparrow 

Aimophila botterii, Botteri 1

S Sparrow 

Coccothraustes vespertinlls, Evening Grosbeak 

Grassland 

Sonoran Savanna Grassland 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Conifer Forest 

Table 2 (continued). Thirty-four species of terrestrial mammals and birds breeding 

in the American Southwest and experiencing range reductions since 1890. 

1. Some isolated populations extirpated through direct human intervention. 

2. Largely a wetland species in the Southwest. 

3. Shown to be susceptible to diseases transmitted by introduced animals. 

4. Also successfully introduced to non-native habitats. 

5. Populations shown to be susceptible to livestock grazing and/or browsing. 

56 
Species Primary Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

MAMMALS 

Didelphis virginiana, Virginia Opossum 

?Mormoops megalophylla, Ghost-faced Bat 

ldionycteris phyllotis, Allen's Big-eared Bat 

Nyctinomops femorosaccus, 

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat 

Dasypus novemcinctus, Nine-banded Armadillo 

Sciurus aberti, Abert's Squirrel 

Baiomys taylori, Northern Pygmy Mouse 

Sigmodon hispidus, Hispid Cotton Rat 

Various warm temperate Biomes in 

Southwestern Arizona 

Riparian communities within Madrean 

Evergreen in Southwest Texas 

Various warm and cold temperate Biomes 

Sonoran Desertscrub and adjacent warm 

temperate Biomes 

Warm temperate Riparian communities along 

the Pecos River in West Texas 

Madrean and Rocky Mountain Montane 

Conifer Forests 

Plains and Chihuahuan Semidesert Grasslands 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland and 

various Riparian communities 

?Sigmodon su/viventer, Tawny-bellied Cotton Rat Madrean Evergreen Woodland and Chihuahuan 

Semidesert Grassland 

Sigmodon ochrognathus, 

Yellow-nosed Cotton Rat 

Microtus mexicanus, Mexican Vole 

Canis latrans, Coyote 

? Vulpes vulpes, Red Fox 

Nasua narica, White-nosed Coati 

Conepatus meso/eucus, 

Common Hog-nosed Skunk 

Tayassu tajacu, Collared Peccary 

Cervus elaphus, Elk 

Bos bison, Bison 

Odocoileus hemionus, Mule Deer 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland Savanna and 

Montane Meadow Grassland 

Meadow and Grassland areas within Madrean, 

Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Montane Biomes 

All, or nearly all, biomes 

Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra and Subalpine 

Conifer Forest; may now be extending its range 

into Plains and Great Basin Grasslands and 

other Biomes 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland 

Various warm temperate Biomes 

Sonoran Desertscrub and adjacent warm 

temperate Biomes 

Rocky Mountain Montane Forest and adjacent 

Meadows 

Plains and Great Basin Grasslands within and 

outside of historical range 

Nearly all Biomes having sufficient cover and 

not occupied by 0. virginianus 

Table 3. Fifty-five species of terrestrial mammals and birds that appear to have 

increased their breeding distributions in the American Southwest since 1890. 

1. Range expansion possibly influenced by the provision of feeding stations. 

2. Some, but not all, range expansions are due to introductions. 

3. Despite what appears to be a general increase in distribution, at least one race (S. f. go/dmani) of this 

species is believed to have been extirpated in the Southwest. 

4. Populations of this species have continued to increase in distribution since being reintroduced (and in 

some cases introduced) after 1912. 

57 
Species 

Coragyps atratus, Black Vulture 

lctlnia mississippiensis, Mississippi Kite 

Elanus leucurus, White-tailed Kite 

Parabuteo unicinctus, Harris Hawk 

Scardasella inca, Inca Dove 

Zenaida asiatica, White-winged Dove 

?Chaetura pelagica, Chimney Swift 

?Calothorax lucifer, Lucifer Hummingbird 

BIRDS 

Ca/ypte anna, Anna's Hummingbird 

?Amazilia beryl/ina, Berylline Hummingbird 

Amazilia violiceps, Violet-crowned Hummingbird 

Trogon elegans, Elegant Trogon 

Euplilotus neoxenus, Eared Trogon 

Dendrocopos pubescens, Downy Woodpecker 

Tyrannus crassirostris, Thick-billed Kingbird 

Tyrannus melancholicus, Tropical Kingbird 

Cyanocitta cristata, Blue Jay 

Primary Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

Sonoran Desertscrub 

Riparian Deciduous Forest within Sonoran 

Desertscrub 

Riparian Deciduous Forest within Chihuahuan 

Semidesert Grassland 

Sonoran Desertscrub (Arizona upland division); 

Mohave Desertscrub; Mesquite and other 

dense vegetation within Chihuahuan Desertscrub 

Urban areas within Sonoran Desertscrub 

Sonoran Desertscrub and adjacent 

warm-temperate Biomes including residential areas 

Urban and residential areas 

Riparian communities within Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland Savanna 

Urban areas within Sonoran Desertscrub 

Riparian communities within Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland 

Riparian communities within Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland 

Riparian communities within Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland 

Riparian communities within Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland 

Deciduous trees within Rocky Mountain Subalpine 

and Montane Forests; Riparian Deciduous Forest 

Riparian Deciduous Forests within Chihuahuan 

Semidesert Grassland and Sonoran Desertscrub 

Riparian deciduous woodlands within Chihuahuan 

Semidesert Grassland and Sonoran Desertscrub 

Riparian deciduous trees and residential areas 

Table 3 (Continued). Fifty-five species of terrestrial mammals and birds 

that appear to have increased their breeding distributions 

in the American Southwest since 1890. 

1. Range expansion possibly influenced by the provision of feeding stations. 

2. Some, but not all, range expansions are due to introductions. 

3. Despite what appears to be a general increase in distribution, at least one race (S. f. goldmani) of this 

species is believed to have been extirpated in the Southwest. 

4. Populations of this species have continued to increase in distribution since being reintroduced (and in 

some cases introduced) after 1912. 

58 
Species 

Parus atricapil/us, Black-capped Chickadee 

Toxostoma bendirei, Bendire Thrasher 

Sialia sialis, Eastern Bluebird 

Heliminthophila luciae, Lucy Warbler 

Cardel/ina rubrifrons, Red-faced Warbler 

Cardinalis cardinalis, Cardinal 

Cardinalis sinuatus, Pyrrhuloxia 

Piranga bidentata, Flame-colored Tanager 

Icterus spurius, Orchard Oriole 

Icterus cucullatus, Hooded Oriole 

Quiscalus mexicana, Great-tailed Grackle 

Quiscalus quiscula, Common Grackle 

Molothrus ater, Brown-headed Cowbird 

Molothrus aeneus, Bronzed Cowbird 

Primary Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane 

Conifer Forests; cold temperate Riparian Deciduous 

Forest 

Sonoran Desertscrub, Chihuahuan Desertscrub, 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland 

Riparian Deciduous Woodland, Madrean 

Evergreen Woodland 

Mesquite communities within Sonoran 

Desertscrub and various warm temperate Riparian 

Biomes 

Madrean Evergreen Forest and Woodland 

Riparian communities within Sonoran 

Desertscrub (Arizona upland subdivision) 

Denser communities within Sonoran and 

Chihuahuan Desertscrub 

Riparian communities within Madrean 

Evergreen Woodland 

Riparian Deciduous Woodlands and residential 

areas in Southeast New Mexico 

Tropical and warm temperate Riparian Deciduous 

Forests within Sonoran, Chihuahuan and Mohave 

Biomes 

Urban and cultivated lands within Sonoran 

Desertscrub and various warm temperate and 

cold temperate Biomes 

Urban and cultivated lands within various cold 

temperate Biomes 

Ranch yards, irrigated areas and Riparian 

areas from tropical to cold temperate Biomes 

Ranch yards, irrigated areas and Riparian 

communities within Chihuahuan semidesert 

Table 3 (Continued). Fifty-five species of terrestrial mammals and birds 

that appear to have increased their breeding distributions in the American 

Southwest since 1890. 

1. Range expansion possibly influenced by the provision of feeding stations. 

2. Some, but not all, range expansions are due to introductions. 

3. Despite what appears to be a general increase in distribution, at least one race (S. f. goldmani) of this 

species is believed to have been extirpated in the Southwest. 

4. Populations of this species have continued to increase in distribution since being reintroduced (and in 

59 
Species Primary Biotic Affinities in the Southwest 

MAMMALS 

Scirus niger, Eastern Fox Squirrel 

Rattus rattus, Black Rat 1 

Rattus norvegicus, Norway Rat 

Mus museu/us, House Mouse 

Camelops spp., Dromedary and Bactrian Camels 

Equus asinus, Feral Ass 

Equus cabal/us, Feral Horse 

Ammotragus /ervia, Barbary Sheep 1 

Oryx gazel/a, Gemsbok 

Capra hircus, Goat 1 

Capra ibex, Ibex 

Sus scrota, Feral Pig 

Riparian Deciduous Forests, Orchards and 

residential Parks within Chihuahuan and 

Sonoran Biomes 

In and around human habitations within 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland, 

Chihuahuan Desertscrub and Sonoran 

Desertscrub 

In and around human habitations within a 

variety of Biomes 

In and around human habitations; Chihuahuan 

Semidesert Grassland, Plains Grassland and 

Riparian communities within several biomes 

Mohave and Sonoran Desertscrubs 

Sonoran and Mohave Desertscrubs; 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland, Great 

Basin Desertscrub and Great Basin Conifer 

Woodland 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland, Sonoran 

Desertscrub, Interior Chaparral, Great Basin 

Conifer Woodland and possible other Biomes 

Rugged areas within Plains, Chihuahuan and 

Great Basin 

Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland and 

Chihuahuan Desertscrub 

Sonoran Desertscrub, Chihuahuan Semidesert 

Grassland, Interior Chaparral 

Interior chaparral, Chihuahuan Semidesert 

Grassland, Great Basin Scrubland and possibly 

other Biomes 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland 

BIRDS 

Alectoris chukar, Chukar 

Phasianus colchicus, Pheasant 

Lophortyx californicus, California Quail 

Columba Iivia, Rock Dove 

Stumus, vulgaris, Starling 

Passer domesticus, House Sparrow 

Great Basin Desertscrub and Grassland 

Agricultural areas within various warm temperate 

and cold temperate biomes 

Riparian scrubland within Plains Grassland 

In and around human habitations in various biomes. 

In and around human habitations in various biomes. 

In and around human habitations in various biomes. 

Table 4. Exotic species of terrestrial mammals and birds which 

became established in the American Southwest between 1890 and 1990. 

1. Present status unknown; may now be absent from the Southwest 

60 
Alpine Tundra 

Lagopus leucurus 

Grasslands 

(includes Meadows and Savanna) 

Lepus alieni 

Spermophi/us tridecem/iniatus 

Cynomys ludovicianus 2 

Cynomys gunnisoni 2 

Crategeomys castanops 

Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Sigmodon arizonae 

Zapus hudsonius 

Mustela nigripes 2 

Antilocapra americana 

Cervus elaphus 3 

Bos bison 3 

Buteo rega/is 

Falco femora/is 

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 

Centrocercus urophasianus 

Pediocetes phasianellus 

Callipepla squamata 

Colinus virginianus 

Cyrtonyx montezumae 

Ammodramus savannarum 

Aimophila carpalis 

Aimophila botterii 

Forests and Woodlands 

Tamius minimus 

Odocoi/eus virginianus 

Buteo nitidus 

Meleagris gallopavo 2

• 

3 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

?Vireo vicinior 

?Passerina ciris 

Coccthraustes vespertinus 

Desertlands 

Vulpes velox 2 

Ovis canadensis 2 

Caracara cherwayi 

Scrublands 

Epidonax fulvifrons 

Glaucidium brasileanum 

Residential Areas and 

Farmlands 

Columbina passerina 

Table 5. Formation-type affinities of 39 terrestrial 

mammals and birds that have been extirpated or 

experienced range reduction in the American Southwest since 1890 1 

1. Large predators excepted. 

2. Shown to be susceptible to diseases transmitted by introduced animals. 

3. Now successfully introduced to both former and non-native habitats. 

61 
Great Basin 

(NNW) 

Cynomys gunnisoni 

Mustela nigripes 2 

Centrocercus urophasianus 

Pediocetes phasianellus 

Buteo regalis 

Southeastern 

(E) 

Odocoileus virginanus 

Meleagris gal/opavo 

Melanerpes erythrocepha/us 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

Passerina ciris 

Madrean 

(S) 

Odocoileus virginianus 3 

Meleagris gal/opavo 2

, 3

' 

4 

Cyrtonyx montezumae 

Epidonax fulvifrons 

Rocky Mountain 

(N. NE) 

Tam/as mlnlmus 

Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Zapus hudsonius 

Lagopus leucurus 

Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Tamaulipan 

(E. SE) 

Falco femora/is 

Sonoran/Sinaloan 

(S. SW) 

Lepus alieni 

Sigmodon arizonae 

Buteo nitidus 

Caracara cheriway 

Colinus virginianus 

Columbina passerina 

G/aucidium brasilianum 

Aimophila carpalis 

Plains (NE E) 

Spermophilus tridecemliniatus 

Cynomys ludovicianus 2 

Crategeomys castanops 

Bos bison 4 

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 

Colinus virginianus 3 

Vireo vicinior 

Ammodramus savannarum 

Chihuahuan 

(SE. S) 

Callipepla squamata 

Aimophila botterii 

Widely Distributed 

Within Southwest 

Vulpes velox 

Ovis canadensis 

Table 6. Principal biotic affinities and direction of biogeographic center for 

39 species of terrestrial mammals and birds that have been extirpated or 

experienced range reductions in the American Southwest since 1890. 1 

1. Large predators excepted. 

2. Shown to be susceptible to diseases transmitted by introduced animals. 

3. Southwest populations having more than one primary biotic affinity. 

4. Successfully introduced to former and non-native habitats after 1890. 

62 
Alpine Tundra Forests and Woodlands Scrublands 

None Didelphis virginianus Tayassu tajacu 

?Mormoops megalophylla Odocoileus hemionus 

ldionycteris phyllotis Parabuteo unicinctus 

Dasypus novemcinctus Zenaida asiatica 

Sciurus aberti 2 Heliminthophilia luciae 

Sigmodon fulviventer 3 Cardinialis cardinalis 

Sigmodon ochrognathus Cardina/is sinuatus 

Nasua narica 

Conepatus mesoleucus 

Cervis elaphus 4 

lctinia mississippiensis 

Capri/mulgus ridgwayi 

?Calothorax lucifer 1 

?Amazilia beryl/ina 1 

Amazilia violiceps 

Trogon elegans 

Euptilotus neoxenus 

Dendrocopos pubescens 

Tyrannus crassirostris 

Tyrannus melancholicus 

Cyanocitta cristata 

Parus atricappillus 

Sialia sialis 

Cardellina rubrifrons 

Piranga bidentata 

Icterus spurius 

Icterus culcullatus 

Passerina cyanea 

Passerina versicolor 

Grasslands Desertlands Residential Areas & Farmlands 

Baiomys taylori Nyctinomops femorosaccus Scardafel/a inca 

Sigmodon hispidus Coragyps atratus Chaetura pelagica 

Microtus mexicanus Toxostoma bendirei Two or More Aimophila quinquestriata Calypte anna 1 

Bos bison 4 Quiscalus quiscula Formation-Types 

Elanus leucurus Molothrus ater Canis latrans 

Molothrus aeneus Vulpes vulpes 

Table 7. Primary Formation-type affinity of 55 terrestrial mammals and birds breeding in 

the American Southwest and that have experienced range expansions since 1890. 

1. Range expansion possibly influenced by the provision of feeding stations. 

2. Some, but not all range expansions are due to introductions. 

3. Despite what appears to be a general increase in distribution, one race of this species, S. f. goldmani, is 

believed to have become extinct. 

4. Populations of this species have continued to increase in distribution since being reintroduced or 

transplanted after 1912. 

63 
Great Basin 

(NNW) 

None 

Southeastern 

(E) 

Didelphis virginiana 1 

lctinia mississippiensis 

?Chaetura pelagica 

Cyanocitta cristata 

Sialia sialis 

Icterus spurius 

Quiscalus quiscula 

Passerina cyanea 

Madrean 

(S) 

?Mormoops megalophyl/a 

ldionycteris phyllotis 

Sciurus aberti 

Sigmodon ochrognathus 

Microtus mexicanus 

Nasua narica 

Conepatus mesoleucus 

Calothorax lucifer 

?Amazilia beryl/ina 

Amazilia violiceps 

Trogon elegans 

Euptilotus neoxenus 

Cardellina rubifrons 

Piranga bidentata 

Aimophila quinquestriata 

Rocky Mountain 

(N. NE) 

Vulpes vulpes 

Cervus elaphus 

Dendrocopos pubescens 1 

Parus atricapillus 1 

Tamaulipan 

(E. SE) 

Dasypus novemcinctus 

?Sigmodon hispidus 

Sigmodon fulviventer 

Aimophila cassinii 

Sonoran/Sinaloan 

(S, SW) 

Didelphis virginiana 1 

Nyctinomops femorosaccus 

Tayassu rajacu 

Coragyps atratus 

Parabuteo unicinctus 

Scardafella inca 

Zenaida asiatica 

Caprilmulgus ridgwayi 

Tyrannus crassirostris 

Tyrannus melancholicus 

Toxostoma bendirei 

Heliminthophila luciae 

Cardinalis cardinalis 

Quiscalus mexicana 

Molothrus aeneus 

Passerina versicolor 

Centered or Widely Distributed Within the Southwest 

Canis latrans 

Odocoileus hemionus 

Cardina/is sinuatus 

Icterus cucullatus 

Molothrus ater 

Plains 

(NE. E) 

Bos bison 

Chihuahuan 

(SE. S) 

Baiomys taylori 

Californian 

(W) 

Elanus leucurus 

Calypte anna 

Table 8. Principal biotic affinities and direction of biogeographic center for 55 species of terrestrial 

mammals and birds that have expanded their range in the American Southwest since 1890. 

1. Advancing in more than one direction 

64 
Herpetology of the Sulphur Springs 

Valley, Cochise County, Arizona 

Philip C. Rosen\ Shawn S. Sartorius1

, 

Cecil R. Schwalbe2

, Peter A. Holm\ and Charles H. Lowe2 

ABSTRACT 

The valleys of southeastem Arizona exemplify the biological 

diversity of the desert grassland. Among them, the Sulphur Springs 

Valley has especially significant amphibian and turtle populations, at 

least two of which (plains leopard frog and yellow mud turtle) are 

presently in danger of extirpation. It has one remaining key 

Chiricahua leopard frog population, but has already lost other 

populations of this threatened species. 

Based on our work 1993-6 and earlier, and on museum records, 

we present an annotated checklist of the 61 species (11 frogs and 

toads, 1 salamander, 3 turtles, 211izards, and 25 snakes) 

confirmed from the valley. Based on habitat use and geographic 

distribution, this fauna has a core of (Chihuahuan) Desert Grassland 

taxa (many of which also occupy plains grassland and Chihuahuan 

desertscrub), and a smaller number of widespread North American 

Desert species. Sonoran Desert species are either rare or restricted 

to low arid slopes, and Madrean Woodland species enter the valley 

only peripherally. 

Long utilized for farming and ranching, the Sulphur Springs Valley 

now faces suburbanization and increasing traffic. This could rapidly 

close its open spaces and eliminate the potential for native 

ecosystem restoration. This is so even though the herpetofauna is 

still robust--except for aquatic species and the massasauga. We 

recommend a conservation program that includes land acquisition, 

cooperative work with landholders, state protection, and additional 

survey and research as needed. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Sulphur Springs Valley (SSV) presents the herpetofauna of the desert grassland, including 

many characteristic species and subspecies, ranging widely over a large valley area. We focus on 

this valley for two reasons. First, it has heavy and increasing human impact, and second, it supports 

a diversity of wetland reptiles and has extensive amphibian populations, including declining species. 

We summarize our field observations, a national search of museum records, and discuss eco- and 

1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 2 Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, School of 

Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

·65 
biogeography of the herpetofauna. We conclude with a summary of key aspects of herpetological 

conservation biology. 

It has been suggested that the desert grassland in SE Arizona and nearby areas may have a 

characteristic herpetofauna (Parmenter and Van Devender, 1995), or that it is a filter barrier 

between biomes (Morafka, 1977). The desert grassland may also be envisioned as co-extensive 

with the Chihuahuan Desert (Schmutz eta/., 1992), although Morafka (1977) treats it as an 

ecotone with strongest ties to Chihuahuan (desert) and Kansan (plains grassland) biogeographic 

provinces. Parmenter and Van Devender (1995) noted taxonomic differentiation to only the 

subspecific level (except for the recently derived parthenogenetic species, the desert grassland 

whiptail), as expected for a recently derived biome (Van Devender, 1995). Perhaps there is a more 

unique component of this system, one involving arid-adapted species of the southern and western 

plains and of grassy aspects of the Chihuahuan Desert. If so, and after our limited geographic study 

we think so, then the desert grassland herpetofauna is indeed unique and diverse, and moreover, 

this area is an important evolutionary arena for herpetofauna. 

The grassland biome, compared to woodland or forest, is relatively recent in origin (although 

older than desert), perhaps of mid-Cenozoic vintage (Van Devender, 1995). In SE Arizona, desert 

grassland has been continuously present for perhaps 8,000 or 9,000 years, since the last pluvial 

(Martin, 1963), at which time woodland and forest flora descended at least to Willcox Playa. Over 

glacial-interglacial cycles in the Pleistocene, these biotas have presumably waxed and waned 

repeatedly at any given locale. 

Environment of the Chiricahua region desert grasslands. 

The grasslands in Cochise County are a mosaic of desert grassland proper (with dominance of 

arid-adapted grasses in their ecological metropolis), scrub-invaded grasslands with much mesquite 

and burroweed (lsocoma tenuisectus), Chihuahuan desertscrub, and sites with mixed thornscrub 

and perennial grass. Many of the grasslands, especially the scrub-invaded ones, are co-dominated 

by the introduced Lehmann•s love grass (Eragrostis lehmanniana). 

The SSV is the area from Douglas to Fort Grant, and encircled by the Galiuro, Santa Teresa, 

Pinalerio, Chiricahua, Dos Cabezas, Dragoon, Mule, Pedregosa, and Perilla Mountains (Fig. 1). It 

continues slightly farther south in Mexico, to the Sierras Anibacichi and Ceniza and Cerro Cabullona, 

but we did not work there. It is a large valley, about 190 long x 25-40 km wide. Elevations range 

from 4,000-4,300 ft (1,219-1,311 m) in the flats to 4,500-5,200 ft (1,372-1,585 m) at the base 

of the rock slopes. 

The SSV has a well developed slope gradient. There are rock slopes supporting juniper or 

mesquite savannah, grassland, grassland-shrub, thornscrub, or desertscrub. Immediately below the 

rock slopes, uppermost bajadas (less rocky and steep) may support similar vegetation, before giving 

way to middle bajadas that support either Chihuahuan desertscrub, plains grassland, or mesquiteburroweed scrub. Lower bajadas are still slightly sloping but have finer and denser soils, and 

typically have more mesquite and burroweed, and often much grass and soaptree yucca (Yucca 

elata). We include all of these environments in this treatment of the SSV. 

Most characteristic of the SSV is the broad level floor extending at a distance from Whitewater 

Draw in the south and from Willcox Playa in the north. The southern area supports a distinctive 

tobosa (Hilaria mutica)-dominated desert grassland flora, extending from McNeal to about 3 mi 

north of Douglas. East of this is a classic swath of Chihuahuan desertscrub on the bajada, grading 

eastward into thornscrub-grassland around the Leslie Canyon riparian gallery forest. The valley floor 

near Douglas, below the tobosa patch, supports a diverse, medium-tall scrub of mesquite and other 

66 
dry tropic shrub-trees, yucca, agave, and mixed cactus, with Chihuahuan desertscrub in places. 

To the north, the saline flats around Willcox Playa support a grassland, dominated by alkali 

sacaton (S. wrightii) and saltgrass (Distich/is stricta), which is thoroughly invaded by mesquitedominated scrub except in the NE quadrant. Mesquite scrub extends up the Dragoon bajada to the 

west, while a bajada grassland extends east from the playa to mixed thornscrub, or to Madrean 

woodland, at the Dos Cabezas or Chiricahua Mountain bases respectively. The va~y north of 

Willcox is primarily agricultural, and was little surveyed by us. 

The Sulphur and Squaretop Hills dominate the center of the SSV, which is occupied by scrub 

and introduced grasses in most areas. South of this central area, the valley floor is extensively 

agricultural to Elfrida and even southwest of McNeal near Whitewater Draw. Martin (1963) presents 

an excellent description of vegetation and landform in the southern part of the valley. 

D Mts. 

1 50km 

ARIZONA 

50NORA 

ETlDESERT 

~GRASSLAND 

pSOO km, 

Figure 1 Map of the study area, Sulphur Springs Valley (left) with surrounding mountains shown, and of 

the desert grassland (right, following Schmutz et al., 1992), showing the location of the study area. 

Additional descriptions are given in the text. 

67 
Natural perennial waters in SE Arizona grasslands are primarily valley bottom springs; mountain 

streams submerge before entering the valleys, except during floods. The San Bernardino, San 

Pedro, Santa Cruz, and Babacomari Rivers, and Cienega and Arivaca Creeks (and formerly the San 

Simon River) rise on grassland floors. Whitewater Draw rose in grassland as a partly permanent 

stream (Hendrickson and Minckley, 1985), perhaps largely drying during less rainy eras. The 

Sulphur Springs probably had the least perennial water of any SE Arizona valley, save the Avra-Aitar 

on the Sonoran Desert edge. Today, major valley spring systems are modified by impoundment and 

by down-cutting of streams into formerly marshy cienegas. Man-made stock ponds dot the 

landscape, and many sites are supplied with wind-powered wells, maintaining unnaturally constant 

water levels. Water is more widespread on the landscape than originally, but there is far less natural 

wetland habitat. 

Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of 

the Sulphur Springs Valley, Cochise County, Arizona 

The primary focus of this checklist is to (1) present an overview of a desert grassland fauna, (2) 

outline community structure and biogeography in relationship to habitat, and (3) identify key issues 

for conservation or management. We worked extensively in the valley for three years, 1993-1996. 

In addition, we include data from previous work in the valley, principally during the 198Q•s and mid197o•s. The 199o•s field work produced 701 observations (195 for anurans, 8 for salamanders, 45 

for turtles, 114 for lizards, 338 for snakes), with each observation being an independent locality 

record, sometimes of numerous individuals per species. Finally, we made inquiries of many 

museums, and incorporated the resultant information for 2640 specimen records (681 anurans, 2 

salamanders, 60 turtles, 1315 lizards, 582 snakes) into this report. The work reported here is not 

exhaustive--much remains to be learned, even at the survey level, and even in areas we worked 

intensively. 

The currently known species total for SSV includes 61 species (11 frogs and toads, 1 

salamander, 3 turtles, 211izards, and 25 snakes; see Table 1): we observed 53 during the 199o•s. 

There will undoubtedly be additions as more data become available. In evaluating occurrence and 

abundance of species, we have relied on the data at hand, and information in Lowe and Johnson 

(1976), Lowe and Zweifel (1992), and Nickerson and Mays (1969). The common names used are 

those for the species as a whole; trinomials (subspecific designations) are given only for regionally 

endemic forms. 

Amphibians. 

Sonoran Desert Toad--Bufo alvarius. Abundant in Chihuahuan desertscrub-alkali sacaton in 

Malpai lands of the lower San Bernardino Valley, in Guadalupe Canyon, and as far north as Mormon 

Tank along Black Draw, but rare in SSV. 

GREAT PLAINS TOAD--Bufo cognatus. Abundant throughout the SSV, especially on the bajada east 

and north of Sunizona. Along with Scaphiopus couchii and S. multiplicatus, it is the most widely and 

abundantly observed amphibian in the valley. 

GREEN TOAD--Bufo debilis. Seen breeding in large numbers in 1989 and 1993 in shallow 

grassland temporary ponds in the south-central SSV, and in lower abundance in surrounding desert 

at slightly higher elevations. 

RED-SPOTTED TOAD--Bufo punctatus. In desert grassland on lower slopes; not seen on the valley 

floor or bajadas. 

68· 
WoODHOUSE TOAD--Bufo woodhousii australis (Southwestern Woodhouse Toad). Widespread but 

nowhere seen in numbers in the valley. 

PLAINS SPADEFOOT--Scaphiopus bombifrons. Seen in some abundance in northern sections of the 

valley, south to Elfrida, but not to McNeal. Major breeding sites found in 1993 were identical to 

those vouchered in the 19501

S and 19601S. 

COUCH1S SPADEFOOT--Scaphiopus couchii. Abundant in lowland areas throughout much of the 

SSV and elsewhere in Cochise Co .. In syntopy with other spadefoots it was the least abundant one. 

In the desertified vegetation north of Douglas on Leslie Canyon Road, it was the dominant, and was 

increasingly abundant southward on Central Highway. 

SOUTHERN SPADEFOOT--Scaphiopus multiplicatus. Abundant over a wide area of the SSV, across a 

spectrum of habitats, including lower madrean woodland in Pinery Canyon. 

PLAINS LEOPARD FROG--Rana blairi. Occurs in the SSV more than 300 km west of the nearest 

species population. In 197 4 Frost and Bagnara (1977) found it, as today, on the flats, but also in 

association with lower montane streams. The period of abundance of aquatic amphibians in the 

early-mid 19701

S may represent a short-term climatic maximum, during wetter years, at a time of 

great success of native ranid frogs in man-made waters. There were subsequent extirpations 

caused by introduced species, as seen also in Colorado (Hammerson, 1982). Today the plains 

leopard frog is only at four localities, all on the valley floor, and all with high spatial and temporal 

heterogeneity that allows co-existence with introduced, permanent-water vertebrate species. For 

example, The Lakes on lower Whitewater Draw may cover an area of over 1 km2 during summer 

high water; they may also go nearly dry, apparently constraining the population sizes of introduced 

yellow bullheads (Ameiurus nata/is) and bullfrogs. The plains leopard frog survives by breeding 

during early July rains and transforming prior to pond contraction or drying. 

CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG--Rana chiricahuensis. Formerly at many localities in the valley (Frost 

and Bagnara, 1977; Clarkson and Rorabaugh, 1989), but now extirpated except at Leslie Canyon 

National Wildlife Refuge. It is also in remnant populations in the Chiricahua, Dragoon, and Galiuro 

Mountains (M. Sredl, pers. comm.). Localities formerly occupied on the valley floor either went dry 

after the mid-19801

S, or were occupied by exotic species that usually exclude the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

BULLFROG--Rana catesbeiana. An introduced species, seen by us in the Whitewater Draw 

drainage, and at Sunsites. It appeared at 

West Turkey Creek in the early 19801S 

and rapidly eliminated the native leopard 

frogs throughout the system there (J. 

Austin, pers. comm.). We also have 

museum records near Kansas Settlement 

in the 1970's and late 19801S, and 

presume it is still there. This species will 

probably continue to spread in the 

Chiricahua region, unless a concerted 

management effort is taken. 

TIGER SALAMANDER--Ambystoma 

tigrinum mavortium (Barred Tiger 

Salamander). Another exotic expanding its . . . 

distribution in the valley area. Greatest F1gure 2 Pla1ns leopar~ fro.g from the Sulphur Spnngs 

abundances were at Willcox sewage Valley. The SSV population IS more than 300 km from 

the nearest species population, and is currently 

restricted to four localities. Photo by Cecil Schwalbe. 

69 
lagoons, power plant ponds southwest of Willcox Playa, and below Chiricahua National Monument. 

However, we saw it on roads further south. Such an obvious abundance could not have been 

overlooked prior to the 196o•s and 197Q•s, tending to confirm the exotic origin of the Cochise 

County population. 

Reptiles. 

WESTERN Box TURTLE--Terrapene ornata luteola (Desert Box Turtle). Seen in numbers in several 

areas of the SSV, which, together with the San Bernardino Valley, is the species core in Arizona. 

During routine summer field work we often saw 2-3 per day. They were found in far greater 

numbers, especially at the hills east of Pearce, prior to severe highway mortality in the 196o•s1980•s. Box turtles are not common north of Sunsites. Although we didn't record them in 

Chihuahuan desertscrub in the SSV, they occur in and near sacaton bottoms in desertscrub at the 

lowest elevations of the San Bernardino Valley. 

YELLOW MuD TURTLE--Kinosternon f. f/avescens (Yellow Mud Turtle). Rare, and only seen in the 

flats of the lower valley (from Elfrida south). This attractive mud turtle is in danger of disappearing 

from the SSV. We also discovered this taxon in Graham Co., in thriving populations in the San 

Simon and Whitlock valleys, also on the valley floor. Appropriate wetland management may be 

required to prevent the extirpation of this subspecies from Arizona. 

SONORAN MuD TURTLE--Kinosternon sonoriense. Rare in the valley, and known only from just 

south of McNeal to near Douglas. The presence of this turtle is consistent with historical reports of 

perennial flow in lower Whitewater Draw. In contrast, the yellow mud turtle thrives in ephemeral and 

fluctuating summer waters further up-drainage, just as observed for the plains leopard frog. 

MADREAN ALLIGATOR LIZARD--E/garia kingii (=Gerrhonotus kingii). Only on the valley periphery. The 

Whitewater Draw riparian habitat may be too weakly developed to support this species in an arid 

valley. It is possible that microhabitat trampling by cattle, or the historical broad floods across the 

valley floor, contribute to its absence. 

WESTERN BANDED GECKO--Co/eonyx variegatus. Rare or uncommon in high Chihuahuan 

Figure 3 Yellow mud turtle from the Sulphur Springs 

Valley. The population is apparently declining, and the 

species is rare in the valley. This subspecies occurs as a 

western isolate in the Sulphur Springs Valley and 

adjoining San Simon-Whitlock Valleys, at the arid edge 

of its range. Photo by Cecil Schwalbe70 

desertscrub, and possibly mesquite flats. 

GILA MONSTER--He/oderma 

suspectum. Seen uncommonly on high 

desert bajadas and hills. 

LESSER EARLESS LIZARD--Holbrookia 

maculata. Primarily a grassland lizard, 

this is one of four prominent lizards in the 

valley. It was seen on open patches of 

ground. 

GREATER EARLESS LIZARD--Cophosaurus 

texanus. In a restricted band of habitat in 

southern Arizona--on the upper, desert 

bajadas (often on rocks in arroyos) and 

up into the lower mountain slopes in 

Madrean oak woodland. We have not 

verified it for the lowlands. 

COMMON COLLARED LiZARD--

Crotaphytus collaris. Probably on all of 

the rocky hills that are widely scattered in 
and around the valley, but infrequently seen by us in any locality during the past decade on the 

west side of the Chiricahuas. 

LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD--Gambe/ia wislizenii. Well-known from tobosa and alkali sacaton 

habitats on the valley floor, but not seen often during our surveys. 

TEXAs HORNED LIZARD--Phrynosoma cornutum. On the broad flats of the Sulphur Spring Valley 

floor, this species and the Mojave rattlesnake are the only members of their respective diverse 

genera; and both are quite frequently seen. The Texas horned lizard, however, is also in high 

Chihuahuan desertscrub, unlike the Mojave (which is replaced there by the western diamondback); 

but like the Mojave (again replaced, in low Chihuahuan desertscrub, by the diamondback), the 

Texas horned lizard tends to be replaced by the regal horned lizard at the lower grasslanddesertscrub transition. The SSV is a showcase for such habitat partitioning, which is less striking in 

many other areas of SE Arizona. 

SHORT-HORNED LIZARD--Phrynosoma doug/asii. We saw this species locally in the margins of the 

valley. 

ROUND-TAILED HORNED LIZARD--Phrynosoma modestum. Known in the region primarily from stony 

or rocky desert bajadas (Wade Sherbrooke, pers. comm.). 

REGAL HORNED LIZARD--Phrynosoma so/are. Only seen by us in the lower valley near Douglas. In 

the dense desertscrub (thornscrub) or semidesert grassland along Geronimo Trail, it is nearly as 

abundant as the Texas horned lizard, althm . .:gr. neither is seen there frequently. 

CLARK's SPINY LIZARD--Sce/oporus clarkii. An abundant riparian species, consistently present on 

rocky sites within and around the valley, and also abundant in montane oak environments. We have 

not found it in close sympatry with the desert spiny lizard in the Chiricahua region, and only rarely 

so elsewhere in Arizona. 

DESERT SPINY LIZARD--Sce/oporus magister. Uncommon in eastern Cochise Co .. We saw it only at 

three sites on the west and northwest fringes of Willcox Playa in mesquite-burroweed scrubgrassland, and at Hot Well Dunes. 

EASTERN FENCE LIZARD--Sce/oporus undulatus consobrinus (Southern Prairie Lizard). Perhaps the 

second most frequently seen lizard in the valley, where it lives on the ground near dense grass or 

scrub, on shrubs, and on and around, or under, human-made debris. Especially conspicuous at 

corrals and ruins. Also seen occasionally on rocks. 

TREE LIZARD--Urosaurus ornatus. Widespread and abundant, arboreal and saxicolous, this is 

among the four most frequently observed lizards in the valley. It is on fence posts, corrals, and walls 

and buildings, especially ruins, on small trees, and on rocks and boulders at hilly sites. 

SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD--Uta stansburiana. Not on the valley floor, but at least occasionally in the 

surrounding high Chihuahuan desertscrub. We only saw it southwest of Castle Dome (Pedregosa 

Mountains), and at Hot Well Dunes. 

GREAT PLAINS SKINK--Eumeces obso/etus. Abundant in some other grassland valleys in SE 

Arizona, its rarity in the Sulphur Springs is apparently real. It is usually seen on thornscrub-grassland 

slopes, and in less arid bajada grassland in the San Bernardino Valley; it is on low rocky slopes, and 

in lower montane canyons, including Leslie Canyon. 

LITTLE STRIPED WHIPTAIL--Cnemidophorus inornatus arizonae (Arizona Whiptail). Described as 

Cnemidophorus arizonae based on an 1894 specimen from "Fairbank" (a generalized locality 

statement in those days [pers. obs.]), it was rediscovered by Wright and Lowe (1965), and still 

occurs, in a local population near Willcox, on the low ground surrounding the dry lake, It is a 

grassland species, here primarily in alkali sacaton and saltgrass. Like the massasauga, it probably 

underwent a range reduction after the terrifrr ~9th-century overgrazing. Sites where Mitchell (1979) 

71 
studied this species now support only the desert grassland whiptail. We found it within about 3 

miles of Willcox in the 19901S, numerically predominant (5 to 1) over the desert grassland whiptail. 

Its range apparently continues to contract in response to invasion and growth of mesquite, with 

competition from the desert grassland whiptail. 11SONORAN SPOTTED11 WHIPTAIL--Cnemidophorus sonorae sensu lato. This is an undescribed 

parthenospecies (John Wright, pers. comm.) that is widespread in SE Arizona on rolling grassland, 

encinal, and desert grassland. Mitchell (1979) collected it from the upper bajada of the Dos 

Cabezas, and we found it to be the only whiptail at Leslie Creek. 

WESTERN WHIPTAIL--Cnemidophorus tigris. Our nearest record for this desert species is at Hot 

Well Dunes in sandy desertscrub. Mitchell (1979) reported it on the Dos Cabezas bajada southeast 

of Willcox. 

DESERT GRASSLAND WHIPTAIL--Cnemidophorus uniparens. This unisexual (all-female, 

parthenogenetic) lizard is ubiquitous in the valley, and is the most conspicuous reptile in most areas 

of the valley floor and on most of the bajadas. It is the only whiptail over virtually the entire area, 

including in most tobosa and other grasslands. 

GLOSSY SNAKE--Arizona e/egans. Uncommon in the valley and elsewhere in Cochise Co.; 

probably has declined significantly over the past 3 decades. Most observations are from the 

mesquite region west of Willcox Playa that yie!ded other widespread desert forms. 

RINGNECK SNAKE--Diadophis punctatus. Apparently absent except in the rocky periphery of the 

valley. Discussion under Madrean alligator lizard applies verbatim here. 

GREEN RAT SNAKE--E/aphe triaspis ( = Senticolis triaspis). Rare in low canyons with riparian 

development. It is known to enter grassland environments at distance from such canyons (D. 

Parizek, pers. comm.), so we expect its occasional presence in the valley. 

CHIHUAHUAN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE--Gya/opion canum. Rarely seen in SE Arizona, almost always on 

bajadas (in both grassland and desertscrub) or lower mountain slopes (in canyons and well up into 

oak woodland). Recorded in the valley from high bajada grassland near Chiricahua National 

Monument, and in the tobosa grassland area south of McNeal. 

WESTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE--Heterodon nasicus kenner/yi (Mexican Hognose Snake). We found 

only road-killed hognose snakes, suggesting that their diurnal activity and love of warmth are costly 

under increasing automotive traffic in the valley. The SSV may be the ecological metropolis for this 

species in Arizona, as might be expected for a toad- and frog-eating snake. We saw them primarily 

in the vicinity of major anuran choruses, and most often during the brief temporary pond anuran 

breeding season. 

NIGHT SNAKE--Hypsig/ena torquata. Has the broadest ecological range of any Arizona reptile 

except the gopher snake; but not seen by us on grassland flats in the SSV. 

COMMON KINGSNAKE--Lamprope/tis getula splendida. At its ecological metropolis for Arizona in 

grasslands around the Chiricahuas, it vies with the Mojave rattler for most frequently seen snake in 

the SSV grasslands. It is present as the speckled-saddled subspecies, inaptly named 11desert 

kingsnake11 ; we suggest 11desert grassland kingsnake11 • West of Willcox Playa, the kingsnakes are 

intermediate between this and the western form, L g. californiae. 

SONORAN WHIPSNAKE--Masticophis bilineatus. A Madrean and riparian species that is in the valley 

periphery, often in abundance in lower canyons. 

COACHWHIP--Masticophis flagellum. As for the gopher snake, not as common as expected in 

grassland flats. The valley population may be a blend of three subspecies. 

GOPHER SNAKE (BULLSNAKE)--Pituophis t:leleno/eucus. Our observations suggest (surprisingly, 

considering its broad niche, distribution, and frequent association with grasslands) that it is not very 

72 
common in native grassland habitats on the valley floor. 

LONG-NOSED SNAKE--Rhinocheilus /econtei. A desert-oriented species that is moderately 

abundant in the SSV. Those we observed were a bright red morph similar to R. I. tesselatus. 

GRAHAM PATCH-NOSED SNAKE--Sa/vadora grahamiae. Primarily a montane species, abundant in 

the region, that may appear in bajada habitats with Sa/vadora hexa/epis. 

WESTERN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE--Sa/vadora hexa/epis. Normally a habitat generalist in the desert, 

valley records are restricted to high on the bajada. We recorded it rarely in the SSV, possibly as a 

sampling artifact: it is abundant in low Chihuahuan desertscrub in the San Bernardino Valley, and 

elsewhere on grassy bajadas in SE Arizona. 

GROUND SNAKE--Sonora semiannulata. This species, usually regarded as a habitat generalist, in 

southern Arizona is primarily in grassland, degraded desert grassland, and encinal (oak) grassland 

habitats. It is found, sometimes in abundance, only at a few grassland or encinal localities. Local 

demes in Arizona (except near Phoenix) of this polymorphic species tend to be monomorphic, and 

many demes present unique coloration details. Thus, this species shows strong local differentiation, 

and may be locally adapted. On southern Arizona uplands, snakes have red with black crossbanding. The three specimens we have examined from the SSV floor are brown or tan with a single 

reddish-purple mid-dorsal stripe, generally like those from other southern Arizona valley floors. 

Despite its poor showing during the relatively dry years of our work (as also for other small secretive 

snakes), it appears to be a strongly grassland-associated component of the regional herpetofauna. 

SOUTHWESTERN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE--Tantilla hobartsmithi. The records are from west and 

northwest of Willcox, in an area with records for other widespread desert forms not seen elsewhere 

in the SSV. 

PLAINS BLACK-HEADED SNAKE--Tantilla nigriceps. Thus far, no records for the southern portion of 

the valley. 

BLACK-NECKED GARTER SNAKE--Thamnophis cyrtopsis. A canyon-dweller in Arizona that is also 

occasionally seen on valley floors. Surprisingly abundant around the Chiricahuas on bajadas at 

distance from rocky slopes. There is a large metapopulation in the Chiricahua Mountains that 

extends into Chihuahuan desertscrub and high grassland where we might otherwise expect the 

checkered garter snake. 

CHECKERED GARTER SNAKE--Thamnophis marcianus. The only garter snake seen on the SSV floor, 

where it is abundant at most (probably all) sites with breeding populations of anurans, especially in 

the flats around Whitewater Draw. 

LYRE SNAKE--Trimorphodon biscutatus. Usually rock-associated, in Cochise County it may be 

seen in Chihuahuan desertscrub many miles from rocky slopes. We found it in the Leslie Canyon 

riparian. 

TEXAs BLIND SNAKE--Leptotyphlops dulcis. The most frequently-collected blind snake in SE 

Arizona. 

WESTERN CORAL SNAKE--Micruroides euryxanthus. Mainly peripheral in the valley, though locally 

common at least in the high arid scrub near Dos Cabezas. 

WESTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKE--Creta/us atrox. Remarkably, not seen on the floor of the 

valley at all during 1993-1996, although museum records place it west and northwest of Willcox 

Playa on the valley floor, as for B. alvarius, S. magister, T. hobartsmithi, A. elegans, and L. getula 

splendida X californiae. Despite its absence from the valley floor, the diamondback was abundant in 

all regional Chihuahuan desertscrub environments we studied, as well as on the Dragoon bajada. It 

occurs on or near rocky hills within th0 vaiiey. Despite the burgeoning abundance of the 

diamondback in recent decades (Mendelson and Jennings, 1992; Rosen eta/., 1996a), it has not 

73 
invaded Mojave rattlesnake habitat in the SSV, and may even have contracted in habitat 

distribution. There may be a constriction of desert species populations in SE Arizona as the 

environment recovers from historic overgrazing. Species successful in highly xeric environments (the 

Mojave rattler, glossy snake, and possibly others) may decline (in relative or absolute terms) due to 

niche space contraction simultaneous with expansion of competitor populations. 

BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE--Grata/us mo/ossus. An abundant montane and rock-dwelling species 

in SE Arizona that is at Leslie Canyon and may be on rocky hills in the valley. 

MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE--Grata/us scutu/atus. The most frequently seen snake in the valley. In the 

Sonoran Desert, this species broadly overlaps the western diamondback in macro- and microhabitat, but in the SSV and much of the rest of SE Arizona there is sharp habitat partitioning. 

Perhaps co-existence in the Sonoran Desert reflects the marked xeroriparian-upland desertscrub 

differentiation within Sonoran Desert environments. Some SE Arizona grassland Mojaves look like 

prairie rattlers (C. v. vi rid is), but all that we examined had key characters unmistakably identifying 

them as Mojaves. 

MASSASAUGA--Sistrurus catenatus edwardsi (Desert Massasauga). This species was as far west 

as the Huachuca Mountains bajada in historic times, but now is virtually restricted to a few miles of 

habitat in the San Bernardino Valley (Andy Hoiycross, pers. comm.) above 5000• (1525m) 

elevation. Conversion of desert grassland from grassland to scrub under historic overgrazing is 

probably the cause of decline, and may be ongoing. The SSV population, known only from the 

tobosa area in the southern valley, seems to be vanishing. There is a voucher from as late as 1989, 

although we located none despite some directed searching. There is a possible sight record for the 

old Willcox dump (Clay May, pers. comm.). This is a species of great conservation concern in the 

valley. 

Potential Species. 

We regard the following taxa to be of possible (?) or probable (*) occurrence in the Sulphur 

Springs Valley. In the following cases listed taxa would enter the valley only peripherally: canyon 

treefrog (Hy/a arenicolor, *), lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis*), desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii?), mountain skink (Eumeces ca/licephalus?), zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides?; 

seen at Hot Well Dunes), bunch-grass lizard (Sceloporus sca/aris?), canyon spotted whiptail 

(Cnemidophorus burti?), Chihuahuan spotted whiptail (C. exsanguis?), additional undescribed 11Sonoran spotted .. whiptails (C. sonorae sensu lata*, including f/age//icaudus), So no ran mountain 

kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana*), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum?), striped whipsnake 

(Masticophis taeniatus?), Yaqui black-headed snake (Tan til/a yaquia*), Mexican garter snake 

(Thamnophis eques?), rock rattlesnake (Crotalus Jepidus?), tiger rattlesnake (C. tigris?), and 

western rattlesnake (C. vi rid is?). The western blind snake (Leptotyphlops humilis*) is highly 

secretive and hence poorly sampled, and may thus occur over some significant portion of the 

valley. 

STRUCTURE AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF THE HERPETOFAUNA 

Species characteristically in Sonoran thornscrub, riparian gallery forest, or Madrean woodland 

are present only peripherally in the Sulphur Springs Valley: Sonoran whipsnake, black-tailed 

rattlesnake, Clark•s spiny lizard, Sonoran spotted whiptail, green rat snake, Mexican garter snake, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, ringneck snake1 Grah3m patch-nosed snake, Madrean alligator lizard, and 

short-horned lizard. The first 4 listed, however, are important in many Sonoran Desert rockpile 

assemblages, and are also abundant on low rocky sites at SSV. Further, the black-necked garter 

74 
snake, which is important in the SSV, is prominent at Sonoran Desert springs (as well as in 

Madrean woodland). Similarly, Sonoran-Mojave Desert endemics in the SSV are rare or mostly 

restricted to upper bajadas and low, arid rock slopes: western coral snake, Gila monster, western 

banded gecko, regal horned lizard, and Sonoran Desert toad. Chihuahuan Desert endemics, 

primarily rock-dwelling reptiles, are absent from the SSV. In summary, on the SSV periphery, the 

herpetofauna of arid rocky habitats has a Sonoran cast. 

Desert species within the SSV are wide-ranging across the North American warm deserts and 

associated semi-arid scrublands: western diamondback and Mojave rattlesnakes, coachwhip, 

western patch-nosed snake (sensu lata), gopher snake, glossy snake, long-nosed snake, common 

kingsnake, night snake, lyre snake, southwestern black-headed snake, western whiptail (sensu 

lata), leopard, collared, desert spiny, tree, and side-blotched lizards, red-spotted toad, and Couch•s 

and southern spadefoots. Of this list, only the first 9 of the 11 snakes listed, the 2 spadefoot toads, 

and the leopard lizard and tree lizard, play significant roles in the SSV desert grassland assemblage. 

The only arguably Chihuahuan desertscrub contribution to the SSV herpetofauna are the roundtailed horned lizard, greater earless lizard, and Chihuahuan hook-nosed snake. However, these 3 

are not true desert species: they are also widespread and prominent in grassland habitats, and we 

interpret them as Chihuahuan desert grassland species that are relatively successful in the desert 

aspect of the desert grassland. 

Few forms are endemic to the northern desert grassland that Morafka (1977) described as a 

filter barrier. These are the recently-derived parthenoforms, desert grassland whiptail and New 

Mexico whiptail (occurring east of the study region). There are endemic subspecies of little striped 

whiptail (C. i. arizonae), the western box turtle (T. o. luteola) and the massasauga (S. c. edwardsi). 

We suggest a broader concept of the desert grassland, as outlined in McClaran and Van Devender 

(1995) and Schmutz eta/. (1992), is especially appropriate for the herpetofauna. 

The core of the SSV herpetofauna, which includes the 4 endemics and 3 11Chihuahuan Desert11 

forms, listed above, is a large group of desert grassland species that centers on the Chihuahuan 

nesert region and the southern plains (especially from north central Texas, to east-central Mexico, 

end to SE Arizona--range maps in Conant and Collins, 1991; Morafka, 1977; and Stebbins, 1985). 

The key forms are: the green toad, Texas toad (Bufo speciosus, which occurs east of our region), 

checkered garter snake, plains black-headed snake, Texas blind snake, little striped whiptail, Texas 

horned lizard, and Great Plains skink; and characteristic subspecies of wide-ranging forms, desert 

grassland kingsnake (L g. splendida), and southern prairie lizard (S. unclulatw consobrinus). We 

associate the ground snake with this group, although it also ranges into the western deserts. 

Species typically viewed as 11Kansan11 may be observed to be part of the Chihuahuan-centered, 

arid lands herpetofauna: yellow mud turtle, western hognose snake, lesser earless lizard, Great 

Plains toad, and plains spadefoot. By virtue of its adaptation to ephemeral water, the plains leopard 

frog may be adaptationally similar to this group, but it appears to be of eastern, rather than 

Chihuahuan origin. Others in this category may be the massasauga, western box turtle, and 

Woodhouse toad, although they are all subspecifically differentiated in the desert grassland region. 

The desert grassland herpetofauna in the SSV has 4 apparently eastern species, 13 wideranging North American Desert generalists, and about 18 species of Chihuahuan affinity (all listed 

in the preceding five paragraphs). This herpetofauna bears marked structural similarity to that found 

with the bolson tortoise (Gopherus flavoma,s·iiiatus) in the Bolson de Mapimi, 650 km to the 

southwest in the heart of the Chihuahuan Desert: Morafka and McCoy (1982) report 26 species 

there, of which 21 are in the SSV, and 3 of the 5 differing species have ecologically and 

phylogenetically similar species in the SSV. The herpetofauna of the Sulphur Springs Valley is that 

75 
of a Chihuahuan bolson, with an arid rocky fringe occupied by primarily Sonoran, rather than 

Chihuahuan species. 

CONSERVATION OF THE SULPHUR SPRINGS VALLEY HERPETOFAUNA 

The most threatened parts of the SE Arizona herpetofauna are the aquatic and grassland 

assemblages. In the SSV, the aquatic species (see, e.g. Fig. 2) of greatest concern are also 

grassland associates, the plains leopard frog and yellow mud turtle. It is reasonable to focus on the 

grassland component as a whole, and explore ways that conservation in terrestrial, ephemeral 

water, and perennial water habitats may be combined. 

The species of greatest concern, in order of priority for attention, with primary or potential 

threats or problems in parentheses, are (1) plains leopard frog (introduced species, habitat 

modification and destruction), (2) little striped whiptail (urban or suburban and agricultural 

encroachment, extremely localized distribution, grassland disappearance), (3) yellow mud turtle 

(habitat destruction, probable other unknown), (4) massasauga (unknown, possibly grassland 

degradation), (5) western box turtle (road mortality, possibly collecting), (6) green rat snake 

(possible over-collection), (7) western hognose snake (road mortality), (8) Chihuahuan hook-nosed 

snake (apparent rarity), (9) ground snake (potential damage to unique demes by collecting or 

trampling), (10) plains black-headed snake (current status unknown). 

The following management recommendations may guide conservation work for the SSV 

(expanded discussion can be found in Rosen eta/., 1996b): 

(I) PLAINS LEOPARD FROG. Develop easements and acquire habitat. List as endangered (i.e., 110f 

special concern11 ) for Arizona. 

(II) LITTLE STRIPED WHIPTAIL. List the Arizona whiptail (C. I. arizonae) as threatened ("of special 

concern11) for the state. More detailed study of distribution and ecology is required. 

(Ill) YELLOW MUD TURTLE. State listing as threatened (

11of special concern11 ) for the subspecies K. f. 

f/avescens. Distributional and ecological study is needed. Habitat conservation, through purchase 

and easements, at some sttes with plains leopard frogs, is highly desirable. 

(IV) MASSASAUGA. Further survey by road-driving, and research directed at identifying cause(s) of 

decline. Key grassland areas, especially extensive areas dominated by tobosa and other perennial 

desert grassland grasses, should be purchased or integrated into conservation plans. This aspect of 

habitat conservation could be physically connected in space with the recommended wetland 

conservation, in the southern half of the valley. These areas could be encompassed within a unified 

lower valley conservation area, or natural park. 

(V) WESTERN BOX TURTLE, GREEN RAT SNAKE, WESTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE, CHIHUAHUAN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE, 

PLAINS BLACK-HEADED SNAKE. Encourage or support further study. 

(VI) GROUND SNAKE. Southern Arizona populations should be evaluated for conservation (local 

distribution, genetic divergence); a statewide assessment should be made. 

Generally, the herpetofauna of the Sulphur Springs Valley today remains strong, except for 

aquatic species and the massasauga. Quantitative road-driving at night yielded 1.4 live plus 1.5 

dead snakes/100 km. The major threats are from human population pressure and traffic. 

Conservation of vulnerable species, and of this fine environment for us to enjoy, will require saving 

substantial areas as a viable ecosystem. 

76 
,•: ~ .·• - . 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We are most grateful to the many who assisted the field work, especially S. Hale, B. Martin, S. 

Nelson, and D. Parizek. G. Bradley shared his field records with us, and participated in many 

discussions of herpetological ecology and distribution. K. Cobble and M. Magoffin were helpful in all 

phases of the work at Leslie Canyon and San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuges. Especially 

helpful in allowing access to lands under their care were E. Kovacs, C. Wilson, D. Gray, J. Austin, J. 

Riggs, J. Robinson, and L. Staneart. 

The following institutions generously provided specimen records that permitted the broad scope 

of this work: Philadelphia Acad. of Sci., Brigham Young Univ., Carnegie Mus., Field Mus., U.S. Nat'l 

Mus., L.A. County Mus., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tulane Univ., Mus. of Vert. Zool., Florida Mus. of 

Nat. Hist., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Mus. of Nat. Hist. Univ. of Kansas, Auburn Univ. 

Mus., Arizona St. Univ., Mus. of N. Arizona, Peabody Mus., Illinois Nat. Hist. Survey, Mus. of the 

High Plains, Louisiana St. Univ., Mus. of Southwest. Bioi. (Univ. of N.M.), Oklahoma Mus. of Nat. 

Hist. (Univ. of Okla.), Angelo St. Univ. (Texas), Strecker Mus. (Baylor Univ.), Sui Ross State Univ., 

Univ. of Texas at El Paso, Univ. of Utah, George Mason Univ., Milwaukee Public Mus., California 

Acad. of Sci., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist .. Many of the curators went to great lengths to deliver the 

valuable information in their care. 

This work was supported by funding from Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) Heritage 

Program, USDA Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We gratefully acknowledge the 

assistance of D. Finch (Forest Service), M. Greene and C. Wakely (Univ. of Arizona), J. Ford (U.S. 

Geological Survey), G. Snyder (Fish and Wildlife Service), and R. Maze (AGFD). 

REFERENCES 

Clarkson, R.W. and J.C. Rorabaugh. 1989. Status of leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex: 

Ranidae) in Arizona and southeastern California. Southwest. Nat. 34:531-538. 

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central 

North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. xx + 450 pp. 

Frost, J.S. and J.T. Bagnara. 1977. Sympatry between Rana blairi and the southern form of 

leopard frog in southeastern Arizona (Anura: Ranidae). Southwest. Nat. 22:443-453. 

Hammerson, G.A. 1982. Bullfrogs eliminating leopard frogs in Colorado? Herp. Review 13:115-

116. 

Hendrickson, D.A. and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Cienegas--vanishing climax communities of the 

American Southwest. Desert Plants 6:131-175. 

Lowe, C.H. and T.B. Johnson. 1976. A survey of the reptiles and amphibians of the Fort Bowie 

National Historic Site. Pp. 76-120 in E.L. Cockrum, S.M. Russell, and C.H. Lowe (Chief 

Investigators), Survey of the vertebrate fauna of Fort Bowie National Historic Site. Tech. Rep. 2, 

Coop. Park Studies Unit (Nat. Park Serv.)/Univ. of Arizona, Tucson. iii + 120 pp. 

lowe, C. H. and R.G. Zweifel. 1992. Amphibians and reptiles of the Chiricahua Mountains, a sky 

island in the Madrean Archipelago. Pp. 62-65 in A.M Barton and S.A. Sloane (eds.), 

Chiricahua Mountains Research Sympr·:!:..:m Proceedings. Southwest Parks and Monuments 

Association, Tucson, Arizona. 126 pp. 

Martin, P.S. 1963. The Last 10,000 Years: A Fossil Pollen Record of the American Southwest. 

Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. vii + 87 pp. 

77 
McClaran, M.P. and T.R. Van Devender (editors). 1995. The Desert Grassland. Univ. of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. ix + 346 pp. 

Mendelson, J.R. Ill and W.B. Jennings. 1992. Shifts in relative abundance of snakes in a desert 

grassland. J. Herpetol. 26:38-45. 

Mitchell, J.C. 1979. Ecology of southeastern Arizona whiptaillizards (Cnemidophorus: Teiidae): 

population densities, resource partitioning, and niche overlap. Can. J. Zool. 57:1487-1499. 

Morafka, D.J. 1977. A Biogeographical Analysis of the Chihuahuan Desert Through its 

Herpetofauna. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague. viii + 313 pp. 

Morafka, D.J. and C.J. McCoy. 1982. The status and distribution of the bolson tortoise (Gopherus 

flavomarginatus). Pp. 71-94 in R.B. Bury (ed.), North American Tortoises: Conservation and 

Ecology. Dept. of Int., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Wildl. Research Rep. 12. Washington, D.C. vii 

+ 126 pp. 

Nickerson, M.A. and C. E. Mays. 1969. A preliminary herpetofaunal analysis of the Graham 

(Pinaleno) Mountains region, Graham Co., Arizona with ecological comments. Trans. Kans. 

Acad. Sci. 72:4:492-505. 

Parmenter, R.R. and T.R. Van Devender. 1995. The diversity, spatial variability, and functional 

roles of vertebrates in the desert grassland. Pp. 196-229 in McClaran and Van Devender 

(1995). 

Rosen, P.C., P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1996a. Ecology and status of shovelnose snakes 

(Chionactis) and leafnose snakes (Phyllorhynchus) at and near Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument, Arizona. Unpublished report to AGFD Heritage Program. 

Rosen, P.C., S.S. Sartorius, C.R. Schwalbe, P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1996b. Draft annotated 

checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of the Sulphur Springs Valley, Cochise County, Arizona. 

Unpublished report to AGFD Heritage Program, Phoenix, AZ. 41 pp. 

Schmutz, E.M., E.L. Smith, P.R. Ogden, M.L. Cox, J.O. Klemmedson, J.J. Norris, and L.C. Fierro. 

1992. Desert grassland. Pp. 337-362 in R.T. Coupland (ed.), Natural Grasslands: Introduction 

and Western Hemisphere. Vol. SA, Ecosystems of the World. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam. xiii + 

469 pp. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., 

Boston. xiv + 336 pages. 

Van Devender, T.R. 1995. Desert grassland history: changing climates, evolution, biogeography, 

and community dynamics. Pp. 68-99 in McClaran, M.P. and T.R. Van Devender (editors). 

1995. The Desert Grassland. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. ix + 346 pp. 

Wright, J.W. and C. H. Lowe. 1965. The rediscovery of Cnemidophorus arizonae VanDenburgh. J. 

Ariz. Acad. Sci. 3:164-168. 

78 
Species Habitat Number 

rs bd bm bg gf mf ag field 

Sonoran Desert Toad -? -? -? -? -? r r 2 

Great Plains Toad u c c c c c c 33 

Green Toad u? c c? -? a a -? 20 

Red-spotted Toad u - - - - - - 0 

Woodhouse Toad - -? u -? r u u 9 

Plains Spadefoot - - -? -? a a c 10 

Couch•s Spadefoot - c c c u c c 69 

Southern Spadefoot c u? c a a a c 36 

Plains Leopard Frog - - - - r r r 5 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog r - - - - - - 5 

Bullfrog - - u -? u c c 6 

Tiger Salamander c? -? u? c? c c? u? 8 

Western Box Turtle u r c a a a u 42 

Yellow Mud Turtle - - - - r r r 2 

Sonoran Mud Turtle - - - - r -? ,.. 1 

-( 

Madrean Alligator Liza·d u - - - - - - 2 

Western Banded Geck:J u -? - - - -? - 1 

-.....~ Gila Monster c -? u - - - - 2 

<.0 Lesser Earless Lizard -? r? -? c a c -? 9 

Greater Earless Lizard u - - u - - - 2 

Common Collared Lizard u - - - - - - 2 

Long-nosed Leopard Lizard - -? u? -? u u -? 2 

Texas Horned Lizard r u c? c a a -? 13 

Short-horned Lizard u - - c - r - 1 

Round-tailed Horned Lizard c -? - -? - - - 0 

Regal Horned Lizard u - - - - -2 8 

Table 1. Habitat use and numbers of observations (for 1993-6, 11field .. , and available museum rec

for all amphibian and reptile species known from Sulphur Springs Valley, Arizona. 

Habitat categories are: rock slope and rocky upper bajada (rs), bajada desertscrub (bd), mesquite-dominated bajada (bm), 

grassland flats (gf), mesquite-dominated flats (mf), and agricultural edge (ag); these are intended as mutually exclusive cat

amalgamates the following habitat types: lower rock slopes and hills with grassland, mesquite savanna, or grassy thornscrub

pediment thornscrub-cactus; and riparian gallery forest. Further description is in text. Symbols for abundance in each habita

records; r = rare; u = low to moderate abundance; c = common; a =very common or abundant;-? = may possibly occur 

Sulphur Springs Valley, but not verified by us; ? with r,u,c, or a = verified in the habitat type in the valley, but abundance e
Species Habitat Nu

rs bd bm bg gf mf ag field 

Desert Spiny Lizard - -? - - - u - 3 

Eastern Fence Lizard - - u? u? a a c 2

Tree Lizard u u? c u u c c 1

Side-blotched Lizard r u r - - - - 1 

Great Plains Skink u - - -? - - - 2 

Little Striped Whiptail - - - - a - - 5 

Sonoran Spotted Whiptail c - - - - - - 2 

Western Whiptail r? u -? - - - - 0 

Desert Grassland Whiptail u c? a a c a a 1

Glossy Snake - -? -? -? -? r - 1 

Ringneck Snake u - - - - - - 1 

Green Rat Snake r - - - - - - 1 

Chihuahuan Hook-nosed Snake -? -? -? r r - - 0 

Western Hognose Snake r - u c c u c 1

Night Snake c? u? u -? -? u r 7 

Common Kingsnake u -? u u? a a c 3

00 Sonoran Whipsnake a - r - - - - 6 

0 Coachwhip r? u? c c u a c 2

Gopher Snake (Bullsnake) u c a a u a c 57 

Long-nosed Snake -? c c r u c -? 2

Mountain Patch-nosed Snake r? - - r? - - - 1 

Western Patch-nosed Snake a c u? c r u -? 7 

Ground Snake c - - -? c -? -? 1 

Southwestern Black-headed Snake -? -? -? -? - r - 0 

Plains Black-headed Snake c? - u? u? u? u? -? 0 

Checkered Garter Snake - - -? r a a c 4

Black-necked Garter Snake a c c c - - - 2

Lyre Snake u -? - - - - - 1 

Texas Blind Snake c? -? -? u? -? u? -? 0 

Western Coral Snake c -? u? -? r -? - 2 

Western Diamondback Rattlesnake c a u - - r - 3

Black-tailed Rattlesnake a - - - - - - 6 

Mojave Rattlesnake - - a a a a u 6

Massasauga - - - - r -? - 0 

Table 1 (continued) 
Age-Related Population Trends of 

Landbirds Migrating Through 

Southwestern Semi-Arid Grassland 

Wang Yong1 and Deborah M. Finch2 

ABSTRACT 

Understanding the causal factors of population changes of North 

American migratory land birds is essential for developing effective 

conservation plans. The factors affecting migratory populations in 

the western United States are poorly understood. We examined 

population trends of land birds that migrate along the middle Rio 

Grande in central New Mexico by analyzing banding data collected 

during fall migrations between 1985 and 1995. To investigate the 

relationships between population trends and age structure, we 

tested for age-specific trends, changes of age-ratio, and correlations 

between capture numbers in consecutive years. We found that 

population changes were unequally distributed between 

hatching-year and adult populations. We suggest that age-related 

population variations are associated with events affecting 

. reproductive success on the breeding grounds, and survivorship 

during wintering and migration seasons. A model that predicts the 

relationship between causal factors and age-related population 

changes of migratory landbirds is presented. Further studies 

evaluating age-related population trends detected during fall 

migration should clarify whether seasonal factors influence 

population dynamics of migratory landbirds in the western United 

States. 

INTRODUCTION 

The population status of migratory landbirds has been a topic of considerable debate, as shortand long-term evidence suggests that population trends vary by species, geography, habitat, and 

land use (Droege and Sauer 1989, Robbins et al. 1989a, Terborgh 1989, Askins et al. 1990, 

Finch 1991). Declines of some populations are attributed to low reproductive success associated 

with habitat fragmentation on the breeding grounds (Robbins 1980, Whitcomb et al. 1981, Ambuel 

and Temple 1983, Brittingham and Temple 1983, Blake and Karr 1984, Lynch and Whigham 

1984, Wilcove 1985, Robbins et al., 1989b, Hutto 1988, Robinson 1992, Sherry and Holmes). 

Others have argued that declining populations of some species are related to lowered survival rates 

1 Department of Natural Resource Science, University of Rhode Island,· Kingston Rl. 2 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque NM. 

81 
caused by deforestation on the wintering grounds; hence, recruitment of new breeders into 

migratory populations is correspondingly reduced (Rappole and Warner 1980, Lovejoy 1983, 

Morton et al. 1987, Terborgh 1989, Morton and Greenberg 1989, Morton 1992, Rappole and 

McDonald 1994). A few have speculated that conditions on both breeding and wintering grounds 

may limit neotropical migrant populations, or that problems along migratory routes might contribute 

to declines (Morse 1980, 1989, Moore and Simons 1992, Terborgh 1992, Sherry and Holmes 

1993, Moore et al. 1995, Rappole 1996). These hypotheses are difficult to test because of 1) the 

global scales over which migrants travel; 2) species-specific responses to seasonal resources and 

habitats; 3) the diversity of factors inducing population changes; and 4) inherent difficulties in 

sampling migratory populations (Robbins et al. 1989a, Sherry and Holmes 1993, Rappole and 

McDonald 1994). 

Long-term monitoring data are needed to determine whether survivorship and productivity of 

migratory landbird populations are associated with specific seasons (e.g., wintering, breeding, or 

migrating periods). Conservation plans should account for critical times during a bird1

S annual 

cycle. Population trends of migrating landbirds could be age-related if migratory species are 

affected most at certain times or locations. For example, some studies (Whitcomb et al. 1981, 

Robinson 1992, Sherry and Holmes 1992) have suggested that reductions in the quantity and 

quality of breeding habitats owing to habitat loss and fragmentation could lead to lowered 

reproductive success or reduced recruitment of hatching-year birds. 

Constant-effort mist-netting is a commonly-used technique for monitoring avian populations and 

has been applied on the breeding grounds to assess the abundance, productivity, and adult 

survivorship of landbird populations (e.g. DeSante 1991), on wintering grounds to monitor wintering 

populations (e.g. Faaborg and Arendt 1992), and during migration to track changes in populations 

of landbird migrants (e.g. Hagan et al. 1992, Dunn and Hussell 1995). Banding data collected 

during fall migration are unique in that individuals of most North American migrant land bird species 

can be reliably aged by plumage and/or degree of skull ossification (USFWS and CWS 1984, Pyle et 

al. 1987). Detecting changes in reproductive success of migrant land birds may be possible by 

examining long-term capture data at stopover sites during fall migration. However, long-term 

studies of age-related population changes based on migration captures are rare, and their value in 

identifying potential factors causing population changes is unclear. 

In this study, we investigated population trends of landbirds that migrate along the middle Rio 

Grande in central New Mexico by analyzing banding data collected during fall migration. We 

examined relationships between population trends and variations in age structure of migrating 

populations. We evaluated whether analyses of age-related population changes detected from 

migration data were useful in discerning underlying reasons for population changes of migratory 

species. 

METHODS 

Banding data were collected between 1985 and 1995 at Rio Grande Nature Center (RGNC), 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico (N 35°07', W 106°411). Rio Grande Bird Research, Inc. established 

a long-term banding station at RGNC and has mist-netted land birds during fall migration since 

1979. We used data collected from 1985 to 1995 because the netting effort was less constant 

during the first six years of the banding operation. The study area was established in a riparian 

habitat, and the sampling sites included woods, two manmade ponds, and agricultural fields. The 

banding location was excluded from public access, and habitat disturbance or modification during 

the study was not evident (Cox 1994). Although long-term changes in bird numbers can be 

82 
influenced by natural habitat succession at study sites (Remsen and Good 1996), Yong and Finch 

(in press) suggest that such an effect was not important during this period at the RGNC site. 

Twenty mist nests (12m x 2.6m with 30mm or 36mm mesh) were used to capture landbirds from 

early August through mid-November each year. Nets remained at the same locations through the 

study period and were operated by volunteers during weekends in fall. Nets were opened about 15 

minutes before local sunrise, were checked every 20-30 min, and remained up for approximately 

six hours each banding day. Nets were closed during rain, snowfall, and other excessive weather 

conditions (i.e., temperature > 38°C or winds > 40 km/h). Species, age, and sex identification 

were based on the North American Bird Banding Manual (USFWS and CWS 1984), Identification 

Guide to North American Passerines (Pyle et al. 1987), and various field guides. Each bird was 

banded with a numbered aluminum leg band. 

Ten species were examined in this study: Dusky Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), Wilson's 

Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), Warbling Vireo (Vireo gi/vus), Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), 

Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena), 

Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pal/ida), Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), Dark-eyed Junco 

(Junco hyemalis), Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). 

We selected these species because: 1) they were common fall migrants along the Rio Grande of 

central New Mexico; all species had a total sample size >100, except Warbling Vireo (see Table 1), 

2) age class of these species can be reliably identified during fall migration, and 3) species diversity 

was high enough to detect patterns among ecological groups, if there were differences. 

We treated yearly weekend mist-netting efforts as temporally stratified repeated samples. We 

recognized that daily capture totals of each species could be affected by factors such as weather 

conditions and species-specific seasonal migration patterns but considered these factors to be of 

stochastic influence on the annual totals arid population trends through the eleven-year period. 

Net-hour variation among years was adjusted by calculating yearly indices for each species and age 

group. To do this, we divided the numbers of total, hatching-year, and adult captures of a species 

by the total number of net-hours during a given year, and then multiplied the resulting values by 

1,000. This produced a yearly estimate of birds/1,000 net-hours of banding operation. 

To examine population trends, we followed the procedure used by Holmes and Sherry (1988). 

We applied a simple regression model for estimating changing captures of hatching-year birds and 

adults of each species over time: ln(capture + 1) = year (ln[B]) + ln(A), where capture is# 

captures/1,000 net hours in year; 1 is an arbitrary constant added because the logarithm of zero is 

undefined; year is a number from 1-11 corresponding with the 11-year banding operation from 1985 

to 1995; and ln(A) and ln(B) are fitted constants for they-intercept and slope, respectively. The 

trend in original (non-log-transformed) units of captures was calculated by taking the antilog of the 

slope in the above regression: trend = e'1

nrsJ- o.5rvariancen, where variance is the square of the 

standard error (SE) of the estimated slope in the above regression. The variance term corrects for 

the asymmetry of the log-normal distribution. Finally, we transformed population changes to units 

of average% annual change: (t-1)(100), where t = trend. 

Because hatching-year birds captured during fall migration of a given year become adults in the 

following spring, we performed correlation analyses between total captures of each species during a 

given year and adult captures of the following year, and between total captures during a given year 

and hatching-year captures of the following year. We calculated age ratios for each species by 

dividing the number of hatching-year captures by the number of adult captures (hatchingyear/adult) of each year. We defined statistical tests as significant at .E < 0.1. We chose this 

alpha level because Type I error is less risky than Type II error in detecting population declines of 

83 
0 

0 

10 tl 

Yell' 

• • I& • 

House Flnch 

10~ 

• 10 II ~ ... ~ ool1 ... §_ 3)~ - - - - - - c 

i l ----- ; 10 ::::l 0 -

i + ... (J ,:r ... • 10 WI • • 10 

Dusky Flycatcher 

7 ~ 

··r ! ·r· ~.r 

Yew 

0 

c 

I I 

tl • • I& 

§ 

... ·, [ a 

! ~ 0 

.. 

• 

i2tr :: • (J , .t. a .t. ~-- --~- -:----;;: 

----------- ... Q r ' t r . ' 

• • ~ • • 10 tl • • I& • 

y..,. 

0 

~ a o 

• 

~~ ~ • • • tl • • • • 

Y-

... 

a ---------· ... 

Western Tanager 10! 

0 

.. .. 0; - ~ - - - - ~- - a. - --- ... - --- ~ • • 17 • • 10 tl • • • • Yew 

Black-headed Grosbeak 10· 

. 

3 ·- 0 

-= ·• -5 

z ·- a 

~-i ·- a 

!! ::! ... '5. 

.. 1- (J 

..,.. ____ .. ----- 4 

... .. ~-------- - ... - -~-- Q----L---~~~~~~--~~----~----~~ 

• • 17 • • 10 tl • I& • 

y .. ,

Warbling VIreo U· 

0 

Lasser Goldfinch .. 0 

c 

.. -----------· o==--~~~~~~~--~~--~·~~--~---­ • . ~ . . . . • • y .. 

a 

.. .. ..;_- ~- -.. -------"Z--:- .. ------

oL---~~--~------~------~--~--~---- • • 17 • • • tl • • • y .. 

Figure 1. Population trends of migratory land birds captured during fall migration from 1985 to 

1995 at Rio Grande Nature Center, Albuquerque, NM. The open squares/solid lines and the 

solid squares/dash lines represent hatching-year and adult populations respectively. See Table 

1 for statistics. 

84 
migratory birds. If population changes can be detected early due to initial warnings from trend 

data, the species has a greater chance of population recovery through close monitoring and prompt 

conservation actions. 

RESULTS 

A total of 5,136 birds of the ten selected species were captured during the study period. The 

overall ratio of adult (1,624 individuals, 32% of total captures) and hatching-year birds (3,512 

individuals, 68% of total captures) was ahout 1:2. Negative population slopes were detected in six 

species -- Dusky Flycatcher, Warbling Vireo, Western Tanager, Black-headed Grosbeak, Dark-eyed 

Junco, and House Finch -- and were significant (p < 0.1) in all except Dusky Flycatcher and 

Warbling Vireo (Fig. 1). Most of these species breed or winter in forested habitats (American 

Ornithologists• Union 1983, Ehrlich et al. 1988). The other four species, Wilson•s Warbler, Lazuli 

Bunting, Clay-colored Sparrow, and Lesser Goldfinch, had significant population increases. These 

species primarily use secondary growth, thickets, chaparral, or shrub habitats. Of the ten species, 

seven were classified as Neotropical migrants. No consistent trend patterns could be distinguished 

between temperate migrants and Neotropical migrants (Table 1). 

Adult populations declined significantly in four species, Western Tanager, Black-headed Grosbeak, 

Dark-eyed Junco, and House Finch, whereas two species, Warbling Vireo and Wilson•s Warbler, had 

significant adult population increases (Table 1). The annual change of hatching-year populations 

was significant in eight species including Warbling Vireo(-), Wilson•s Warbler (+),Western Tanager 

(-),Lazuli Bunting(+), Clay-colored Sparrow(+), Dark-eyed Junco(-), House Finch(-), and Lesser 

Goldfinch ( +). Positive or negative slope~ ot natching-year populations corresponded to slope 

direction for total populations (adult + hatching-year) of every species (Table 1). 

Although two species, Warbling Vireo and Black-headed Grosbeak, had total population trends 

that were not significant, age-class analyses showed that both adult and hatching-year populations 

of Warbling Vireo and adult populations of Black-headed Grosbeak showed significant annual 

changes (Table 1). In Warbling Vireo, adult populations increased whereas hatching-year 

populations decreased. Populations of Dark-eyed Junco and House Finch had annual decline rates 

that were similar between adult and hatching-year populations. In contrast, the declining rate of 

the hatching-year population of Western Tanager was almost twice that of its adult population 

(Table 1). 

Among the four species whose total populations had positive annual-change slopes, adult 

population increases were significant in Wilson•s Warbler only, whereas hatching-year populations 

increased significantly in each of the four species (Table 1). The positive total population trend of 

Clay-colored Sparrow was mostly due to an increase in its hatching-year population, while total 

population change in Wilson•s Warbler" was explained by increases of both adult and hatching-year 

birds (Table 1). 

In four species, Warbling Vireo, Western Tanager, Black-headed Grosbeak, and Dark-eyed Junco, 

the number of adult captures in a year was significantly correlated with total captures of the 

previous year. This relationship was positive in Western Tanager, Black-headed Grosbeak, and 

Dark-eyed Junco, that is, if more (or fewer) birds were captured in a given year, more (or fewer) 

adults would return to the study site in the following year. This relationship was negative in 

Warbling Vireo, i.e. if more (or fewer) birds were captured in a give year, less (or more) adults would 

be captured in the following year. 

85 
00 

0> 

Correlation between Correlation between total capture 

Species year & capturesa & following-year captureb Annual % 

Total Adults Young Age-ratio Adult Young Total 

Dusky Flycatcher 

Empidonax oberho/seri -0.29(102) 0.23(20) -0.43(79) -0.20 -0.01 -0.33 -4.45 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gi/vus -0.21(43) 0.65(14)** -0.59(29)* -0. 76*** -0.57* 0.07 -4.64 

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusil/a 0. 76(1,185)*** 0.56(312)* 0. 79(846)*** 0.48 0.11 0.59* 10.69*** 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana -0. 71(154)** -0. 77(21)*** -0.63(125)** 0.43 0.61** 0.04 -13.46** 

Black-headed Grosbeak 

I Pheucticus melanocepha/1us -0.38(192) -0.57(34)* -0.24(153) 0.52* 0.58 * 0.13 -7.81 

0.56(489)* 0.48(252) 0.51(136)* -0.38 0.27 22.89* 

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena 0.46 

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pall ida 0. 76(131)*** 0.15(6) 0. 77(123)*** 0.61** -0.08 0.32 23.36*** 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis -0.61(1,143)** -0.61(250)** -0.57(784)* 0.01 0.69 ** 0.21 -9.83** -

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus -0.66(1,594)** -0.65(682)** -0.61(781)** -0.23 -0.04 0.45 -15.90** -

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria 0.55(103)* 0.48(33) 0.55(60)* -0.17 0.46 0.11 12.58* 

a Correlation between number of birds captured and year(sample size), see text. 

b Correlations of the total capture of the species in year x with the adult capture and hatching-year capture in (year + 1). 

c Migration type: migratory species wintering mainly north of 25° are classified as temperate migrants m and all others are 

* p <0.10, ** p <0.05, *** p <0.01. 

Table 1. Population trends of landbird migrants captured during 

fall migration along the middle Rio Grande of central New Mexico. 
Age ratio (hatching-year/adult) increased in Black-headed Grosbeak and Clay-colored Sparrow 

and decreased in Warbling Vireo during the study (Table 1). These results suggest that increases or 

decreases in adult or hatching-year populations were disproportionate in these species. In 

Clay-colored Sparrow, hatching-year birds had a much higher rate of increase than adults, such that 

the age-ratio trend was positive. However, in Black-headed Grosbeak, the positive age-ratio trend 

resulted from a higher rate of decline of adults than of hatching-year birds, rather than from an 

increase in the hatching-year population. Matching the negative annual changes of adult and 

hatching-year populations, the age-ratio trend of Warbling Vireo was also negative because of a 

slower rate of increase in the adult population than in the hatching-year population. 

DISCUSSION 

Our results demonstrated that population increases or decreases of migratory landbirds 

captured during fall migrations along the middle Rio Grande between 1985 and 1995 varied among 

species and in some species, between adult and hatching-year populations. Within the group of 

seven Neotropical, long-distance migratory species, population trends were also inconsistent. We 

suggest that similarities in habitat use rather than in migration distance prompted similarities in 

population trends among the ten species. In previous analyses of the same data set, we showed 

that several forest-dwelling bird species showed declines in population trends from 1985 to 1994, 

whereas species that used thickets, shrubs. chaparral, or secondary-growth were more likely to 

show increases (Yang and Wang in press, (Finch and Yang in press). 

Population declines of forest migrants have been attributed to 1) low survival rates on the 

wintering grounds owing to widespread loss of tropical habitats, and 2) low reproductive success on 

the breeding grounds or on migration routes due to loss and fragmentation of North American 

forests (Askins et al. 1990, Finch 1991). However, factors affecting populations of migratory 

land bird species are poorly understood because of temporal and spatial variability among habitats! 

regions, land uses, and demographic factors. Using a long-term demographic approach, Sherry 

and Holmes (1992) found that breeding abundances of American Redstarts (Setophaga ruticifla) 

declined in an unfragmented eastern forest and concluded that the decline was related to low 

breeding success. 

We suggest that analyses of age-class trends provide important information for interpreting total 

population changes of migratory species. In some cases, total population trends can mask trends 

that differ by age class within a species. In our study, for example, Warbling Vireo and 

Black-headed Grosbeak showed no signift~dril population trends when analyses were based on 

species~ total capture, but age-class analyses revealed that hatching-year populations of Warbling 

Vireo declined and adult populations of Black headed Grosbeak declined. 

Age-related population trends have potential to help identify where and when migratory 

populations may be limited. To illustrate, declines of both adult and hatching-year populations of 

the Western Tanager in this study contributed to the decline of its total population. Tanager 

hatching-year declines are mostly likely related to declining nesting success and juvenile survival at 

breeding sites, whereas adult declines could be related to higher mortality during other seasons. 

Based on the nonsignificant age-ratio trend and the significant correlation between number of adult 

captures and number of total previous-year captures, we suggest that the total population decline 

of this species was more likely to be related to reduction in survival rate during wintering and/or 

migration seasons than to changes in breeding productivity. In other words, as fewer and fewer 

tanager adults returned to their breeding grounds each spring, the adult population declined over 

87 
a. Unfavorable wintering and migration cq_nditions 

HYJ 

Adult.J. 

Species .J Fall 

HY/Adult- migration 

Breeding grounds 

Spring 

migration 

~ _; 

AdultJ 

Ad It '- i =decreasing 

u ~ - = stays about the same 

Wintering grounds 

b. Unfavorable breeding conditions 

HYf 

Adult -

Species 

~ \ Fall . HY /Adult ':. migration 

Breeding grounds 

Adult -

Wintering grounds 

Spring 

migration 

Adult -

Figure 2. Predictions of age-structure and population changes of migratory landbirds detected during fall 

migration in relation to conditions on the breeding and wintering grounds, and migration routes. a. 

Unfavorable wintering and migration conditions (low suNival rate): fewer birds return to breeding ground. The 

population of the species should decline and the age-ratio should be relatively stable. b. Unfavorable 

breeding conditions (low breeding success): fewer hatching-year birds would migrate south from the breeding 

grounds, and the population of the species and the age ratio should both decline (see text for more 

information). 

88 
time. As a consequence of declining adult populations, the number of young tanagers migrating 

south from the breeding grounds was proportionately lower (no age-ratio trend and negative 

hatching-year trend) and the number of total captures was lower accordingly (an overall negative 

species trend). The lack of an age-ratio trend suggested that breeding success did not increase 

over time, i.e., no age-related compensation in population size. Therefore, hatching-year tanagers 

did not replace numbers lost due to adult mortality, and this led to further reductions in the number 

of adults returning to breed in the following years. 

In the Black-headed Grosbeak, the population trend of hatching-year grosbeaks was not 

significant, but the adult population declined. We observed a positive age-ratio trend in this species 

which suggested that the rate of decline of hatching-year birds was lower than that of adults. 

On the other hand, the potential factors limiting Warbling Vireo populations seemingly pertained 

to conditions on the breeding grounds because the hatching-year population and the age-ratio 

declined significantly during the study period. Given that the adult population showed the opposite 

trend, it was apparent that limiting factors had not yet exceeded the ability of vireos to recruit 

sufficient numbers to maintain a stable adult population. However, if the age-ratio continued to 

decline, we predict that a point would be reached where adult populations would start to decline as 

well. Winter or migration resources may have helped to offset reductions in hatching-year 

populations such that the total population remained stable. 

Among the species that had positive total population trends, increases of adult populations 

paralleled increases in hatching-year populations in most of the species. We suggest that 

increased production of hatching-year birds on the breeding grounds resulted in more adults on the 

wintering grounds and more birds returning to the breeding grounds the following year. Because of 

increased breeding populations, more hatching-year birds would be expected to be reproduced in 

subsequent years. Improvement of wintering habitat quantity and quality could further magnify this 

increasing trend. 

The hatching-year population of the Clay-colored Sparrow showed a relatively large yearly 

increase while the adult population had a small nonsignificant increase. Increased production of 

young birds suggests that breeding conditions for this species may have improved over the study 

period. Limiting conditions on the wintering grounds and/or migration routes may have offset 

breeding season gains, resulting in a relatively stable adult population. The positive relationship 

between total captures of a given year and adult captures of the following year suggests that the 

adult population would likely have increased had the wintering/migration conditions improved. 

This study provides an example of using population and age-structure data from a long-term fall 

banding program to identify when and where populations of migratory landbirds may be limited. 

Not all migratory species can be expected to respond in the same way; different factors may be at 

work in different regions of North and Latin America (Rappole and McDonald 1994). Migratory 

populations could be affected by unpredictable weather conditions during migration (Buskirk 1980, 

Moore et al. 1995) or by long-term climatic fluctuations. However, we believe that these factors 

are relatively stochastic and would not lead to systematic trends. Furthermore, if weather and 

climate factors affected observed population trends, the effect should be similar for all age classes. 

Migrations can result in. dramatic mortality (Moore et al. 1995). Unfortunately, no direct data 

on conditions during migration and population periods are available. The demographic studies by 

Sherry and Holmes (1992) suggested that American Redstart mortalities during fall and spring 

migrations were relatively unimportant for the recruitment of new adults from hatching-year birds of 

the previous year. However, Johnson (1973) found that mortalities of immature Western 

Flycatchers were higher than those of adults during spring and fall migrations. 

We developed a model illustrating how age-structure and population changes detected during 

89 
fall migration related to potential events or conditions on breeding and wintering grounds and along 

migration routes (Fig. 2a: unfavorable wintering and migration conditions; Fig. 2b: unfavorable 

breeding conditions). If a migratory species is adversely affected by conditions on wintering 

grounds and/or migration routes, two possible outcomes are expected. One, the species• 

population should decline because fewer adults return to the breeding grounds and/or fewer new 

breeders are recruited into the reproductive population. The age-ratio (hatching-year/adult) 

detected during fall migration would remain relatively stable. Second, if the adult population 

compensates for reduced population density by producing more young birds, or if the proportion of 

non-breeding floaters decreases as they fill vacant territories, the age-ratio in fall could actually 

increase while the overall population remains relatively stable. 

On the other hand, if a migratory species is negatively affected by conditions on its breeding 

grounds, we predict that hatching-year populations should decline, which could lead to a reduction 

in age ratios and species• population size detected during fall migration. If declines of hatching-year 

populations are within the range at which sufficient numbers of hatching-year birds become adults 

on the wintering grounds and compensate for the mortality of the adult population, the adult 

population detected during the successive years should be relatively stable. Otherwise, the adult 

population should decline. If these patterns persist, the total and the hatching-year populations 

should decline and the age-ratio would be biased toward adults. 

We suggest that existing banding programs standardize their operation procedures to facilitate 

future population analyses. In addition to fall banding data, long-term spring banding data could be 

used to measure return rate from wintering grounds and hence, wintering success. The 

combination of fall and spring banding data would provide additional information pertaining to 

reproductive success and wintering mortality, and further our understanding of the underlying basis 

for population dynamics of migratory landbirds. Capture and banding methods, in conjunction with 

other techniques such as measurements of nesting and fledgling success; Breeding Bird Survey; 

quantification of habitat availability and suitability on the wintering, migration, and breeding 

grounds; and population monitoring during winter; can help to clarify where and when land bird 

populations are limited. Such information should prove useful in developing priorities for 

implementing conservation plans. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We thank Rio Grande Bird Research, Inc. for providing the banding data for our analyses and its 

volunteer members who spent long hours collecting migratory bird data during the last 17 years at 

the Rio Grande Nature Center, Albuquerque, NM. We are grateful to the staff at the Rio Grande 

Nature Center for access to the banding sites and assistance with the banding program. G. R. 

Bodner assisted with data entry and analysis. We thank D. Aborn, G. Bodner, D. Cimprich, J. Clark, 

L. Delay, M. Means, and F. Moore for constructive discussions during the preparation of this 

manuscript and helpful comments on early drafts. Financial support was provided by USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

REFERENCES 

American Ornithologists• Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th ed. American 

Ornithologists• Union, Washington, D.C. 

Ambuel, 8, and S. A. Temple. 1983. Area -dependent changes in the bird communities and 

vegetation of southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology 64:1057-1068. 

90 
Askins, R. A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds. Current 

Ornithology 7:1-57. 

Blake, J. G. and J. R. Karr. 1984. Species composition of bird communities and the conservation 

benefit of large versus small forests. Biological Conservation 30:173-187. 

Brittingham, M. C. and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? 

BioScience 33:31-35. 

Buskirk, W. H. 1980. Influence of meteorological patterns and trans-Gulf migration on the 

calendars of latitudinal migration. Pp. 485-491 in Migrant birds in the Neotropics (A. Keast 

and E.S. Morton, eds). Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC. 

Cox, N. S. 1994. Human traffic: does it have an effect on localized bird movement? M.S. thesis. 

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

DeSante, D. F. 1991. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program: first 

annual report. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California. 

Droege, S. and J. R. Sauer. 1989. North American Breeding Bird Survey annual Summary 1988. 

Biological Report 89(13):1-16. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C. 

Dunn, E. H. and D. J. T. Hussel. 1995. Using migration counts to monitor landbird populations: 

review and evaluation of current status. Current Ornithology 12:43-88. 

Ehrlich, R. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: A field guide to the 

natural history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster Inc., New York. 

Faaborg, H. and W. J. Arendt. 1992. Long-term declines of winter resident warblers in a Puerto 

Rican dry forest: which species are in trouble? Pages 57-63 in J. M. Hagan, Ill and D. W. 

Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian 

lnst. Press, Washington, D.C. 

Finch, D. M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of Neotropical 

migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-205. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Finch, D. M., and W. Yong. In press. Land bird migration in riparian habitats of the middle Rio 

Grande -- A case study. In Studies in Avian Biology. 

Hagan, J. M. H., Ill, T. L. Lloyd-Evans, and J. L. Atwood. 1992. Long-term changes in migratory 

landbirds in the northeastern United states: evidence from migration capture data. Pp. 

115-130, in Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan, Ill and D. 

W. Johnston, eds). Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, DC. 

Holmes, R. T. and T. W. Sherry. 1988. Assessing population trends of New Hampshire forest 

birds: local vs. regional trends. Auk 105:756-768. 

Hutto, R. L. 1988. Is tropical deforestation responsible for the reported declines in neotropical 

migrant populations? American Birds 42:375-379. 

Johnson, N. K. Spring migration of the Western Flycatcher with notes on seasonal changes in sex 

and age ratios. Bird Banding 44:205-220. 

Lovejoy, T. 1983. Tropical deforestation and North American migrant birds. Bird Conservation 

1: 126-128. 

Lynch, J. F. and D. F. Whigham. 1984. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird 

communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conservation 28: 287-324. 

Moore, F. R., S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr., P. Kerlinger, and T. R. Simons. 1995. Habitat requirements 

during migration: Important link in conservation. Pp. 121-144, in Ecology and management of 

Neotropical migratory birds (T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds). Oxford University Press, 

New York, NY. 

91 
Moore, F. R. and T. R. Simons. 1992. Habitat suitability and stopover ecology of Neotropical 

land bird migrants. Pp. 345-355, in Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds 

(J. M. Hagan, Ill and D. W. Johnston, eds). Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, D.C. 

Morse, D. H. 1980. Population limitation: breeding or wintering grounds? Pages 505-516 in 

A. Keast and E. S. Morton, editors. Migrant birds in the Neotropics: ecology, behavior, 

distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, D.C. 

Morse, D. H. 1989. American warblers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Morton, E. S., J. F. Lynch, K. Young, and P. Mehlhop. 1987. Do male Hooded Warblers exclude 

females from nonbreeding territories in tropical forest? Auk 104:133-135. 

Morton, E. S., and R. Greenberg. 1989. The outlook of migratory birds: .. future shock .. for birders. 

American Birds 43:178-183. 

Morton, E. S. 1992. What do we know about the future of migrant landbirds? Pages 579-589 in 

J. M. Hagan, Ill and D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant 

landbirds. Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, D.C. 

Pyle, P., S. N. G. Howell, R. P. Yunick, and D. F. DeSante. 1987. Identification guide to North 

American Passerines. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California. 

Rappole, J. H. 1996. The ecology of migrant birds: a neotropical perspective. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D. C. 

Rappole, J. H. and M. V. McDonald. 1994. Cause and effect in population declines of migratory 

birds. Auk 111(3) :652-660. 

Rappole, J. H. and D. E. Warner. 1980. Ecological aspects of avian migrant behavior in Veracruz, 

Mexico. Pages 353-393 in A. Keast and E. S. Morton, editors. Migrant birds in the 

Neotropics. Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, D.C. 

Remsen, J. V. and D. A. Good. 1996. Misuse of data from mist-net captures to assess relative 

abundance in bird populations. Auk 113:381-398. 

Robbins, C. S. 1980. Effect of forest fragmentation on breeding bird populations in the Piedmont of 

the mid-Atlantic region. Atlantic Naturalist 33:31-36. 

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989a. Population declines in North 

American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 86:7658-7662. 

Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989b. Habitat area requirements of breeding 

forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monograph 103:1-34. 

Robinson, S. K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented 

Illinois landscape. Pages 408-418 in J. M. Hagan Ill and D. W. Johnson, editors. Ecology and 

conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, D. C. 

Sherry, T. W. and R. T. Holmes. 1992. Population fluctuations in a long-distance Neotropical 

migrant: demographic evidence for the imprudence of breeding season events in the American 

Redstart. Pages 431-442. In J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and 

conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian lnst. Press, Washington, D. C. 

Sherry, T. W. and R. T. Holmes. 1993. Are populations of Neotropical migrant birds limited in 

summer or winter? Implications for management. Pages 47-57 in D. M. Finch and P. W. 

Stangel, editors. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RM-229. U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Terborgh, J. W. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Terborgh, J. W. 1992. Perspectives on the conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Pages 

7-12. in J. M. Hagan and S. W. Johnson, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical 

migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 

92 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1984. North American Bird Banding 

Techniques. Canada Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Whitcomb, R. F. , C.S. Robbins, J. R. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 

1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pages 

125-206 in R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, editors. Forest island dynamics in 

man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Wilcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. 

Ecology 66:1211-1214. 

Yang, W, and D.M. Finch. In press. Population trends of migratory landbirds along the middle Rio 

Grande. Southwestern Naturalist. 

93 
Wildlife Corridors Panel Discussion1 

Moderator: Rod Mondt2 

Steve Gatewood, the first speaker, is the director of The Wildlands Project (TWP). Steve came 

to TWP about six months ago from Florida where he was a former Disney Wilderness Preserve 

manager. Prior to that he was with Florida Heritage as the state wildlife ecologist, specializing in 

reserve design. 

Steve described TWP as an effort to preserve and restore the native biologic diversity and 

integrity of North America by the establishment of a connected system of conservation reserves. 

TWP brings together conservation biologists and conservation activists to accomplish the overall 

objective. The reason for the union of science and activism is the failure of scientists to 

successfully blend science into public policy. Activists, by contrast, have the passion and the 

organizing skills to do that. 

The traditional approach to conservation in the past has been to set aside somewhat small, 

relatively undesirable areas (rocks and ice), areas of mainly scenic value or places that were 

undevelopable (like the Everglades). The result of that approach has been a fairly consistent 

decline in natural communities. Sixty percent of Bailey's ecoregions are represented in wilderness 

areas, but if one looks at large areas, fewer than 20% are represented in areas of 100,000 

hectares or more. Two percent of Bailey's ecoregions are represented in systems of greater than 

one million hectares. We haven't done a very good job of large system conservation. Wildlands 

tries to bring conservation biology principles to reserve design. Some of these principles are: 

•large is better than small 

•the presence of carnivores is better than an absence of carnivores 

•contiguous habitat is better than fragmented habitat 

•linked, connected habitats are better than non-connected habitats 

By applying conservation biology to reserve design, we can look at much larger scales. 

The goals of reserve design are: 

• represent all ecosystem types across their variability 

• maintain viable populations of all native species 

• maintain biological and evolutionary processes 

• allow for change - to build resiliency into the system 

• A reserve should consist of core reserves, buffer zones, and areas of connectivity 

(corridors). Core areas allow very limited use activities. Buffer zones allow varying degrees 

of use. These areas are linked by corridors. 

Processes such as fire require very large landscapes and resiliency. The ability to adapt to 

change will be important as processes such as global warming enter the picture. 

One of the other concepts TWP employs is using large carnivores as umbrella species, i.e. if habitat 

for grizzly bears can be protected, habitat for around 80% of other species will also be protected. 

Corridors link meta populations. 

To do corridor research, GIS is a necessary technology to manage the multiple layers of data. 

1 Summarized by Susie Brandes, Sky Island Alliance, Tucson, AZ. 2 The Wildlands Project, Tucson, AZ. 

94 
TWP has not gotten very far in terms of actual science yet, but is very well organized with about 33 

groups participating. We know very little about what constitutes a suitable corridor because very 

little work has been done to define what constitutes the design, composition and structure of 

corridor systems. Steve showed successive maps of the Sky Island region that include parts of 

Arizona, New Mexico and northern Mexico. The corridors are conceptualized to anticipate the return 

of large carnivores like the Mexican wolf and the grizzly bear 

The corridor concept brings up the question, how much area is enough for a reserve network? 

If reserve networks are linked together, core reserves might not need to be so large since meta 

populations can interact via corridors. However, this concept has not yet been tested in the field. 

What can we do now, without all the answers, to protect connectivity? 

• maintain natural connections in the landscape 

• when possible, restore natural connections that have been severed 

• make corridors as wide as possible 

• avoid artificial connections between habitats that are naturally isolated 

• whenever possible, close roads and maintain habitat structure in the landscape 

• it may be necessary to create bottlenecks in a corridor to stop the spread of epizootics if 

they should occur 

We have to understand what changes are appropriate in the landscape and what are not 

appropriate and address those that threaten species the most. Reserve design is an iterative 

process that requires evaluation of effectiveness. 

It will be necessary to include people in this matrix. To better explain the corridor concept to 

people, Steve uses the example of human populations being linked together by roads that bring 

essential goods and resources needed by communities to function. In Florida the state involved 

people in the- process by creating the Greenways Commission which works on designing wildlife and 

recreation corridors together. 

Deborah Finch, the second speaker, is a lead researcher for the U.S. Forest Service (Rocky 

Mountain Experiment Station) in Albuquerque. She has a BS in Wildlife Management from 

Humboldt State. She has an MS in Zoology from Arizona State and her Ph.D. in Zoology and 

Range Management from the University of Wyoming. She leads a research unit focusing on 

disturbance and restoration of grasslands and riparian ecosystems. She helped to organize a 

conservation organization called Partners in Flight, a widespread international coalition designed to 

conserve neotropical migratory birds and most songbirds. Her personal research emphasis is on 

songbird migration. See her complete paper in this chapter. 

Sheridan Stone, the final speaker is the wildlife biologist at Ft. Huachuca and has been there for 

about nine years. He was formerly employed by the National Marine Fisheries Service where he did 

management and research on marine mammals and sea turtles. He did his undergraduate work at 

the University of Montana and graduate work at the University of Minnesota. 

Sheridan•s talk describes the Ft. Huachuca/Canelo Hills Track Count, a program in which volunteers 

look for lion tracks and other .. on the ground .. information. The effort is important not just because 

of the actual data gathered, but because of the interaction of volunteers from many backgrounds, 

and the sharing of information and perspectives. 

The impetus for the track count came from a workshop held in Prescott in 1988. While 

statewide reconnaissance had been done by Harley Shaw, a wildlife biologist, and Arizona Game 

and Fish, Harley felt that a useful methodology could be tested and perhaps implemented: training 

people as observers who could then work with wildlife managers to gather better information than 

95 
. ;·• 

traditional harvest data to estimate the stability of lion populations. Fort Huachuca was chosen as 

a testing ground. Volunteers have been used from the start, including Sue Morse of II Keeping 

Track11 in Vermont, and members of the Phoenix Zoo Animal Observation team. The Sky Island 

Alliance joined the group with a strong conservation focus and an interest in corridors. 

Track counts don't provide a lot of rigorous statistical data to perform an analysis although the 

information gathered is being evaluated by a biometrist. Optimally, the goal at the start was to use 

track counts to get an idea of population number, composition, trend, sex and age distribution, 

movement between areas, and presence or absence from an area, In actuality, the goals are 

focused as much on methodology, i.e., what can volunteers be reasonably trained to do, setting a 

basic standard, and accumulating a long term data base. Over time, perhaps using running 

averages, a data base is established that can be used when questions arise about the presence of 

lions, reproduction, or corridors and their use. 

Tracking is a very inclusive activity. People from many backgrounds around the state have 

participated. Information exchange, training (what to look for, how to see things, when and if to 

draw conclusions) are important. Technique instead of technology is a strength of the program. It 

is also 9heap. No budget is necessary so it can be carried on for a long time and various 

methodologies can be tried without worry about budgetary concerns. 

The Ft. Huachuca count is focused on where prey species are most common. Tracking is done 

on dirt road substrate over an area of about 35 miles on the base. About 15+ miles of routes are 

covered each day of the count. People look for scrapes and other sign as well as lion tracks. Other 

tracks such as bear, coatimundi, turkey, fox, raccoon, bobcat, and coyote are often found and are 

important not only in teaching people to recognize tracks but as motivation and reward for 

volunteers. Quality control is built in by having more experienced people included in each group. 

The Canelo Hills track count is a specific project of the Sky Island Alliance. They have eight 

routes established in the Canelo Hills (over a year) where deer habitat is good. The Canelo Hills 

were chosen as a track count site because of their proximity to other ranges such as the 

Huachucas, Santa Ritas, Whetstones, Mule Mountains, and the Patagonias. None of these 

individual ranges are large enough to support a viable mountain lion population. It is clear that the 

linkage of the habitat connectivity would be important to the long term recolonization of the species 

should there be local extirpation. Routes are laid out to transect the movement of lions away from 

the mountain ranges. Volunteers have found an estimated .12 tracks per mile over a year, 

primarily in the drainages. They have detected bear track primarily outside the drainages. Over one 

year of effort the group is starting to define certain areas where animal sign either does or does not 

appear - a start toward possible corridor identification. 

The value of this project is in the effort and number of people who have participated. There 

have been 110 volunteers involved on the ground, engaging their minds, and asking questions 

about what the information they gather means. The project is long term, cheap, and flexible, and 

volunteers are its strength. 

The track count is being used elsewhere in Arizona and in other parts of the country to involve 

ordinary people in learning more about the biology and habitat requirements of local wildlife. It is a 

way to build constituencies for properly managing land by getting ordinary citizens involved on the 

ground. 

96 
Grazing and Fire Management 

Larry Allen1 

ABSTRACT 

Natural and man-caused fires have been an important component 

of grasslands and forests for many years. Fire suppression and 

grazing in the twentieth century have changed the character of those 

areas and the characteristics of fires that do burn. Fire is relatively 

new to the lower desert regions, with the introduction of exotic grass 

species. Many of the plants of these regions are not well-suited to 

fire and characteristics of the low deserts have changed in some 

areas. 

A change in attitudes toward fires is needed. In many cases they 

must be allowed to burn. This approach, however, must be 

tempered by a full understanding of the characteristics and needs of 

specific areas and the actual and perceived impacts on encroaching 

population areas. 

INTRODUCTION 

We have heard today that a number of factors have influenced southwestern ecosystems. 

Certainly cattle grazing is one of the bigger ones. There have also been a lot of other man-made 

disturbances to the environment - mines, railroads, cities, farms, a lot of different things have 

influenced these ecosystems. Probably one of the greatest influences has been fire, and in the last 

century or so the exclusion of fire. It was said earlier, many of these fires were caused by lightning. 

When I first started to work for the Forest Service, about 85 or 90 percent of our fires were lightning 

caused. That's not the case any more. But, I think a long time ago we had man-caused fires too. 

So, we had man-caused fires and then we had lightning-caused fires. But we had frequent fires in 

southeastern Arizona. 

We think that the Indians occasionally might have used fires for vegetation manipulations, but 

probably more commonly for hunting and for war. We have the incidences that Kris showed us. 

Another well known one is when the cavalry was at Bear Springs in the Whetstones and the 

Apaches set that Bear Springs Canyon on fire. That's where lieutenant Cushing was killed, and as a 

result he got a bar named after him. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION 

Now, the tree ring studies show some interesting phenomena on our mountain tops. And, as 

we heard, they are now starting to look at lower elevations too. But, the thing that interests me is 

the near cessation of fire in these ecosystems starting about 1900. Many people attribute that to 

fire suppression and they blame the Forest Service. About 1907, when we assumed management 

1 USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ. Transcribed from conference tapes. 

97 
of these lands, we had one or two rangers with a horse and a shovel in charge of a whole mountain 

range who sent out here to put the fires out. Later on, about the time I came along we had more 

modern equipment. But, obviously we werent very effective at it. Although we prevented the spread 

of some fires, I don't think that caused the dramatic decline or decrease that the tree ring studies 

show. Smokey Bear has had a big influence, but he didn't come along until about the 1950's. So, I 

think that probably what we are seeing is a pattern caused more by livestock grazing. Livestock 

have been in Arizona since about 1540, and they have been fairly prominent in Arizona since the 

1700's. But, the big build up was about the time of the Civil War. That kind of coincides with the 

tree ring data. After about 40 years of intensive livestock grazing, fires ceased. 

There has been a lot written and studied about what are the factors that brought about the 

changes in these ecosystems. I think that there are many varied factors, and that anyone who 

espouses any one factor is guilty of an oversimplification. A combination of climate changes and 

man-caused factors has resulted in, not total elimination, but certainly a marked decrease in the 

effect of fire on these Sonoran grasslands since around the turn of the century. 

MESQUITE SAVANNAS 

We at one time had mesquite savannas. We think in many of our foothills type areas, this is 

probably a fairly natural kind of a situation. If you have a combination of excessive grazing and 

drought, you get a situation where it wouldn't matter what the humidity was, you can't burn this kind 

of place without doing something to change the situation first. We improved livestock 

management. I agree with Jerry, we have a lot of good research and I think we also have a lot of 

good range management in the area. By the mid- 1950's or so, we had created enough fuels that 

fires probably could have started to spread again. But, by then the agencies were becoming pretty 

efficient at putting fires out. So, just about the time that the livestock ceased to be a problem, the 

agencies became the problem. 

FIRE IN THE SONORAN DESERT 

In our Sonoran area we have several different ecosystems, and one that has not evolved with a 

lot of fire is the Sonoran desert. This desert does not naturally support very much perennial grass. 

So the years that it will burn very hotly are pretty rare. As a result the desert plants that we really 

value in the Tucson area are pretty susceptible to fire, easily killed. This causes a problem to those 

of us who advocate reintroduction of fire. Another problem with fire in the Sonoran desert is the 

great abundance of exotic species such as Lehmann's love grass in Arizona and buffelgrass in 

Sonora. These areas have a fuel base that they never had naturally, and these exotic species have 

spread. We saw some examples of that this morning of damaging fires as a result of buffet grass. 

This can happen in some of the Lehmann's areas too. And, as Jerry said, unfortunately we have not 

been able to find a way to use fire as a tool to manage Lehmann's. It seems to thrive on fire. 

Another challenge to us is the great public interest. When fires start to bum, whether they are 

good or bad, the local publics get very mterested. Some people are concerned about what they 

perceive as forest destruction, other people are concerned about their homes and the 

improvements they have built close to the fire. The public scrutiny that we have nowadays 

complicates the situation quite a bit. 

98 
THE CHIHUAHUAN DESERT 

In the Chihuahuan desert areas, we don't have the spectacular cacti, but we do have some 

plants that are also susceptible to fire. There has been a lot of concern expressed in the literature 

about black grama. They think that burning the stolons can significantly damage black grama. Our 

experience in the Malpai area, at a little higher elevation, and a little higher rainfall, suggests that it 

doesn't seem to be as bad a problem as it is down in the desert. Anyway, we need to be sensitive 

to the fact that some of our grass species are more susceptible to fires than others. So, reviewing 

these factors, then, if we for a variety of reasons, remove fire from the ecosystem, we no longer 

have the natural pristine kind of an ecosystem. The result of having this bare soil, eventually is the 

encroachment of woody plants and probably encroachment into areas that didn't support them or 

didn't support them in any numbers in the pa£t, with deterioration of wildlife habitat and watershed 

values as well as forage. 

WOODLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS 

In our woodland areas, we think that where you have a mosaic of open grasslands, savannas, 

and then some dense woodlands is probably a natural state, and certainly a very desirable situation 

both for livestock and wildlife, and kind of pretty to look at too. The ecologic tendency in our 

woodlands is towards these dense woodlands. If you remove fire from those ecosystems, you get 

denser growth. Our riparian areas seem to be naturally fire resistant. The humidity is a little higher, 

the plants that are there are not as flammable. Fire burns through these areas periodically, and 

they seldom do much damage. In our prescribed burning efforts we try to prescribe cool fires in the 

riparians and exclude fire from a few critical ones. But, most of the time fire is not a big problem in 

the riparian area. 

CONTROLLED BURNS 

As we start to do management-ignited fires, we have to consider all of these factors together, 

and it gets to be a complicated planning process. The last fire that I planned took about nine 

months. The current one we are working on has taken almost two years to get through all the 

hoops. I think that fire can and should be used to maintain and enhance biodiversity and it should 

be recognized as a natural part of the ecosystem. It is a desirable part, unlike the Smokey Bear 

syndrome that we have been living with. I am encouraged by recent policies coming out of 

Washington, although I have seldom in my career been very encouraged by anything out of 

Washington. The Department of Interior, and Agriculture and Army, have recently come out with a 

unified fire policy, which has a lot of common sense, a lot of advocation of prescribed natural fire 

and use of fire as a tool. I am very encouraged by that. I'm not particularly encouraged by the fact 

that is has been out for 6 or 8 months, and the agencies are slow to respond. But, I think we are 

on the right track. I would emphasize that folks in southern Arizona really value the Sonoran desert 

vegetation, and we need to recognize that and be careful. These fires have the potential to set back 

our burning program because of the possibility that cacti will be killed. But, I think all of the 

agencies recognize the value of putting fire back into the ecosystem that evolved with fire. We also 

recognize the fact that you can't do it overnight. I hear people advocate that if suppression is the 

problem, then just say no, and quit suppressing fires. Particularly on our mountain tops, that 

doesn't work without some fuel modification first. But, we need to be headed towards much less 

suppression. 

99 
We also need to be aware of the needs of our neighbors south of the border. I've been involved 

in fire training and providing tools to our counterparts in Sonora. I am trying hard to avoid the 

impression that what the Forest Service is saying to the Mexican Forest Service is you ought to put 

the fires out. I will be involved this winter in meetings in small towns in Sonora and will talk to 

people about fire management as opposed to fire suppression. I think working together, we have 

an opportunity with the agencies working together with the folks who live and use the land, to really 

bring about some improvement in these ecosystems. Through a little more sensible fire 

management and the application of fire as a tool, and then we'll create habitat for all these 

interesting animals that inhabit the border area. 

100 
Historical Patterns of Surface Fire in 

Canyon Pine-Oak Forests, Savannas, and 

Intervening Semiarid Grasslands of the 

Southwest Borderlands: 

An Abstract of Work in Progress 

Mark Kaib, Christopher H. Baisan, Thomas W. Swetnam 1 

Researchers have long speculated about past fire regimes in the canyon pine-oak forests, 

savannas, and intervening semiarid grasslands. Although these mesic canyon pine-oak forest 

environments contain high biodiversity, certain endemic species, and increasing rates of ecotourism 

(Felger et al 1997; Fishbein et al. 1996), little research has been conducted within these areas 

when compared to the adjoining grasslands. Many authors have suggested a grassland fire-return 

cycle of roughly 10 years (e.g., Bahre 1995, 1991, 1985; Baisan and Swetnam 1990; Hastings 

and Turner 1965; Humphrey 1987, 1963, 1958; Leopold 1924; Marshall 1963, 1962, 1957; 

McPherson 1995; Moir 1982; Swetnam et al. 1992, 1989). Lack of paleoecological evidence 

and sole reliance upon seasonal, sporadic, sometimes rare, and often biased historic records have 

resulted in disparities. 

Dendrochronologic (tree-ring dated) reconstructions of fire and climate, and historical records, 

date back prior to Spanish colonization (circa 1600's; Swetnam and Baisan 1996a, 1995b; Meko 

eta!. 1995; Bancroft 1889, 1884). Patterns of widespread and frequent (i.e., every 5-10 years) 

low intensity surface fires were recorded for centuries by fire-scarred pines in these areas until the 

1870's and 1880's, when increased land-use and primarily livestock production led to rapid near 

extinction of fires of this nature (Cooper 1960; Dieterich and Swetnam 1984; Leopold 1924, 

Swetnam and Baisan 1996a; Weaver 1951). American fire suppression policies became effective 

by the 1930's (Swetnam and Baisan 1995a) further ensuring fire cessation and exacerbating forest 

and grassland change. Unfortunately recent extraordinary wildfires in the Southwest have 

threatened and taken human lives (e.g., Peak, Dude, Rattlesnake, Storm King). Additionally these 

anomalous fire events incinerated large patches of forested landscapes far different in character 

from past fires. After more than seventy years of discourse elucidating the need and destiny of fire 

in these ecosystems, recently funds have been allocated specifically for ecosystem fire 

management and research in the Southwest Borderlands (USDA 1992, 1993; Stephenson 1996). 

This region is of special interest for cross-border comparisons. Similar biophysical conditions 

but often unique land-use history in some cases has resulted in very different ecosystem processes 

and structure. Mexican and Native American land-use practices were and continue to be more 

diverse and in some cases less intensive than American production systems. Research on fire and 

1 All at the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

101 
land-use history in Mexico may demonstrate alternative and possibly more sustainable ecosystem 

management approaches. Some areas in Mexico have continued to experience common surface 

fires over the last century due to remoteness, varied land-use, economics, culture, and lack of fire 

suppression. Additionally traditional fire use by past and present cultures provide insight to 

potential human influence on fire history in these areas. Although recent fire-history investigations 

of anomalous fire patterns have considered anthropogenic sources (Baisan and Swetnam 1990, 

1995; Kaib et al. 1996a; Morino 1996; Seckleki et al. 1996; Swetnam et al. 1989), limited 

historical and ethnographical synthesis has often resulted in inconclusive results. 

The relative roles of humans verses climate and lightning in controlling past fire patterns has 

been increasingly under debate (e.g. AA Soclety Meeting 1996; Fish 1996; Williams 1994). Fire 

history reconstructions may in some cases contain anthropogenic patterns that can be supported 

jointly by tree-ring, historical, and ethnographic evidence. The Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research 

has an extensive network of fire chronologies (Swetnam and Baisan 1996a, 1996b) that document 

regional ecosystem fire patterns predominantly controlled by regional climate (Grissino-Mayer and 

Swetnam 1997; Swetnam 1993; Swetnam and Baisan 1996b; Swetnam and Betancourt 1997, 

1990). In some periods and places the fire history chronologies are likely enhanced by 

anthropogenic influence (Baisan and Swetnam 1995; Kaib et al. 1996b). Cultures and 

ecosystems are dynamic but also uniquely bound by regional geomorphic, edaphic, and climatic 

conditions (Fish 1996). Moreover human populations are confined by spatially limited water and 

food resources (Castetter and Opler 1936). Indeed it may well be the case that human impacts 

due to the utilization of fire, as with other past Native American land-use patterns in these areas 

(Betancourt and Van Devender 1981; Betancourt et al. 1986; Savage 1991; Swetnam 1984), 

were primarily site and time specific, and not generalizable to broader areas or long time spans. 

Because these complex relations vary by iocaiity and culture, anthropogenic fire patterns must first 

be resolved at specific well documented sites before regional ecosystem influences can be invoked. 

Tangible evidence has been recovered from remnant fire-scarred stumps, logs, and snags of 

Apache (Pinus engelmannii) and Arizona pines (P. arizonica) along canyon pine-oak forests. We 

selected six comparable canyon sites connected by lower intervening semiarid grasslands that span 

the international Sulfur Spring and San Pedro basins. Given the topographic barriers typically 

separating these canyon habitats it is likely that many fires spread primarily into and between these 

lower canyons from intervening grasslands as opposed to intramontane fire spread. Historical 

records and Forest Service reports indicate that past lightning- and human-caused grassland fires 

commonly spread over vast areas in this region (Bahre 1995, 1991, 1985; Barrows 1978; USFS 

Coronado National Forest, fire reports on file, Tucson, Arizona). Furthermore lack of fire has been 

commonly cited as the driving force behind extensive increases in woody trees and shrubs within 

semiarid grasslands (Archer 1994, 1958; Bahre 1995; Humphrey 1963, 1958). Synchronous fire 

dates between sites, combined with these lines of evidence, provide a basis for inferring fire 

frequencies sustained by the intervening semiarid grasslands (Kaib et al. 1996b). Preliminary 

analysis of fire reconstructions from Rhyolite, Pine, and Turkey Creek Canyons in the western 

Chiricahua Mountains indicate past surface fires in these areas were more frequent than previously 

thought, ranging between one fire every 4 to 7 years (Kaib et al. 1996b). These canyons were 

occupied seasonally for centuries by the Chiricahua Apache, and fire reconstructions are likely 

influenced by their use and occupation of these areas (Cole 1988). 

The robust cultural history of this region together with multicentury fire-history reconstructions 

also suggests the influence of humans in some areas and times. Decadal episodic intervals of 

elevated fire frequencies were associated with well documented borderland wartime periods 

(tentatively; 1680-1710, 1748- 1786, and 1831-1876; Bancroft 1889, 1884; Basso 1971; 

102 
Griffen 1988a, 1988b, 1979; Naylor and Polzer 1986; Spicer 1962). Fire was a tactical tool 

used by most cultures (Pyne 1982) and commonly in warfare during these periods. Anthropogenic 

fire patterns were also perhaps tied to traditional Chiricahua Apache cultural practices (Castetter 

and Opler 1936, Opler 1941) associated with these periods. Each identified wartime period was 

unique but often linked to shorter intervals of political unrest (Spicer 1962), increased Apache 

raiding (Griffen 1988a, 1988b, 1979), general warfare (Basso 1971; Binckerhoff et al. 1965), 

episodic drought and famine (John 1975; Meko et al. 1995), and increased fire frequency (Kaib et 

al. 1996b). 

Fire reconstructions from these unique canyon pine-oak forests document the decadal to 

century scale variability of past fire regimes sustained by these interconnected ecosystems. In 

conjunction with regional and higher elevation fire reconstructions these chronologies will increase 

our knowledge of fire spread across these borderland basin and range vegetation gradients. Fire 

history research in Mexico by comparison illustrates land-use patterns and livestock production 

systems which did not exclude recurrent 20th century fire patterns and processes from these 

ecosystems. Ecological, historical, and cultural research in the Southwest Borderlands 

demonstrate comparative, alternative, and perhaps in some cases more sustainable ecosystem 

management practices. Furthermore these sites contain several centuries of fire and cultural 

history that together will help shed light upon the spatial and temporal influence of anthropogenic 

fire and the interaction of biophysical and cultural fire patterns. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We would like to thank Henri Grissino-Mayer for his support and review of this work. 

REFERENCES 

American Archaeology Society 61st Annual Meeting. 1996: Symposium; Burning Issues: Ancient 

Forest Fires---Anthropogenic or Natural? 

Archer, S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates, 

patterns and proximate causes. In: Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West, 

M. Vavra, W. Laycock, and R. Pieper; eds. pp. 13-68. Society of Range Management, 

Denver, Colorado. 

Archer, S, 1989, Have Southern Texas savannas been converted to woodlands in recent history?. 

The American Naturalist. 134: 545-561. 

Bahre, C. J. 1985. Wildfire in Southeastern Arizona between 1859 and 1890. Desert Plants 7: 

190-194. 

Bahre, C. J. 1991. A legacy of change: historic human impact on vegetation of the Arizona 

borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 231 pp. 

Bahre, C. J. 1995. Human impacts on the grasslands of Southeastern Arizona. pages 230-264, In: 

M. P. McClaran and T. R. Van Devender; eds., The Desert Grassland, The University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Baisan, C. H., and T. W. Swetnam. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon 

Mountain Wilderness, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:1559-1569. 

Baisan, C. H. And T. W. Swetnam. 1995. Sandia/Manzano fire history final report. On file at the 

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Bancroft, Hubert, H. 1884. History of the North Mexican States and Texas. A. L. Bancroft and 

Company, San Francisco. 

103 
Bancroft, Hubert, H. 1889. History of Arizona and New Mexico. The History Company 

Publishers, San Francisco. 

Barrows, J. S. 1978. Lightning fires in southwestern forests. Final report to USDA, Forest 

Service, Intermountain forest and range experiment station, under cooperative agreement 

16-568-CA with rocky mountain forest and range experiment station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Department of forestry and wood science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Basso, K. H. (ed.) 1971. Western Apache Raiding and Warfare: from the notes of Grenville 

Goodwin. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Betancourt, J. L. and T. R. VanDevender. 1981. Holocene vegetation in Chaco Canyon, New 

Mexico. Science 214: 656-658. 

Betancourt, J. L., J. S. Dean, and H. M. Hull. 1986. Prehistoric long distance transport of 

construction beams, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. American Antiquity 51:370-375. 

Brinckerhoff, Sidney, B., and 0. B. Faulk. 1965. The Lancers of the King: a study of the frontier 

military system of Northern New Spain, with a translation of the royal regulations of 1772. 

Arizona Historical Foundation, Phoenix. 

Castetter, Edward, F. and Morris. E. Opler. 1936. The ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and 

Mescalero Apache. University of New Mexico Bulletin No. 297, Biological Service, 

Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest. 63 pp. 

Cole, D. C. 1988. The Chiricahua Apache 1846-1876: From War to Reservation. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Cooper, C. F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of Southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30:129-164. 

Dieterich, J. H., and T. W. Swetnam. 1984. Dendrochronology of a fire scarred ponderosa pine. 

Forest Science 30:238-247. 

Felger, R., B. T. Burns., R. Bye., M. Fishbein., S. P. Mclaughlin., G. P. Nabhan., S. Nelson., H. 

Suzan., P. Warshall, and M. Wilson. 1997. In Press. Northern Sierra Madre Occidental and 

its Apachian outliers: a neglected center of biodiversity. In Press. 

Fish, S. K. 1996. In Press. Modelling Human impacts to the borderlands environment from a fire 

ecology perspective. 

Fishbein, M., R. Felger, and F. Garza. 1995. Another jewel in the crown: a report on the flora of 

the Sierra de los Ajos, Sonora, Mexico. In: proceedings of the conference on biodiversity and 

management of the madrean archipelago: the sky islands of the Southwest United States and 

Northwest Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-264. 

Griffen, William B. 1979. Indian assimilation in the Franciscan area of Nueva Vizcaya. 

Anthropological Papers of The University of Arizona, No. 33. The University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. 122 pp. 

Griffen, William B. 1988a. Apaches at War Peace the Janos Precidio 1750-1858. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 300 pp. 

Griffen, William B. 1988b. Utmost Good Faith Patterns of Apache-Mexican Hostilities in 

Northern Chihuahua Border Warfare, 1821-1848. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque. 337 pp. 

Grissino-Mayer, H.D. and T. W. Swetnam. 1997. Century-Scale climate-fire interactions in the 

American Southwest. Unpublished Manuscript. 

Hastings, J. R. and R. M. Turner. 1965. The Changing Mile: An Ecological Study of Vegetation 

Change with Time in the Lower Mile of a Semi-Arid Region. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 317 pp. 

104 
Humphrey, R. R. 1958. The desert grassland a history of vegetational change and an analysis of 

causes. The Botanical Review 4: 193-252. 

Humphrey, R. R. 1963. The role of fire in desert and desert grassland areas of Arizona. Proc. Tall 

Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 2:45-62. 

Humphrey, R. R. 1987. 90 Years and 535 Miles Vegetation Changes Along the Mexican Border. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 448 pp. 

John, Elizabeth, A. 1975. Storms Brewed in Other Men's Worlds; the confrontation of Indians, 

Spanish, and French in the Southwest, 1540-1795. Texas A & M University Press, College 

Station. 805 pp. 

Kaib, J. M., C. H. Baisan, and T. W. Swetnam. 1996a. Anthropogenic enhanced fire regimes: 

Anthropogenic overkill?. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Society of Ethnobiology 

Conference. Abstract, Journal of Ethnobiology, in press. 

Kaib, J. M., C. H. Baisan, Henri Grissino-Mayer, and T. W. Swetnam. 1996b. Fire history in the 

pine-oak forests and adjacent grasslands of the Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona. In: P. F. 

Ffolliott, L. F. DeBano, M. B. Baker, G. J. Gottfried, G. Solis-Garza, C. B. Edminster, D. G. 

Neary, L. S. Allen, and R. H. Hamre, tech. coords., Effects of Fire on Madrean Province 

Ecosystems; A Symposium Proceedings, USDA Forest Service, RM-GTR-289:253-264. 

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southern Arizona. Journal of forestry 22:1-10. 

Marshall J. T. 1957. Birds of the pine-oak woodland in Southern Arizona and adjacent Mexico. 

Pacific Coast Avifauna 32: 1-125. 

Marshall, J. T. 1962. Land use and native birds of Arizona. Journal of Arizona Academy of 

Science 2: 75-77. 

Marshall, J. T. 1963. Fire and birds in the mountains of southern Arizona. Tall Timbers Fire 

Ecology Conference 2:135-141. 

McPherson, G. R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grasslands. pages 130-151, In: M. P. 

McClaran and T. R. Van Devender, eds. The Desert Grassland, The University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Meko, D., C.W. Stockton, and W.R. Boggess. 1995. The tree-ring record of severe sustained 

drought. Water Resources Bulletin. 31:789-801. 

Moir, W. H. 1982. A fire history in the High Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. 

Southwestern Naturalist 27: 87-98. 

Morino, K. A. 1996. Reconstruction and interpretation of historical patterns of fire occurrence in 

the Organ Mountains, New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson. 140 pp. 

Naylor, T. and C. Polzer, S.J. 1986. The presidio and militia on the northern frontier of New 

Spain, 1570-1700, vol. I. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Opler, Morris. E. 1941. An Apache life-way, the economic, social, and religious institutions of 

the Chiricahua Indians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 500 pp. 

Pyne, Stephan, J. 1982. Fire in America. Pages 515-529, Princeton University Press, 

Princeton. 

Savage, M. 1991. Structural dynamics of a southwestern pine forest under chronic human 

influence. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81: 271-289. 

Seklecki, M., H. D. Grissino-Mayer, and T. W. Swetnam. 1996. Fire history and the possible role 

of Apache-set fires in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeast Arizona. In: P. F. Ffolliott, L. 

F. DeBano, M. B. Baker, G. J. Gottfried, G. Solis-Garza, C. B. Edminster, D. G. Neary, L. S. 

Allen, and R. H. Hamre, tech. coords., Effects of Fire on Madrean Province Ecosystems; A 

Symposium Proceedings, USDA Forest Service, RM-GTR-289:238-246. 

105 
Spicer, E. H. 1962. Cycles of Conquest; the impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on 

the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 609 pp. 

Stephenson, N. L. 1996. Ecology and management of giant sequoia groves. In Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland 

Resources. 55:1431-1467. 

Swetnam, T. W. 1984. Peeled ponderosa pine trees: a record of inner bark utilization by Native 

Americans. Journal of Ethnobiology 4:177-190. 

Swetnam, T. W. 1990. Fire history and climate change in the southwestern United States, In J. S. 

Krammes, Tech. Coord., Proceedings of Symposium on Effects of Fire Management of 

Southwestern U.S. Natural Resources, November 15-17, 1988, Tucson, Arizona. USDA 

Forest Service, General Technical Report. RM-191:6-17. 

Swetnam, T. W. 1993. Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 

262:885-889. 

Swetnam, T. W. and C. H. Baisan. 1996a. Fire histories of montane forests in the Madrean 

Borderlands. In: P. F. Ffolliott, L. F. DeBano, M. B. Baker, G. J. Gottfried, G. Solis-Garza, 

C. B. Edminster, D. G. Neary, L. S. Allen, and R. H. Hamre, tech. coords., Effects of Fire on 

Madrean Province Ecosystems; A Symposium Proceedings, USDA Forest Service, 

RM-GTR-289:15-36. 

Swetnam, T. W. and C. H. Baisan. 1996b. Historical fire regime patterns in the Southwestern 

United States since AD 1700. In: Fire Effects in Southwestern Forests, Proceedings of the 

Second La Mesa Fire Symposium, Los Alamos, New Mexico, March 29-30, 1994, C. D. 

Allen, tech ed., USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-GTR-286:11-32. 

Swetnam, T. W. and J. L. Betancourt. 1990. Fire-southern oscillation relations in the Southwest 

United States. Science 249:1017-1020. 

Swetnam, T. W. and J. L. Betancourt. 1997. In Press. Mesoscale disturbance and ecological 

response to decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. In press; Journal of 

Climate. 

Swetnam, T. W., C. H. Baisan, A. C. Caprio, and P. M. Brown. 1989. Fire history of Rhyolite 

Canyon Chiricahua National Monument. USDI National Park Service, Cooperative Park 

Service Studies Unit Technical Report No. 32, University of Arizona, Tucson. 38 pp. 

Swetnam, T. W., C. H. Baisan, A. C. Caprio, and P. M. Brown. 1992. Fire history in a Mexican 

oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: 

P. F. Ffolliott, G. J. Gottfried, D. A. Bennett, V. M. Hernandez, A. Ortega-Rubio, and R. H. 

Hamre, tech. coords., Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: 

perspectives in the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico, April 27-30,1992, 

Sierra Vista, Arizona. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. RM-218:165-173. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Fire and forest health, Southwestern Region. Report prepared by R. 

Moody et al., R-3 Regional Office. 

USDA Forest Service Staffing Paper, USDA, 1993, Fire related considerations and strategies in 

support of ecosystem management. Staffing Paper, Fire and Aviation Management, 

Washington Office. 

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an ecological factor in the southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal 

of Forestry 49: 93-98. 

Williams, G. W. 1994. References on the American Indian use of fire in ecosystems. U.S. Forest 

Service Report, Pacific Northwest Region. 

106 
Experimental Fire Research in 

Semi-arid Shortgrass Prairie 

Paulette L. Ford1 and Guy R. McPherson2 

ABSTRACT 

Resource managers need reliable scientific information to effectively 

manage plant and animal communities and ecological processes. 

Ecologists must accept the challenge of providing sound scientific 

and relevant information to resource managers in a manner that 

allows prediction of the effects of land management techniques on 

ecosystems. Our research on the Kiowa National Grassland is 

designed to experimentally analyze the effects of season and 

frequency of fire on vegetation, small mammal, reptile, and 

arthropod communities in shortgrass prairie. The research should 

provide resource managers with information that will allow them to 

predict the effects of prescribed burns on semi-arid shortgrass prairie 

ecosystems. 

INTRODUCTION 

Today, semi-arid grasslands are managed for a variety of organisms including livestock, birds, 

reptiles, and mammals. Resource managers need reliable scientific information to effectively 

manage plant and animal communities and ecological processes. Ecologists know that determining 

the mechanisms underlying observed patterns (i.e., invasion of non-native grasses, declining 

diversity) is fundamental to understanding and predicting ecosystem responses to changes in the 

physical or biological environment and is necessary for improving management (McPherson in 

press). However, most scientists seek generality to their research, which is contradictory to the 

site-specific information needed by land managers (McPherson in press). In addition, ecologists 

typically fail to conduct experiments relevant to managers (Underwood 1995). This is especially 

evident when considering the lack of experimental research on the ecological impacts of fire in 

semi-arid grassland communities. 

Fire can be a powerful force in structuring ecological communities (Figure 1). Depending on 

management goals, fire can be counterproductive, e.g., detrimental to reforestation efforts by 

reducing woody vegetation (Janzen 1986), or very productive, e.g., maintaining open grasslands by 

reducing woody vegetation (McPherson 1995). Linking fire, science, and management provides a 

unique opportunity to combine research on an ecologically interesting phenomenon with important 

management goals. Our research on the Kiowa National Grassland uses an experimental 

framework to analyze the effects of season and frequency of fire on vegetation, small mammal, 

reptile, and arthropod communities in shortgrass prairie. 

1 Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM and University of Arizona, School of 

Renewable Natural Resources, Tucson, Al. 2 University of Arizona, School of Rer1awao1e Natural Resources, Tucson, Al. 

107 
FIRE 

The effects of fire on an 

ecosystem depend on the 

current physical and biological 

environment, and on present 

and past land-use patterns 

(Ford and McPherson in 

press). Fire interacts with 

numerous other factors, 

including topography, soil, 

insects, herbivores (rodents, 

lagomorphs), and herbaceous 

plants to restrict woody plant 

establishment in grasslands 

(Grover and Musick 1990; 

McPherson 1995; Wright and 

Bailey 1982). Currently, there 

is agreement that the use of 

Figure 1. Prairie fire (photo by Harvey Payne). fire is necessary, though 

usually insufficient, to control 

the abundance of woody plants and maintain most grasslands; in the absence of periodic fire, most 

grasslands become dominated by woody plants (McPherson 1995). 

Although recurrent fires are historically prevalent natural components of grassland ecosystems, 

fire size and frequency have diminished in semi-arid grasslands since the 1880s due to active fire 

suppression by Anglo settlers and removal of available fuel by livestock grazing (Bahre 1991; Ford 

and McPherson 1996). The use of prescribed fire has increased recently, primarily as a 

management tool to control invasion of woody plants into grasslands and to increase rangeland 

productivity. 

Weltzin and McPherson (1995) pointed out that disturbance by fire today may fail to produce 

the same responses as in the past, due to profound changes in physical and biological 

environments over the last century. These changes include increased concentrations of 

atmospheric greenhouse gases (i.e. C02 , methane), increased abundance of native (i.e., woody 

perennial), and non-native plants (i.e., lovegrasses, buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris), several 

herbaceous dicots), and decreased abundances of some plant and animal species. 

Considerable non-experimental research was conducted to address fire effects on 

vegetation in shortgrass prairie before 1980 (reviewed by Ford and McPherson 1996). In general, 

these studies indicate that fire leads to decreased herbaceous production for 1 to 3 years, and that 

herbaceous response is strongly influenced by precipitation. Fires also contribute to reductions in 

woody plant cover and to increases in density and diversity of herbaceous dicots 

(Ford and McPherson in press). 

In addition to vegetation, animals (i.e., arthropods, mammals, birds, reptiles) are also important 

components of semi-arid grassland ecosystems. They function as decomposers, pollinators, 

108 
Figure 2. Southern Great Plains circa 1930 

(courtesy of Kiowa National Grasslands}. 

herbivores, predators, and 

prey; cycling nutrients and 

forming valuable links 

among trophic levels. 

Numerous studies have 

indicated that animal 

species, populations, and 

communities respond 

differentially to disturbance 

by fire (reviewed by Ford 

and McPherson 1996), 

partly because fire can 

have both direct and 

indirect effects. Direct 

effects are acute and 

ephemeral i.e., fire 

induced mortality. Indirect 

effects (i.e., alterations in 

habitat) are long-lasting 

and usually more 

important. Therefore, fire in semi-arid grasslands may directly or indirectly elicit major or minor 

population or community structure changes depending upon the vagility, life history, habitat 

requirements, and trophic level of the animal, and the season, extent, and intensity of the fire (Ford 

and McPherson 1996). 

Fire Season and Frequency 

Grassland communities are usually influenced by seasonality and frequency of fire due to their 

evolutionary adaptations to particular habitat features and conditions (Ford and McPherson 1996). 

Fire has been a consistent enough event in semi-arid grasslands for communities to develop 

structural adaptations to its periodic stress (Steuter and McPherson 1995). For example, the forb 

component tends to be more diverse and has a higher number of individuals following fire than in 

long-term unburned communities (Baiiey and Anderson 1978; Collins and Barber 1985). 

In addition, the season in which the fire occurs has the potential to generate a dynamic spatial 

and temporal mosaic within the landscape (Steuter and McPherson 1995). The fuels of semi-arid 

grasslands may support high rates of fire spread when cured (Rothermel 1983), or be too 

discontinuous or actively growing to carry a fire (Andrews 1986), depending on plant growth form 

and phenology (Steuter and McPherson 1995). As a result, native communities probably develop 

under a characteristic range of fire size and frequency for the different seasons (Steuter 1986). 

Regardless of the season of burning, variability in the population dynamics of some plant 

species appears to be related to variation in fire behavior (i.e., intensity, percent of area burned, 

fuel consumption). In contrast, other plant species are least vulnerable to dormant-season burning 

and most vulnerable to burning early in the growing season (Giitzenstein et al. 1995). In general, 

109 
plant species in semi-arid 

grasslands are more strongly 

influenced by fire season and 

frequency than behavior 

(Steuter and McPherson 

1995). Responses of 

arthropods to season and 

frequency of fires appear to 

vary by species (Warren et 

al. 1987). To our 

knowledge, no studies have 

focused on the issue of 

seasonal effects of fire on 

small mammals (Kaufman et 

al. 1990) or reptiles. 

Experimental Research 

Figure 3. Kiowa National Grasslands Experimental Research 

Area, spring 1996 (photo by Paulette L. Ford). 

Previous research on vegetation responses to fire in shortgrass prairie of the southern Great 

Plains is non-experimental (descriptive) in nature. In addition, many of the previous studies 

analyzed response patterns only after natural or catastrophic fire, an anecdotal approach with 

limited applicability. Most of this previous research was conducted before 1980, and was primarily 

focused on the use of fire as a tool to increase forage value of vegetation (Ford and McPherson 

1996). 

As discussed by McPherson and Weltzin (in press), descriptive research is suitable for 

Figure 4. Box turtles are marked with notches 

on their shells for identification 

(photo by Paulette L. Ford). 

identifying patterns, but is considerably less 

useful for determining underlying mechanisms. 

This type of research has limited predictive 

power, and consequently, is of limited value to 

land managers. In contrast, identification of the 

underlying change mechanisms enables 

prediction of community responses to driving 

variables with levels of certainty and on spatial 

and temporal scales useful to resource 

managers. 

Experimentation (i.e., artificial application of 

treatment conditions followed by monitoring) is 

an efficient and appropriate means for testing 

hypotheses about ecological phenomena; it is 

often the only means for doing so (Simberloff 

1983; Campbell et al 1991; McPherson in 

press). Manipulative field-based experimental 

research will help determine important driving 

variables because of strong correlations among 

factors under investigation (Gurevitch and Collins 

1994). 

Some important questions can be addressed 

110 
only at scales that may be incompatible with experimentation (Ford and McPherson 1996). 

McPherson (in press) points out that in the absence of experimental research, managers and 

policy-makers must rely on the results of descriptive studies. Unfortunately, these studies often 

produce conflicting interpretations of underlying mechanisms, and are plagued by weak inference 

(Platt 1964): descriptive studies (including .. natural .. experiments, sensu Diamond 1986) are forced 

to infer mechanism based on pattern (McPherson in press). Therefore, they are poorly-suited for 

determining underlying mechanisms or causes of patterns because there is no test involved (Popper 

1981, Keddy 1989). Even rigorous, long-term vegetation monitoring is incapable of revealing 

causes of vegetation change because of confounding interactions among the many factors that 

potentially contribute to shifts in species composition (e.g., Wondzell and Ludwig 1995). 

There are many examples of .. natural .. experiments in the ecological literature, but results of 

these studies should be interpreted with caution. As discussed by McPherson (in press), grassland 

researchers have routinely compared recently burned areas to adjacent unburned areas and 

concluded that observed differences in species composition were the direct result of the 

disturbance under study. Before reaching this conclusion, it is appropriate to ask why one area 

burned while another did not. Pre-burn differences in productivity, fuel continuity, fuel moisture 

content, plant phenology, topography, or edaphic factors may have caused the observed fire 

pattern. Since these factors influence, or are influenced by, species composition, they cannot be 

ruled out as candidate explanations for post-fire differences in species composition. 

A current example of the difficulty facing managers as they attempt to tease apart actual versus 

perceived effects of fire in semi-arid grassland is the invasion of Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis 

lehmanniana Nees.) into southern Arizona. Lehmann lovegrass was introduced into Arizona in the 

1930s from southern Africa as a potential source of forage and erosion control. The love grass is 

now the most common perennial grass in southern Arizona (McClaran 1995). 

Widespread establishment of the non-native Lehmann love grass is perceived as detrimental to 

many management goals, including maintenance of livestock grazing values, wildlife habitat (e.g., 

masked bobwhite quail), and restoration of historic community structure. All available evidence, 

including results from field experiments, indicates that Lehmann lovegrass increases with 

application of prescribed fire (Ruyle et al. 1988; Biedenbender and Roundy 1996): it is a species 

that seems to benefit 

from the high-light 

environment associated 

with disturbances 

(Sumrall et al. 1991). 

Nonetheless, many 

managers currently 

advocate the use of fire 

to restore historic 

community structure, 

including decreased 

abundance of Lehmann 

lovegrass. There 

appears to be a disparity 

between scientists (who 

have found that 

Lehmann lovegrass 

increases after fire) and 

Figure 5. Systematic sampling using mark-recapture techniques 

provides quantitative estimates of small mammal species 

composition and abundance (photo by Paulette L Ford). 

111 
managers (who are using fire as a tool to reduce Lehmann lovegrass). Why should scientists and 

managers differ? 

We propose several hypotheses that may explain the disparity between scientists and 

managers. 

Hypothesis 1: the pattern reported by scientists (Lehmann lovegrass increases after fire) may not 

be a general one. Because experiments are necessarily restricted to a subset of the geographic 

range of a species, different patterns may be observed in association with different soils or climate 

regimes. 

Hypothesis 2: Many managers, students, and scientists do not recognize that experiments 

engender more confidence in identifying mechanisms than observational studies or anecdotal 

efforts. 

Hypothesis 3: Many managers and most lay people adhere to a Clementsian view of vegetation 

dynamics that is inconsistent with contemporary ecological theory. Contrary to the Clementsian 

view, restoring the disturbance regime (e.g., frequent fires in semi-arid grassland) will not 

necessarily restore the historic community structure. 

Hypothesis 4: Considerable variability in environmental conditions may mask or override the 

effects of fire regime. Some precipitation patterns undoubtedly favor native grasses more than 

others. Therefore, managers may observe increased abundance of native grass or decreased 

abundance of Lehmann lovegrass and incorrectly attribute these climate-induced shifts in 

community structure to management. Unfortunately, programs that use prescribed fire as a 

management tool have not monitored vegetation response in sufficient detail to differentiate 

between climate- and management-induced patterns. 

Our research on the Kiowa analyzes community structure of vegetation, mammals, arthropods, 

and box turtles before and after fire treatment, to ensure that changes in community structure and 

population dynamics can be correctly interpreted as responses to fire. 

STUDY SITE 

The study site for our research is in the southern Great Plains on the Kiowa National Grassland 

Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest in Union County, New Mexico. The area consists of 

apf>roximately 400 acres (160 ha) of shortgrass prairie that has never been plowed, though it was 

grazed by livestock until approximately six years ago. Because the area was not cultivated, it did 

not experience major soil loss typical of adjacent sites during the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s (Figure 

2). 

The site is relatively homogenous and nearly flat, with no slopes exceeding 1%. The uniform 

conditions at the site present an excellent location to evaluate the effects of prescribed fire (Figure 

112 
,•· .. -:. 

3). The site is an example 

of the semi-arid, 

buffalograss-blue grama 

ecological land type, occurring 

on a relatively level site of 

low physiographic and 

edaphic variability (Figure 

2). Elevation ranges from 

4, 775 ft (1,455 m) at the 

southwest corner, to 4,830 

ft (1,4 72 m) at the 

northwest corner. Mean 

annual precipitation is 15.4 

in (391 mm). 

Soil and Vegetation 

The soil series for the 

area consists of 

approximately 5% Dioxice 

Figure 6. Arthropods are collected with pitfall traps 

(photo by Paulette L Ford). 

(Acridic Calciustolls) loam, 25% Gruver (Acridic Paleustolls) loam, 35% Sherm (Torrertic Paleustolls) 

clay loam, and 35% Spurlock (Ustollic Calciorthids) loam (Maxwell et al. 1981). Most of the soil 

types contain small pockets of other soil types resulting in a mosaic. Overall, the deep, welldrained loam soils support an almost shrubless grassland with a relatively tight sod of pure blue 

grama (Bouteloua gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag. Ex Steud.) and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.) 

Engelm.). These species average 85% of the cover throughout the site. Depending on the location 

on the site, galleta (Hilaria jamesii (Torr.) Benth.) ranges from 0 to 12% ground cover; ba:ttlebrush 

squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix Nutt.) 0 to 8%; and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) 

Torr.)O to 5% (Maxwell et al. 1981). Other grasses include hairy grama (Boute/oua hirsuta Lag.), 

three-awn (Aristida spp.), ring grass muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi (Kunth)), sand dropseed 

(Sporobulus cryptandus (Torr.) A. Gray), and occasional annual grasses (Maxwell et al. 1981; 

Dunmire 1991). 

Study 

Rre is known to affect a variety of ecosystem structures and processes. In this study, the 

variables of primary interest include the responses of arthropod, small mammal, box turtle, and 

vegetation communities, before and after dormant- and growing-season fires on the Kiowa National 

Grassland. The experimental fire treatments will be applied to the site during the spring and 

summer of 1997 and every three years for up to 18 years. 

The design for this long-term experiment is a completely randomized design with four replicates. 

The treatments are designed to allow examination of the optimal time interval between fires and 

include one fire every three, six, and nine years, and an unburned treatment. In addition to fire 

frequency, season of burning is evaluated by burning half the treatment plots during the growingseason (June to July) and the other half during the dormant-season (March to April). Plots are 140 

m x 140 m with at least 60 m of unburned area between all plots. Pre-treatment sampling of box 

turtle, small mammal and arthropod communities began in 1995-1996 (Rgures 4, 5, 6). 

113 
Results 

Fall 1995, and spring and summer 1996 data collection on the Kiowa National Grassland has 

yielded over 100 species of arthropods to date (see Ford and McPherson 1996 for a list of species 

collected fall 1995), and at least 22 new arthropod locality records (state or county). Several 

individuals of the ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata) population on the study site have been 

marked and measured. Small mammals trapped on the site include hispid pocket mice 

(Chaetodipus hispidis), Ord's kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ordii), northern grasshopper mice 

(Onychomys leucogaster), silky pocket mice (Perognathus f/avus), deer mice (Peromyscus 

maniculatus), and thirteen-lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus). 

CONCLUSION 

The effects of fire on animal community structure in grasslands are related to trophic 

relationships and plant community structure. Conceivably, the effects of fire on arthropods 

influence birds and small rodents that rely on arthropods as their prey base. This in turn will affect 

larger mammals and raptors. Because these relationships change rapidly as vegetation establishes 

and grows in recently-burned areas, community structure is temporally dynamic (Ford and 

McPherson 1996). Change is normal for most ecological systems (Connell and Sousa 1983), 

which makes understanding and managing ecosystems challenging (ESA 1995). 

Land managers face a difficult dilemma as they attempt to incorporate scientific knowledge into 

management decisions (McPherson in press). Ecologists must accept the challenge of providing 

sound scientific and relevant information to resource managers in a manner that allows prediction 

of the effects of various land management techniques (i.e. prescribed fire, grazing) on ecosystems. 

Some examples of information that can be provided to resource managers from our research 

include: evaluation of the population responses of arthropods, box turtles, and vertebrates to prairie 

restoration using prescribed fire; identification of plant and animal species that are fire-dependent, 

neutral, or exhibit positive or negative responses to fire; evaluation of length of time after fire before 

positive or negative responses are produced; evaluation of the use of prescribed fire to benefit 

sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species; and determination of whether fire 

suppression or differences in season and frequency of prescribed burns will continue to contribute 

to population declines of some species (Ford and McPherson 1996). 

REFERENCES 

Andrews, P. L. 1986. BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system/burn subsystem, 

Part 1. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INTGTR-194. Ogden, Utah. 

Bahre, C, J. 1991. A legacy of change: historic impact of vegetation in the Arizona borderlands. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Bailey, A. W. and M. L. Anderson. 1978. Prescribed burning of a Festuca-Stipa grassland. Journal 

of Range Management 31:446-449. 

Biedenbender, S. H. and B. A. Roundy. Establishment of native semidesert grasses in existing 

stands of Eragrostis lehmanniana in southeastern Arizona. Restoration Ecology 4:155-162. 

Campbell, B. D., J. P. Grime, J. M. L. Mackey, and A. Jalili. 1991. The quest for a mechanistic 

understanding of resource competition in plant communities: the role of experiments. 

Functional Ecology 5:241-253. 

114 
Collins, S. L. and S. C. Barber. 1985. Effects of disturbance on diversity in mixed-grass prairie. 

Vegetation 64:87-94. 

Connell, J. H. And W. P. Sousa. 1983. On the evidence needed to judge ecological stability or 

persistence. American Naturalist 121:789-824. 

Diamond, J. M. 1986. Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments and natural 

experiments. Pp. 3-22. Community Ecology, (J. M. Diamond and T. J. Case, eds.). Harper and 

Row, New York. 

Dunmire, W. W. 1991. Establishment Record for Kiowa Shortgrass Research Natural Area within 

the Cibola National Forest, Union County, New Mexico. The Nature Conservancy, Santa Fe. 

Ecological Society of America. 1995. The scientific basis for ecosystem management- an 

assessment by the Ecological Society of America. 

Ford , P. L. And G. R. McPherson. In press. Ecology of fire in shortgrass prairie communities of the 

Kiowa National Grasslands proposed research natural area. Proceedings of the 23rd Natural 

Areas, Indiana Dunes Ecosystem, and 15th North American Prairie Conference, St. Charles, Ill. 

Ford, P. L. And G. R. McPherson. 1996. Ecology of fire in shortgrass prairie of the southern Great 

Plains. Pp. 20-39. In: Ecosystem Disturbance and wildlife conservation in western grasslands: 

a symposium proceedings. Deborah M. Finch, editor. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-GTR-285. Fort Collins, CO. 

Glitzenstein, J. S., W. J. Platt, and D. R. Streng. 1995. Effects of fire regime and habitat on tree 

dynamics in north Florida longleaf pine savannas. Ecological Monographs 65:441-4 76. 

Grover, H. D. And H. B. Musick. 1990. Shrubland encroachment in southern New Mexico, U.S.A.: 

an analysis of the desertification processes in the American Southwest. Climatic Change 

17:305-330. 

Gurevitch, J. And S. L. Collins. 1994. Experimental manipulation of natural plant communities. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:94-98. 

Janzen, D. H. 1986. Guanacaste National Park: tropical ecological and cultural restoration. San 

Jose, C.R.:EUNED-FPN-PEA. 

Kaufman, D. W., E. J. Finck, and G. A. Kaufman. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. Pp. 

46-80. Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies (S. L. Collins and L. L. Wallace eds.). 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London. 

Keddy, P. A. 1989. Competition. Chapman and Hall, New York. 

Maxwell, H. B., S. P. Shade, H. D. Rounsaville and A. Stevenson. 1981. Soil survey of Union 

County, New Mexico. USDA Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 83 pp. and maps. 

McClaran, M. P. 1995. Desert grasslands and grasses. Pp. 1-30. The desert grassland, (M. P. 

McClaran and T. R. Van Devender, eds.). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

McPherson, G. R. In Press. Ecology and management of North American savannas. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

McPherson, G. R. 1995. The Role of fire in desert grasslands. Pp. 130-151. The desert 

grassland, (M. P. McClaran and T. R. VanDevender, eds.). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

McPherson, G. R. and J. F. Weltzin. In Press. Disturbances and climate change in U.S./Mexico 

borderland plant communities: a state-of-the-knowledge review. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Experiment Station, General Technical Report. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Platt, J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146:34 7-353. 

Popper, K. 1981. Science, pseudo-science, and falsifiability. Pp. 92-99. On scientific thinking, 

(R. D. Tweney, M. E. Doherty, and C. R. Mynatt, eds.). Columbia University Press, New York. 

115 
Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. USDA 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-GTR-143. Ogden, 

Utah. 

Ruyle, G. B., B. A. Roundy, and J. R. Cox. 1988. Effects of burning on germinability of Lehmann 

lovegrass. Journal of Range Management 41:404-406. 

Simberloff, D. 1983. Competition theory, hypothesis-testing, and other community ecology 

buzzwords. American Naturalist 122:626-635. 

Steuter, A. A. 1986. Fire behavior and standing crop characteristics on repeated seasonal burnsnorthern mixed prairie. Pp. 54-59. In: Prescribed burning in the Midwest: state of the art 

symposium. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI. 

Steuter, A. A. And G. R. McPherson. 1995. Fire as a physical stress. Pp. 550-579. Wildland 

plants: physiological ecology and developmental morphology. Society for Range Management, 

Denver. 

Sumrall, L. B., B. A. Roundy, J. R. Cox, and V. K. Winkel. 1991. Influence of canopy removal by 

burning or clipping on emergence of Eragrostis lehmanniana seedlings. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 1:35-40. 

Underwood, A. J. 1995. Ecological research and (and research information) environmental 

management. Ecological Applications 5:232-24 7. 

Warren, S. D., C. J. Scifres, and P. D. Teel. 1987. Response of grassland arthropods to burning: a 

review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 19:105-130. 

Weltzin, J. F. And G. R. McPherson. 1995. Potential effects of climate change on lower treelines 

in the southwestern United States. Pp. 180-193. In: Biodiversity and management of the 

Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of the Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. L. F. DeBano, P. F. Ffolliott, A. Ortega-Rubio, G. J. Gottfried, R. H. Hamre, and C. B. 

Edminster, technical coordinators. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station, 

General Technical Report RM-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO. 

Wondzell, S., and J. A. Ludwig. 1995. Community dynamics of desert grasslands: influences of 

climate, landforms, and soils. Journal of Vegetation Science 6:377-390. 

Wright, H. A. And A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology-United States and Southern Canada. John 

Wiley and Sons, New York. 

116 
Burning Policies of the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Dan Robinett 1

'

2 

ABSTRACT 

I am going to talk about the agency I work for and our workload 

here in Southern Arizona. We are working with private ranchers on 

non federal land, to get fire back on those ecosystems, and mesh it 

with grazing management. One of the biggest problems confronting 

us is to use fire on a large scale off federal lands. The agency I work 

for (Soil Conservation Service) is now called the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and is in the Department of Agriculture. It was 

established in the 1930's as a federal agency (that did not own land) 

to work with private lands owners (people on non federal lands) to 

help them better manage their natural resources. In southeastern 

Arizona, we work on about 10.5 million acres of non federal land. 

That includes state land, private land, and Native American land, in 

Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz 

counties. In this area we have, including myself, seven range 

management specialists working at the various offices. Each one of 

these range specialists works with from 40 to 70 private ranchers. In 

each of those workload areas, during my career which spans 25 

years, only about two or three ranchers, have done or and are doing 

any prescribed burning. So, that's a pretty low number and I would 

like to talk about the reasons for that. And, maybe just throw this 

information out to see what kind of ideas it will generate from people 

as to how we might improve. 

PAST AND CURRENT PRACTICES 

The extent of burning in the past 15 years within this 10.5 million acre area ranges from 1,000 

to 10,000 acres per year. That's a pretty small percentage. In drought years we don't do any. The 

ranchers who are practicing prescribed burning, tend to have some characteristics in common. They 

tend to have very large land areas, which means they have a lot of flexibility. They tend to 

conservatively stock their land, which means they have a lot of grass left over in June when its time 

to burn. They are people who have been there a long time, they have had a long tenure on the 

land, and are from some of the older families. And, they tend to be strong in range management. 

They are a little more progressive, and are looking to go beyond simple grazing management 

practices. 

1 Summarized by Carolyn Painterr Cente( for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, 

Tempe, AZ. 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucson, AZ. 

117 
These ranchers have to integrate fire management and grazing management. They have to defer 

areas that they are going to burn to accumulate fine fuel. Typically on our desert grasslands that 

means you have to defer a piece of ground out a year or two. After the fire, they have to defer from 

grazing for at least two growing seasons to allow the plants that we are trying to encourage to 

replace the plants we have removed. This has a cost. For some comparative figures, here in 

southern Arizona we value an Animal Unit Month of grazing to a rancher that owns his ranch at 

between $2 and $3. An Animal Unit Month of grazing is enough forage to sustain one cow for one 

month. On a 2,000 acre area, with a carrying capacity of ten animals to the section, the pasture is 

providing the rancher about 375 Animal Unit Months (a year) of grazing. At $2.50 an AUM, that's 

worth about $940. To defer that pasture for the three years needed to accumulate fuel and get the 

benefits from the prescribed burn, the grazing value equals about $2,800 dollars. 

Other costs associated with the burn include construction of fire lines, and the actual cost of 

burning. Usually they do the burning by themselves. We may have help from various federal 

agencies that might be near by. State Land Department has helped us, as well as the BLM, Forest 

Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. But, the actual cost to the rancher on these burns usually 

comes out to anywhere between $2 and $3 an acre. That doesn't sound like a lot of money, but 

when a ranch is making $50 a cow a year out there, that is a lot of money. What are the returns to 

the rancher from prescribed burning? What kind of benefits do they need to make this a decent 

investment? If an Animal Unit Month is worth $2.50, with even a low rate of return on that 2,000 

acre burn, the rancher would have to generate an additional 1700 or 1800 Animal Unit Months of 

grazing over the life of the practice (seven or eight years) to make a 2% or 3% return on the 

investment. In my experience, that happens very seldom. We have a few plant communities where 

we have enough shrubs that are easily killed by fire and it is easy enough to get grasses back in 

their place to generate that much additional carrying capacity. The prescribed burns are not very 

cost effective practices, and that is one reason why we are not seeing a lot of ranchers doing it. 

There are a few other benefits to prescribed burning that can figure in. They have not been 

quantified very well. One of them includes making it a little easier to find livestock and handle them. 

With a lower density of brush and cactus out there, sometimes it's a little bit easier to round them 

up, and move them from pasture to pasture. Livestock do a little better on burned areas for a few 

years. Increased performance and increased calf crops can result. That has not been quantified 

that very well. Even those returns are pretty minimal compared to the cost of investment. 

There are some real risks associated with prescribed burning. Ranchers assume most of the risk 

themselves. There is a risk involved in damaging the basic resources. We work closely with ranchers 

to try to minimize those risks. But, there have been some prescribed burns that have been done at 

the wrong time, on the wrong sites, in the wrong years. Mistakes are going to happen. We are 

learning and as time goes by, we can improve our skills to minimize the risks. A good example was 

the drought last year. I think that in these lower elevation grasslands, when there is a real wet 

winter, the next summer season is going to be real dry. It has certainly been that way for the last 

fifty years in southern Arizona. That is just one simple thing to remember- don't burn after a real 

wet winter, because it will probably be a dry summer and the fire effects will be bad. There is a 

liability that there is going to be some resoL:rce damage. There is a real liability in loss of property 

and loss of life. Ranchers on private lands can buy insurance that can help spread that risk, but 

that is another cost associated with the fire. 

In the last ten years, I've had two ranchers work with me to try to do prescribed burning, who 

had all the right qualifications. They had the right plant communities, the right soils, the right kind of 

conditions to make it a good tool, they had the right management philosophy, the right kind of 

stocking. Everything was good. But, their ranches happened, unfortunately, have some private land 

118 
sold off years ago before they bought them, and now there are some rural subdivisions out there. 

The potential risk to light a fire out there when there is a 200 acre subdivision with homes and 

property is just way too great. That is something we need to think about here in southeastern 

Arizona. This has really affected the use of this tool in many areas in southern Arizona. 

We can have unfavorable climatic events after a fire. Drought is certainly a factor. In some plant 

communities, if the fire is followed by dry summers and warm winters, chances are we are not 

going to replace the cool season shrubs we've burned with warm season perennial grasses. 

Chances are the shrubs will come back in five or ten years. We are making some inroads at 

predicting what climate will be after fire, but we do not yet have the skill to do that reliably. Another 

risk is smoke pollution from fires. Burning around big population centers like Tucson is a risk, and 

you must know what your smoke is going to do at different times of the day and the night. When 

burning a large area, you may produce smoke for a few days. It is not a good thing to pump a lot of 

smoke into a big metropolitan area and have a lot of complaints. Also, it is a serious health hazard 

for some people. A lot of those people who are moving out here are elderly people who may have 

respiratory problems. 

OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 

What are some options that we might consider to increase reintroduction of fire on non federal 

rangelands? I think any option should attempt to reduce the costs to the land owner. I think an 

option should transfer the liability to groups, instead of the individual. I think these options should 

attempt to reduce the risks. Maybe a way to do that is through groups where there are a lot of 

people with a lot of skills who can work together. Maybe some of these options should 

compensate ranchers on non-federal land for the added public values and benefits that happen 

with prescribed burning. Some options might include things like grass banking, cost sharing, and 

maybe even some monetary reimbursement for improved wildlife habitat conditions. 

I think the agencies and landowners need to work together in Southern Arizona, including non 

federal areas, on plans for large landscapes to manage wildfires. In some of the mountain ranges, 

grazing is limited to the winter season. If there is fuel enough to burn the next June and a wildfire 

occurs, it is automatically rested from grazing the following summer. Grazing in the dormant period 

is usually not a negative thing. This reduces considerably the cost to the rancher. 

Wildfire management plans shift the liability from individuals to groups like land management 

agencies. I think that's something we should pursue and try to put together for not only our federal 

land areas, but our non federal land areas. Also by planning for fire management in larger 

landscapes we can go through the process of consultation for special status species, cultural 

resources, etc. on a large area one time, instead of going through the process every time a small 

prescribed burn is done. 

119 
Ranching in Santa Cruz County 

A Summary of Research Findings 

Madelene Orton1 

ABSTRACT 

The goal of this document is to summarize the research findings 

of twenty graduate students who studied land-use issues in Santa 

Cruz County as part of a seminar course called 11The Use and 

Management of Arid Lands.n The research was conducted during 

the Spring semester of 1996, under the direction of Dr. Charles 

Hutchinson, a professor in the Office of Arid Lands at the University 

of Arizona•s College of Agriculture. 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of the course was to introduce students to key concepts and issues related to land 

management in the world•s arid and semiarid zones. Themes such as ownership (both private and 

public), tenure, access, leases, regulations, inter-generational transfers, and the impact of 

various policy agendas were explored. Rather than studying each of these topics in the abstract, 

they were examined in the specific context of the cattle industry in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. 

The goal of the course was to develop a picture of land-use dynamics within Santa Cruz County 

and to explore how proposed alternative reforms in public policy might affect established patterns of 

land-use, especially grazing. The policy agendas of two land use policy perspectives (the 11Wise-use11 movement and 11environmentalism11 ) were compared and contrasted in terms of their 

philosophies, histories, and potential impacts on the economic, social, and environmental future of 

land management in the county. 

METHODS 

The course was divided into four parts. It began with a series of lectures, field trips, reading 

assignments, guest speakers, and panel discussions that were designed to introduce students to 

land-use issues currently being debated in Santa Cruz County. 

Students were then divided into six teams to study the cattle industry within the county and how 

it might have changed over the past 80 years. The six teams were responsible for gathering 

specific types of data. The first three teams were assigned to learn about the physical aspects of 

the land being studied, while the other thlcC taams focused on cultural aspects of the area. 

Team 1 was assigned the task of gathering existing published data on the land itself, including 

information about elevation, soil types, water sources, and precipitation. 

Team 2 was put in charge of characterizing land-use. Published information about land-use 

categories was to be supplemented by field surveys and personal observations. 

1 College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

120 
Team 3 was instructed to design and conduct a survey to determine the condition of the land. 

Contrasts between sites were to be studied, in terms of differences observed in vegetation types, 

ground-cover, and severity of erosion indices. 

Team 4 was responsible for understanding the demographic make-up of the county. Published 

census data enabled them to construct a profile of the general population, age structure and 

income of the residents of the county. 

Team 5 was accountable for learning about patterns of land ownership, zoning and taxes. They 

attempted to find out how many ranches existed in the county, who owned them, how much they 

contributed to the tax base, and whether or not agricultural lands had increased or decreased over 

time. 

Team 6 was asked to develop an understanding of ranching practices, and to identify the major 

issues and concerns facing the cattle industry today. They designed a survey questionnaire and 

conducted personal interviews with ranching families to learn about the structure, economy, and 

constraints on individual ranching operations. 

Each team was then required to present their results to a general meeting of the seminar. Half 

way through the course, students were re-assigned to one of two new groups, each representing an 

alternative perspective to land management. One group would take the 11Wise-use .. position of local 

control and privatization, while the second group would represent the .. environmentalist" position of 

public control, non-consumptive uses, increases in fees, and stronger enforcement of existing 

regulations (Drake, 1996). Each group examined a variety of policy scenarios from their respective 

points of view, and assessed the types and magnitudes of impact that these policy scenarios might 

have on the future of Santa Cruz County. 

Finally, based on what they had discovered during the course of their research, students were 

required to choose a topic that was of special interest to them and prepare a written report. Some 

students chose to present the information gathered in one of the original six research teams, while 

others opted to write about the policy alternatives they had examined as either an 

.. environmentalist .. or a 11Wise-user... Still other students chose to write about particular land-use 

issues or patterns discovered, such as urbanization, water law, or absentee ownership. Most 

reports were written by individuals, but a few represented a group effort. 

A total of fifteen student research reports were submitted. An annotated bibliography (which 

summarizes the contents of each) is attached to this summary document. The original reports have 

been organized into a binder which may be accessed upon request, by contacting Dr. Charles 

Hutchinson, in the Office of Arid Lands Studies: 1955 E. 6th Street, Tucson (1-520-621-8568). 

The remainder of this paper is devoted to a discussion of the major themes and issues that 

emerged from research conducted during this seminar. I hope that I have captured the essence of 

the individual reports that I summarized, and that the conclusions I have drawn are shared by most 

of my colleagues. Readers are encouraged to offer their feedback, corrections and complaints to 

the author. 

THE PROBLEM 

The grasslands of Santa Cruz county have been enjoyed and utilized by humans for thousands 

of years. In his essay entitled 11Human Impacts on the Grasslands of Southeastern Arizona, .. 

Conrad J. Bahre (1995) traces this historical relationship between humans and their environment. 

Archeological records suggest that ancient people known as the .. Clovis•• hunted large grass-eating 

game such as bison, camels, horses, and mammoths eleven thousand years ago. Various other 

Native American civilizations lived in the region from pre-historic times until the Spanish occupation 

121 
of the early 1500's. Human and wildlife population counts during that time, however, are only 

estimates. Furthermore, scientific and ethnographic records are incomplete. The extent to which 

these people relied on the grasses for sustenance and their impact on grassland ecology is 

therefore essentially unknown. 

Cattle were introduced to the area by early Spanish settlers in the 1500s, but widespread 

ranehing was discouraged by Apache hostilities. Cattle populations were clustered primarily around 

the rangelands adjacent to the presidios, missions, and villages. After Mexican Independence in 

1821, several land-grants were issued by the new government. Each of these privately owned 

parcels of property supported thousands of cattle, but Apache raids, attacks, and harassment 

continued to discourage large-scale settlement of the area (Bahre, 1995). 

The Gadsen Purchase of 1853 shifted ownership of modern day Arizona from Mexico to the 

United States. The new owners established various army posts in a concerted effort to assert 

control over the Apaches, and built a railroad to transport the resources (such as copper, silver, and 

cattle) that were now available for exploitation from the area. Cattle ranching in the region did not 

become widespread until the 1870's. The cattle industry flourished, but changes to the 

grasslands caused by overstocking and overgrazing were becoming apparent (Bahre, 1995). 

To remedy this apparent environmental degradation, the U.S. Forest Service established 

reserves of rangeland in southeastern Arizona, incorporating them into what is today known as the 

Coronado National Forest. The Stock Raising Act of 1916 encouraged cattle homesteads on 

privately owned land. Through a system of low-cost permits, ranchers could also raise cattle on 

large tracts of public land, which they leased from the government. Competition for available 

forage on public land increased, so many cattle ranchers scrambled to accumulate the remaining 

patented parcels. The ranching industry was encouraged to grow, as a balance between maximum 

cattle production and environmental health was sought. Furthermore, in 1934, the Taylor Grazing 

Act implemented a system of grazing districts and permits to conserve and improve forage 

resources. Cattle-grazing dominated land-use in Santa Cruz County for the first half of this century. 

The number of cattle in Santa Cruz county have remained fairly stable, but the number of large, 

privately-owned cattle ranches increased until the 1950's (Bahre, 1995). 

Changes in land-use patterns, however, emerged after World War II when advances in 

technology (such as the air-conditioner and efficient, low-cost water pumps) permitted increasing 

numbers of people to the region. A rapidly growing population placed increased demands on the 

finite amount of public and privately owned lands available in Santa Cruz County. Some large 

ranches were sold and subdivided for urban development. As privately owned land became more 

scarce, land prices increased. Ranchers who had conducted their business with little outside 

interference for decades, now faced increased scrutiny as urbanites, recreationists and 

environmentalists asserted their rightful claim to the use of a diminishing resource. A myriad of 

pressures and interest groups now challenge the ranchers' ability, and even right, to exist. 

Conflicting opinions of what might constitute "best use" of a finite resource have heightened 

tensions between land users, land owners, land management agencies, and outside interest 

groups. The future of land-use in Santa Cruz County will be decided by the manner in which these 

conflicts are resolved (Cowles, 1996). 

Conflicting Land Use: 

Although ranching has been the traditional use of Santa Cruz County grasslands for the past 

hundred years, it is not the only land use option. Recreation, environmental preservation, urban 

development, and industrialization are four alternative land-uses that have increased over the past 

few decades. Their feasibility on private lands, is to a great extent, determined by market forces. If 

122 
the activity is economically viable and a demand exists, it will probably survive. 

The recreation industry, for example, is sometimes seen as a viable economic option for private 

ranch owners. Ranchers have been known to supplement their operations by offering ranch tours, 

big game hunting, horseback riding, cattle drives, or bed and breakfast services. 

Urban development and industrialization are two other viable economic alternatives to ranching 

on private lands. There are strong market forces pushing for development in Santa Cruz County. 

The scenic landscape, mild climate, sparse population, relatively low real-estate prices, and 

convenience to the US-Mexico border markets have attracted developers, industrialists, and retirees 

to the county. A shift of land ownership into the hands of people who live outside of the county 

seems to indicate that these properties will be developed in the future (Zheng, 1996). The tax 

structure of the county also encourages urbanization. Agricultural acreage is taxed at a significantly 

lower rate than residential parcels. Grazing land is assessed at a value of $20 per acre annually, 

residential parcels at $116, and commercial acreage at $1494 (Ellman and Kliman, page 12). 

There seems to be little incentive to discourage growth. For some ranchers this may mean new 

financial opportunities, while to others it represents a threat to traditional rural lifestyle and 

communities. 

On public lands, land-use is controlled by public agency mandates, rather than market forces. 

Public grazing lands are controlled by one of three agencies: the US Forest Service, the US Bureau 

of Land Management, or the State Land Trust. All three agencies attempt to balance the 

conflicting interests of many users by incorporating a •multiple-use• formula of land management. 

Grazing is but one of the multiple uses allowed on these lands. Ranchers must share the use of 

the land they lease for grazing with recreationists, the timber industry, and wildlife conservationists. 

Not surprisingly, the various groups who have access to public lands have different opinions on 

whose use constitutes the .. best use .. of the resource (Rosenbaum, 1995). 

Conflicting Agendas 

Two distinct policy agendas have emerged to serve the needs of the conflicting interest groups 

who vie for control of public lands. First is the policy perspective of .. environmental preservation ... 

Sometimes referred to as the .. environmental movement, .. this agenda stresses the importance of 

preserving wilderness, wildlife habitats, endangered species, biodiversity, and pristine natural 

landscapes. The environment is seen to have intrinsic value .. for nature•s sake.. and an emphasis 

is placed on nurturing caring relationships between humans and the land. A key concept to the 

environmental movement is that of sustainability. The movement prefers a centralized authority in 

the form of government agencies to ensure that land resources are protected for the future. The 

chief complaint of those who oppose this perspective has been that the preservation of nature has 

historically been done at the expense of humans. What is lacking, critics argue, is a focus on 

economic livelihood. Furthermore, many critics of the environmentalist movement believe it is 

anti-people, anti-private property, and in favor of a .. democratic police state .. (Black, 1996). 

The 11Wise-use movement' emerged in the late 19ao•s in direct opposition to the 

environmentalist movement. Proponents of the new agenda represent the various .. users .. of public 

lands who want to see this resource base opened for further exploitation. Their philosophy is 

primarily anthropocentric, and stresses that man•s use of the resource and the economic 

contribution of the resource are of the utmost importance (Black, 1996). 

Many wise-use followers are working people who have strong economic ties to the public lands, 

including ranchers, farmers and loggers. Many believe that they represent the original and best 

environmentalists, who have proven themselves as responsible stewards of the land. They argue 

convincingly that it would not be in their best interest to degrade the resource upon which they 

123 
depend for their livelihood. Some argue that our public lands are being under-utilized and that the 

resource base is infinite. Forests left to nature are seen as improperly managed (Black, 1996). 

Conflicting Science 

Not surprisingly, the various interests groups mentioned so far have turned to science to 

support their claims. Environmentalists argue, for example, that environmental restoration is 

needed to reverse generations of neglect and abuse (Cowles, 1996, pg 1). They might similarly 

describe the condition of the rangeland as productively depleted (Black, 1996, pg 14). Some 

may blame cattle for this degraded condition of the range, while others blame urban development. 

Beaumont (1993) suggests that long-continued grazing has changed the vegetation cover in 

many regions, rendering the ecosystem less efficient than it used to be at providing food in times 

of drought. Cowles (1996, pg. 6) suggests that 11 ... 1ong-term directional changes, such as 

increases in woody plants in certain rangeland, the degradation of riparian wetlands, and the 

invasion and spread of exotics, have resulted from sustained and/or catastrophic human 

disturbances: overstocking and overgrazing of cattle, fuel wood cutting, wildfire suppression, 

agricultural clearing, construction of irrigation works and roads, logging, railroad construction and 

the intentional or accidental introduction of exotic plants11 • 

Some people believe that cattle are inherently wrong for the ecosystem, and argue in favor of 

replacing them with native species of herbivores. Cowles (1996, pg. 6) raises the question: 11 1f 

cattle have changed the landscape, should the emphasis be on returning the vegetation cover to 

some earlier condition and implementation strategies that would assure this goal, or should the 

management techniques for rangeland be modified to mimic natural systems?11 • The negative 

impact of cattle on rangelands occurs beca~se 11 

... livestock selectively defoliate the available 

herbage rather than indiscriminately consuming herbage according to its availability11 (Walker, 1995 

as cited by Black, 1996, pg 5). 

Carmody (1996, pg 1) warns that it is easy 11tO take the path of least resistance~~ and follow the 

underlying assumption made by some environmentalists that grazing and cattle are bad for the 

land. She urges us to question the authority of such claims, and to critically analyze the available 

data. 

Some insist that cows are actually good for grasslands, since they are able to harvest a natural 

resource that would otherwise go un-utilized (Hutchinson, 1996, as cited by Black, 1996, pg 1). 

Some insist that grazing is necessary to reverse the loss of riparian habitat, biodiversity and 

recreational opportunities on public and private lands (Daggett, 1995). One member of our class 

suggested that perhaps cattle are not the problem, but rather the limitations of the soil itself. 11The 

only way to overcome the limitations of soils in Santa Cruz County is by keeping the plant's 

ecosystem healthy and by enhancing plant health and growth .... 11 (AI-Maharwi, 1996, pg 7). He 

cites Odium (1993, pg 95), who states that moderate grazing can actually enhance the quality and 

quantity of the plant species by enriching the soil through natural processes. The dung of cattle is 

a natural fertilizer, he argues, that contributes to soil fertility. Light to moderate grazing maintains 

grass root vigor and helps to maintain water and nutrient cycling needed for healthy grass growth 

and build-up of organic matter. It also increases energy flow by promoting vigorous leaf growth and 

healthier root systems, which support micro-organisms and other underground soil life. Grazing 

provides the additional benefits of seed dispersal, increased biodiversity, stimulated plant growth, 

and enhancement of the whole plant community (AI-Maharwi, 1996, pg 7). 

Reports also differ on whether or not America's rangelands are healthy or not, and whether or 

not removing the cattle (or at least reducing the herd size) will help the condition of the vegetation. 

Range experts also disagree on the best grazing management methods. While some argue in favor 

124 
of rotational grazing, others herald deferred grazing. Still others stand behind the controversial 

practice of Holistic Range Management. 

Finally, there is a great deal of controversy about the impact of grazing on endangered species. 

While some environmentalists claim that endangered species are threatened by grazing, and hence 

grazing should be halted on public lands, ranchers and biologists argue that when an endangered 

species is found on a ranch, the environmental conditions of that ranch must be favorable to that 

species. It is interesting to note that quite a few endangered species are found on both public and 

private ranching land. 

The opinions of scientists, therefore, sometimes conflict. Yet many agree that there is such a 

condition as 110ver-grazingt' and that a carrying capacity for the land exists. What the ideal stocking 

rate should be, for a particular piece of land, of course, is also the subject of debate. Erosion is 

often an indicator of a range that has been severely overgrazed. Few would dispute that overgrazing 

leads to erosion. What is arguable is whether the current rangeland of Santa Cruz County is being 

overgrazed. 

Our land-condition team (group 3) addressed this question in their report called 11An Assessment of the Physical Condition of the Land in Santa Cruz County11 (Carmody, et al, 

1996). This paper reports the findings of a survey that was conducted during the Spring of 1996, 

in which areas of differing land ownership classes (USFS, BLM, State, and Private) were visually 

assessed to determine current vegetative composition and soil stability. The objective was to 

uevaluate how different management (practices) can influence vegetation while the primary use 

(livestock grazing) remains constant. 11 Traditional grazing methods and rangeland management 

practices were observed, as well as a more controversial practice, Holistic Resource Management 

(HRM). A variety of sites were chosen for the study, and satellite imagery was employed as a tool 

to supplement visual ground-studies. Broad zones of forage were identified and mapped using a 

method developed by Anderson and Currier (1973). The land studied was scrutinized for signs of 

active erosion, such as rilling, litter dams, pedestals, and gullying. Good ground cover was 

observed consistently, as was soil stability (Carmody, et al, 1996). The authors insist 11We could 

not find overgrazed land where cattle were being raised. 11 The researchers did, however, find 

indications of soil erosion (particularly gullying and the presence of desert pavement) where grazing 

was not currently practiced. Areas dominated by small acreage parcels and suburban development 

were particularly affected. The authors concluded that urbanization is the most threatening 

disturbance to the current range condition, and that there was no marked difference in vegetative 

composition between the various land ownership classes where grazing was being practiced 

(Carmody, et al, 1996). 

So what are the ramifications of so many differing opinions? Who should we believe? Is 

grazing an exploitive industry that leads to the depletion of a precious shared resource? Few would 

argue that the ranching industry has contributed to the economic well-being of county and state 

economies, but do these financial contributions outweigh the potential environmental costs of 

grazing? At stake are issues at the very heart of the dispute between environmental 

preservationists and the wise-use movement. Which do we value more? Preservation of a species 

or a way of life? 

If an endangered species is found on public lands, which is the prudent course of action? To 

assume that cattle are harmful to that species, and halt grazing until evidence can be gathered to 

the contrary? To do so may save the species from the negative influences of the cows. But what 

happens to the rancher? Oftentimes, the ranchers only income is derived from the cattle he raises 

on public lands. To halt grazing in such a scenario will mean certain financial ruin for the cattleman 

while the study is being conducted. If the study concludes that the cattle and endangered species 

125 
were not at odds with each other after all, should the rancher be reimbursed for his lost income? 

And what if no action was taken until further study was conducted? Could it then be too late for the 

species which is now not endangered, but extinct? 

Cowles (1996) points out that critical information is currently incoherent, lacks standardization, 

is difficult to collect, or is unavailable. Coordinated efforts are needed, he argues, to assess what is 

valued, set realistic priorities, and gather further scientific data. He also urges research efforts at 

all levels, not just where there is a current threat. 

Clearly, the advice to conduct additional research should be weighed against the costs and time 

constraints of such work. Scientific studies are often inconclusive, and are easily swayed by the 

perspectives and vested interests of those conducting the research. Some would argue that 

extinction is a natural process, but others point out that the extinction of too many species is 

happening at an alarming rate, unparalleled in human history. Such rapid changes in our fragile 

ecosystem could threaten biodiversity to a level whereby humans themselves become endangered. 

Should Ranching be Preserved? 

Ranchers of Santa Cruz County have survived a long time. The survey conducted by Group 6 of 

this class (Orton, Eisenberg, and Leon, 1996) contributed significantly to our understanding of 

current ranching operations in Santa Cruz County. Ranchers have a heritage of success in this 

activity that has been shared for several generations. The specialized knowledge that has been 

passed through the generations has kept the range healthy and the resource viable. Despite an 

extended drought and a depressed market, the ranchers are still in business. This is partially due to 

their own resourcefulness. They are willing to pursue outside income sources when necessary, and 

have investigated creative means to protect their assets, including land trusts and conservation 

easements. Equally important are the facts that the ranchers are well educated, organized, 

politically savvy, out-of-debt, and committed to the ranching lifestyle. Another factor that 

contributes to their success is the flexibility of the permitting system, which allows them to apply for 

a 11non-use11 status during hard times (without giving up their lease completely) and which gives heirs 

priority-status in securing the permit that has been in a family for generations. In spite of past 

success that the ranching industry has enjoyed, the combination of several forces paints a bleak 

picture for the future of ranching in Santa Cruz County. 

The most stressful situation that the majority of ranchers experience is the relationship they 

have with the myriad of public agencies with whom they must work. The frustration they have 

expressed is due to the lack of control they feel in the day-to-day management decisions for the 

land they lease. From their perspective, the multiple-use philosophy allows too many people with 

conflicting interests a say in their business. They resent this because they feel they possess the 

necessary skills and knowledge to make responsible decisions about the land, without outside 

intervention. Decisions to reduce their stocking rates can be made without their consent, and with 

very little advance warning, forcing them to go out of business or suffer economic hardship. 

Other economic forces are also at work to discourage the continuation of ranching as a lifestyle: 

high estate-tax rates could potentially force every generation to lose a portion of their land, high 

real-estate prices could preclude newcomers to the industry, and environmental activism 

threatens a diminished income. In the short-run, an important economic constraint they face is the 

existence of an oligopsony: too few buyers for their product. The handful of meat packers that 

control the industry and a single auction house in southern Arizona have created this situation. 

Beef prices have gone down steadily over the past year, but some ranchers believe this is part of 

the normal business cycle, and that these prices will recover in the future. Even Mother Nature 

seems to be conspiring against the ranchers through her long-term drought. Eric Ellman and 

126 
Susan Kliman (1996, pg 18) conclude: .. The cattle industry is in crisis with ranchers finding it 

increasingly difficult to survive. Cattle prices continue to fall, fees for grazing lands continue to rise, 

and payment of the capital required to run a ranch remains constant ... 

Stuart Black (1996, pg 6) suggests that we .. consider the impact of courses of action on the 

environment... So let's consider the impact of discouraging ranching. ..To many environmentalists, 

the goal is to stop ranching at all costs. Unfortunately, those costs have all too often resulted in 

the conversion of hundreds, or even thousands of acres of ranch land to large scale housing 

developments. The environmental worth of such transformations (from ranches to urban 

development) is dubious. There is a serious question of whether the typical high density residential 

development is actually a 'wiser use' than the ranching it replaces .. (Ellman and Kliman, pg 15) . 

.. Development of private lands is not a 'wise-use' (of the grasslands). Private lands are currently 

being developed into suburban acreages ... (where) the owner is more appreciative of the dollar ... 

than the inherent values of the rangeland resource. The undeveloped private land in these 

suburban regions is also being utilized in what appears to be a 'graze it hard and produce as much 

beef here until it sells' fashion .. (Renken, 1996, pg 7). 

Based on our research, then, we have concluded that the most threatening disturbance to the 

current range condition in Santa Cruz County is urbanization, not cattle grazing. 

Common Ground: 

The prospect of a sustainable future for Santa Cruz County will depend on the ability of the 

multiple land users to work cooperatively to resolve their differences. One way to approach this 

conflict resolution process is to scrutinize the vast array of opinions, beliefs, scientific evidence, 

practices, and needs: for themes held in common by all players. Not all needs can be met, of 

course, so careful prioritization and planning will be required. 

First of all, we advocate the re-examination of the rather arbitrary (and emotionally charged) 

labels of environmentalism and wise-use movement. We would like to suggest that the aims of 

these two groups are not diametrically opposed, nor are they mutually exclusive. We doubt, also, 

that ranchers fit neatly into one category or the other. The terms simplify a very complex spectrum 

of issues and values into polarized opposites, suggesting an adversarial relationship where one 

should not exist. These .. narrowly defined identities ... separate two groups who have much to gain 

from listening to each other and working together'' (Black, pg 13). 

Ranchers, environmentalists and wise-users have much in common: all three groups consider 

themselves to be good stewards, with a strong land-ethic and a desire to keep the resource-base 

healthy; all three groups have ties to the historical movement known as conservation which values 

sustainable resource development; and all three groups have an intimate knowledge base of 

natural history and ecological systems. They share common concerns, questions, interests, and 

reading lists. When they sit down to talk with each other one-on-one, many report how much alike 

they are. So it is not surprising to learn that .. increasingly, cattlemen and environmentalists are on 

the same side of the fence, forming coalitions to preserve the open spaces they both cherish .. 

(Ellman & Kliman, pg 1). 

Ranchers have a caring relationship with the land that transcends generations. Although it is in 

their best interest to preserve the land, many face practical constraints that prohibit preservation 

efforts. If ranchers are not encouraged, they face going out of business. Current market 

conditions indicate that when a rancher is forced to sell his property, it is most likely the developers 

who will buy it, not other ranchers. When this happens, vast open spaces are fragmented into 

suburban lots, often causing soil erosion and vegetative loss in addition to visual blight. The 

continuity of those open spaces is then compromised. Until science proves definitively that 

127 
ranching is inherently negative for an ecosystem, the ranching industry should be encouraged to 

continue in Santa Cruz County. Policy should be examined for the effect it has on individual 

ranchers, and re-written to recruit and reward ranchers for helping to preserve or to create 

biodiversity. For the time being, ranches constitute a 11Wise-use .. of the existing grassland resource 

in that they preserve open spaces and the continuity of the range. 

Policy Scenarios: 

We believe that future policy should recognize the important role ranching plays in preventing 

further fragmentation of open spaces. Furthermore, we recommend that future policy focus on 

nurturing environmental responsibility and sustainability rather than punitive measures. A variety of 

policy scenarios were examined by the members of this course, and several are discussed below, in 

the context of encouraging the ranching industry. 

Endangered Species Act. The current structure of the Endangered Species Act threatens the 

autonomy of the ranchers. An outside environmental group, under the guise of wanting to save a 

species, can stop a grazing operation until a thorough study has been conducted. Ranchers are 

put on the defensive by being forced to prove that a species is NOT on their land or NOT 

threatened. This can cost them a great deal of money for lawyers• fees, the hiring of scientists, and 

lost income due to a reduced herd size. The ranchers therefore see the presence of a purported 

endangered species on their land as a threat. This could potentially put the rancher and the 

endangered species in an adversarial relationship with each other, a counter-effect that was 

probably not foreseen by the authors of the Endangered Species Act (Orton, et al, 1996). One 

researcher gives us an example of a current lawsuit by the Southwest Center for Biodiversity which 

threatens the continued operation of 160 ranchers (Lindsey, 1996). As many as 57,000 acres 

could be affected by this one lawsuit. 11Loss of the suit would put them (the ranchers) in the 

position of paying for their water. At the going rate which cities pay for water, ... cattle ranching 

would likely become uneconomical, and the incentive to sell to private developers would be 

irresistible .. (Ellman and Kliman, 1996, pg 15). Perhaps environmentalists and wise-users alike 

could find a common cause in re-writing portions of this legislation. 

Grazing Fees. Grazing fees can be raised with little or no warning, putting unexpected 

financial strain on a small ranching operation. Some folks argue that overall grazing will not be 

substantially decreased by raised fees because larger operations will simply replace the smaller 

ones on public lands (Renken, 1996). 

An equally convincing counter-argument, however, is that raising fees encourages the 

continued fragmentation of rangelands. No ranching operation can obtain a lease to graze on 

public lands unless they own adjacent private land. If a small ranching operation is forced off of 

public lands, it may not own enough private holdings to sustain an economically viable herd. The 

rancher may be forced out of the ranching industry altogether, selling his private holdings to the 

highest bidder. Current real-estate prices are too high to encourage profitable sales to another 

rancher. The likely buyer will be a developer whose motive will be to sub-divide and fragment the 

parcel. 

Private leases are another option for ranchers. If public land is no longer available to a rancher, 

he could secure a private lease from a neighbor. Private leases tend to be expensive, and require 

geographical proximity of the two ranches. Currently there is some incentive for private landowners 

to lease their land to a neighbor: they get a substantial tax break for putting their land into 

.. agricultural status .. on the tax roles. Ranchers also report relatively hassle-free negotiations with 

one landlord, compared with multiple landlords on public land (Orton, et al, 1996). Furthermore, 

private lessors tend to offer more services with the lease. 11The grazing permit on federal land is 

128 
simply a permit to put cattle out. The federal government pays for the materials for improvements, 

but the ranchers construct and maintain them. The private leases (by contrast) provide these 

structures and maintenance, and therefore cost more. Therefore, raising federal grazing fees is like 

camping on BLM land without facilities, but paying the same as staying at a KOA campground .. 

(Renken, pg 8). The biggest problem with private leases, then, is that market forces are always 

providing a temptation or pressure on private land owners to sell. When the market conditions are 

ripe, or when the land owner has the need to raise cash, it will be too easy to sell the land to 

developers, continuing the process of fragmentation. 

lntergenerational Transfer. Most ranchers we spoke with expressed a desire to keep the 

ranch in the family. None expressed a desire to sell off their property, although they were clearly 

aware of the pressures to do so. 

Those who bought or inherited the land years ago face substantial capital gains taxes if they 

choose to sell. And estate taxes add an additional worry. 11As the older generations of ranchers 

die, their heirs face the harsh realities of estate taxes. Many have discovered that payment of the 

55% estate tax on properties valued above $600,000 requires subdivision of their land, a step 

which may destroy the viability of the enterprise.... This dilemma could topple the single largest 

ranch in the San Rafael Valley, and begin the domino effect that has consumed so many other 

rolling grasslands.. (Ellman and Kliman, pg 15). One obvious solution would be to repeal both 

taxes, or to raise the financial brackets to a level which reflects current price structures. 

Cluster Development. Stricter zoning is another suggested alternative to unplanned urban 

development. One option would be .. to construct a few very expensive homes ... in a cluster 

development with open land, at least partially dedicated to grazing, surrounding them. This type of 

development is perhaps the most sustainable option because it minimizes infrastructure 

requirements and it maximizes open space .. (Ellman and Kliman, 1996, pg. 19). This option is 

seen as a compromise between environmental and economic interests. Some would argue, 

however, that it is a short-term solution, and has limited potential. What will happen, for instance, 

when the rancher runs out of land to devote to such clusters? Every generation is still faced with a 

stiff estate tax which often forces heirs to sell-off their private land holdings until there is not 

enough land left to ranch. Two other options that have been discussed are to sell the ranch to the 

US Forest Service or the Nature Conservancy while retaining homestead rights and conservation 

easements. 

Water: A long-standing tenet of western water policy has been the notion that whoever 

controls the water controls the range. Ellman and Kliman (1996, pg 4) discuss the Groundwater 

Management Act (GMA) of 1980 which .. expanded and strengthened previously existing regulations 

intended to curb the fraudulent practice of selling subdivided land without adequate water11 (Eden 

and Wallace, 1992). 

Curt Reynolds (1996, pg 15) also investigated water policy in Arizona. What he reports is that 

..... it appears ranching is less destructive to the environment than urban subdivisions, as 

demonstrated by the fewer number of boreholes drilled by ranchers... The Groundwater 

Management Act, he claims, is ineffective as a deterrent to growth, however, since it does not 

effectively control the drilling of small bore holes, and because enactment of the policy occurs too 

late. He argues that prior-appropriation water law is therefore outmoded. Furthermore, he warns 

us that if an area is outside of an AMA, groundwater mining is still allowed. This affects nearly 50% 

of Santa Cruz County. 11 lf stronger groundwater laws are not enforced in the future, large numbers 

of boreholes will be drilled for urban expansion which ultimately will destroy most of the fragile arid 

and semi-arid ecosystems of the southwest•. Strengthening existing water legislation, including 

local zoning ordinances, he suggests, rnay be one way to curb urban development and to preserve 

129 
open ranges. 

Agencies. While some ranchers argue that certain federal and state agencies are not very 11USer-friendly, 11 most would agree that they have been encouraged or educated at one time or 

another by an outside agency. Most ranchers appreciated the help received by organizations such 

as the NRCD (Soil Conservation Service) and the University of Arizona•s cooperative extension. A 

great deal of frustration was expressed, however, over the 11newu Forest Service (since the 197Q•s) 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Ranchers felt patronized and ignored, and resented the lack of 

autonomy they experienced when dealing with these agencies. Perhaps the natural resources in 

the area would be better served if a congenial working partnership between agencies and ranchers 

were encouraged. 

Local empowerment. The ranchers themselves have given us a glimpse into possible 

strategies for preserving their way of life. Grassroots efforts to establish priorities for land-use have 

sprung up all over the county. Organizations such as the San Rafael Valley Association are working 

to minimize the chances of high density development by requiring developers to re-plat and get 

prior approval from the county before building. They are making it difficult for developers to obtain 

the ~~agreement of the majority of the adjacent neighborsu by organizing resistance to such activity 

(Ellman and Kliman, pg 18). The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership is establishing priorities such 

as wildlife habitat preservation, and is working with other organizations to set common goals and 

objectives. Some ranchers are working with the Sonoran Institute to set up land trusts and 

conservation easements in order to protect their lands from inter-generational fragmentation. 

Finally, traditional ranching associations, such as the National Cattlemen, the National Cattle 

Growers, and the Cowbelles provide lobbying support and a mechanism through which ranchers can 

keep abreast of changes in legislation. 

FUTURE STUDIES 

The research conducted by the students who participated in this seminar was by no means 

exhaustive. We recognize that due to time constraints and limits to expertise, many important 

research questions remain unanswered. We would like to recommend, therefore, further study in 

several areas: 

First, we regret that we were unable to establish the total data-base of ranchers in the county. 

Tax records provided us with a list of over 800 parcels of land with an uagricultural 11 status. Yet we 

had no way of determining which of these parcels were actual working ranches. Some may have 

been bought for speculation (as evidenced by absentee owners), some may have been sub-divided 

acreage, and some may have been hobby ranches. We were able to obtain two additional lists of 

ranching operations from the County Assessors Office, each containing over eighty ranch names. 

When the two lists were compared and contrasted, however, we found discrepancies which left us 

wondering how accurate these lists were. 

We would also like to know if the eleven ranchers we interviewed in our survey represent the 11averageu situation in Santa Cruz County or Arizona. They were selected using a technique that 

makes generalization difficult. We were curious about the 11new11 buyers of private grazing lands that 

several ranchers described as 11dudesu ... presumably hobby ranchers from the east. Their 

perspectives are not represented in our study. 

We would also like to see additional research conducted on the social and economic 

contributions that ranching provides to Santa Cruz County. If ranching were to fade from the 

landscape, would it be missed? More rese.arch is needed, we believe, on the legislation that 

affects ranchers. We were just beginning to understand the positive and negative impacts of a few 

130 
pieces of legislation, but know we did not begin to do this subject justice. Nor did we adequately 

suNey the land-management agencies to understand their policies and perspectives. We also 

believe that a more in-depth review of the existing literature needs to be made, to understand what 

is considered to be the 11 best science11 related to grazing practices. 

One researcher (Salo, 1996) would like to see additional information about the State Land 

Trust. She wonders about the boundaries, sizes, actual A.U.M.'s, and who the leaseholders are. 

She recommends that we build GIS maps of a variety of sites, including BLM grazing leases, USFS 

grazing leases, the Audubon Research Ranch, the Sonoita Creek State Natural Area, ranch units, 

and deeded lands. 

Finally, we recognize that our six research groups gathered piles of pamphlets, maps, and 

literature ... more information than we had time to organize. We believe that it would be helpful to 

catalog the information gathered so far, to write an annotated bibliography of reference materials to 

supplement the annotated bibliography of our own research papers, and to locate this body of 

literature in a centralized library which is accessible to future researchers. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Human activities such as grazing and urbanization have impacted Arizona's grasslands 

throughout history. Increased population pressures in Santa Cruz County since the 1950s, 

however, have created a scenario in which new players are competing for the use and control of 

both private and public lands. At stake is the continuity of the range itself, a valued economic 

resource and environmental treasure. 

Long-term solutions depend on determining what is valued within the community, and setting 

realistic priorities. Sustainability of the resource base and continuity of the range should be of 

utmost concern. Rnding a common ground between those who have vested interests (ranchers, 

environmentalists, members of the wise-use movement, and developers) will increase the likelihood 

that conflicting interests and needs can be resolved. A variety of options need to be explored, and 

compromise will be needed. Bureaucracy and legislation, although sometimes difficult to live with, 

may provide ranchers with a mechanism by which to keep developers at bay. 

More research is certainly needed to understand the complex dynamics of land-use in Santa 

Cruz County. Scientific studies are often time consuming, expensive, inconclusive, and conflicting. 

Assumptions about the 11 best science11 available should be scrutinized critically, and the costs and 

benefits of proposed research weighed carefully. 

Above all, ranchers should be encouraged because grazing of public and private lands 

discourages subdivision. Urbanization is the greatest threat to open spaces and the continuation of 

ranching as a viable economic activity. The ranching industry in Santa Cruz County is experiencing 

other pressures as well. If permit costs go up, or if ranchers are otherwise discouraged from using 

public lands for grazing, few will suNive on just their private holdings. Market forces on beef and 

real-estate prices have increased land values to levels that make it attractive for ranchers to sell 

their patented land. The problem is that this is a one-way mechanism. Once private lands are sold 

and subdivided, they will never again be available to the cattle industry. The goal to preseNe the 

open range, therefore, is the common ground shared by environmentalists and ranchers. 

131 
REFERENCES 

AI-Maharwi, Saad (1996) 11Soils of Santa Cruz County .. Tucson: University of Arizona, 

Office of Arid Lands Studies (unpublished report). 

Bahre, Conrad J. (1995) .. Human Impacts on the Grasslands of Southeastern Arizona.. In 

M.P. McClaran & T.R. VanDevender (Eds.), The Desert Grassland (pp 230- 264). 

Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. 

Black, Stuart Anthony (1996) .. An introduction to the Wise Use Movement: its policies, 

concerns, and mana~ement directives, with particular reference to the ranching landuse of Arizona .. Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies 

(unpublished report). 

Beaumont, P., (1993) 11Drylands- Environmental Management and Development~ 

London: Routledge. 

Carmody, Susan P. (1996) 11Santa Cruz County: An Environmentalists View .. Tucson: 

University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies (unpublished report). 

Carmody, Susan P., Wilma Renken, and Jim Mandavi lie (1996) 11An Assessment of the 

Physical Condition of the Land in Santa Cruz County .. Tucson: University of 

Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies (unpublished report). 

Cowles, Larry (1996) 11The Potential for Alternative Cattle Ranching in Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona .. Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies 

(unpublished report). 

Dagget, Dan. (1995) Beyond the Rangeland Conflict: Toward a West That Works. 

Flagstaff: The Grand Canyon Trust. 

Drake, Sam (1996) 11The Environmentalist-Dominated Alternative Future for Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona .. Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies 

(unpublished report). 

Eden, S. and Wallace, M.G. (1992) .. Arizona Water: Information and Issues .. Tucson: 

Water Resources Research Center (Issue Paper Number 11, August 1992) . 

Ellman, Eric and Susan Kliman (1996) .. Residential Development in Santa Cruz County: 1

Wise, Wild or Prudent Use?111 Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands 

Studies (unpublished report). 

Lindsey, S. (1996) {Personal Communication w/ Ellman & Kliman} Energy Management I 

Marketing Specialist for Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and 

Rancher in Santa Cruz County. 

Orton, Madelene, Amy Eisenberg and Alejandro Leon (1996) .. A Survey of Santa Cruz 

Ranchers .. Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies 

(unpublished report). 

Renken, Wilma (1996) .. Rangeland Vegetation and Wise Use: Santa Cruz County, Arizona .. 

Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies (unpublished report). 

Reynolds, Curt (1996) 1Water Use and Water Law in Santa Cruz County, Arizona .. Tucson: 

University of Arizona (unpublished report). 

Rosenbaum, Walter A. (1995) Environmental Politics and Policy (3rd Ed.) Washington, 

D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. 

Salo, Cindy (1996) .. Economic Effects of Reducing Grazing on Public Lands in Santa Cruz 

County .. Tucson: University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies (unpublished 

report). 

Zheng, Yi (1996) .. Ownership Patterns of Ranch Land in Santa Cruz County .. Tucson: 

University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies (unpublished report). 

132 
Views of a Non-traditional 

Traditional Rancher 

Joe Parsons1' 2 

ABSTRACT 

Ranching has a long and honorable tradition in the West and 

ranchers have distrusted environmental groups who threaten to 

endanger the ranching way of life. Ranchers and environmentalists 

are going to have to get to understand each other in order to protect 

the lifestyle and the land from new threats, such as urban sprawl. 

Understanding each others backgrounds, philosophies, and agendas 

is vitally important to dealing with the many concerns which we 

share. 

Mac had asked me to come speak as a traditional rancher, and George is right, I don1

t think I 

am very traditional. I'm very delighted to be here, I am excited to be here. I want to thank Barbara 

and Diana for including me and the Southern Arizona Cattlemen1

S Association to be part of this 

conference, and to actually cosponsor this conference. We didn1

t get our name on the plaque, but 

we are happy to be here. I apologize that I don1t have quite as many slide shows and all that, 

because I am new at this. This is kind of a new era for cattlemen and ranchers. The change that we 

are making, how we are getting involved, becoming more proactive, and traditions are changing, 

and I assure you that we are changing with them. 

When they first contacted me, I was somewhat skeptical when I read the sponsors' names: The 

Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, because through many years we have had a line drawn 

between those groups, because we have sat back and been somewhat passive, and they have got 

a lot of press. And, there has been a line drawn that said, 11Environmentalists/ Ranchers are ruining 

the west. 11 And, we have just sat there and let that happen. So, I called my board of directors and 

said, 11DO we want to be a part of this, or are we getting into a hornets nest, or what?11 And we 

agreed that no, it's time that we stepped forward and let everybody understand where we are from, 

what values we have and what interests we have. And, exclude this activism and actually sit down 

and learn about each other and talk. I really have a good feeling through the last few years about 

public lands ranching. 

Ten years ago, I wouldn1t have said that. Back in the 19801S in the Cattle Free by 193 , and all of 

that was making such headlines, I really thought that there probably wasn1t a lot of future in the 

west. But, now that I have spent more time and understood it and traveled the west and learned 

everything and got myself more educated, 1

1

m excited about it. I think the public in general, as I 

traveled the western states in my business, I found out that everywhere I go, the activism is being 

pushed aside. People are working together, people are having meetings just like we are having here 

today. They are talking and they are learning about each others views, we are learning to have 

1 Southern Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Tucson AZ. 2 Summarized by Carolyn Painter, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ. 

133 
some dialog. And, I think that's important, and that's why I agreed, after talking to Barbara and 

Diane, that's what this conference is going to be about. Grasslands was the issue, but really it is a 

people conference where we can get together and get some opposing views. And do it in a civil 

way, that when we leave here, we leave here open minded and we take it back to different 

organizations and pass it on that, maybe those guys aren1

t quite so bad. Maybe I will change my 

views on some of the environmental groups, which I already have. And, we will start to make some 

progress. 

One of the things that I do want to tell you is, ranchers in the past have not always been a 

hundred-percent correct. And, it's not always their fault. My dad had an eighth grade education, my 

granddad never even went past fifth grade. So, as time came on we have had the opportunity to 

learn, to advance. The work they did, I got to go to school, I got to go to the University of Arizona. 

So, we are learning every year, we are learning more. You know we've come out of a five or six year 

drought, started to come out of it this summer. And, the first thing my dad sees is the grass starts 

growing on the desert, and it's time, let's get some cattle out there. And, that's still a philosophy 

that he has, and it's hard for him to break that. And, I think that we've got to manage for 

sustainability, and not manage with the idea that when you see grass, let's go and get it. So, that is 

a different approach that we are taking. 

In order for us to work together and learn where each other is coming from, I think we have to 

understand what our backgrounds are, and what our philosophies are, and what our agendas may 

be. So, real quickly, so you know who I am, you know what my background is. When you hear that 

Joe Parsons said something, you will know the basis of that. If you hear me say that I think the 

government should mandate that the land is produced on, for the benefit of the public, you won1

t 

say, 11He1s a radical rancher trying to rip off the land. 11 You will know the basis of why, you111 hear me 

say that. 

My grandparents, 1

1

m not going to get into a lot of history, I want to share this with you so you 

can understand, please. My grandparents on my mothers side are immigrants from Italy, they came 

to New York, it was crowded, they ended up in the Pecos Valley, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. They are 

still there, we still have tons of family there that homesteaded that area at the turn of the century. 

They still own the farms up and down the Pecos. My dad1

S side they were from Kentucky to 

Alabama, to the Big Bend Country in south Texas. When Pancho Villa raided, he took all the small 

ranches and drove the cattle across the line in to Mexico. We were out of business when my grand 

ad was a young man. My great-grandad moved, kept on moving west, with the thoughts that things 

were going to be better. He landed up in Catron County, which is a familiar place to everybody now. 

We were one of the first ones there. He started the first saw mill in Catron County. Just did a small 

little lumber yard there by the creek. Cut trees, shipped them into Albuquerque and El Paso, and as 

those cities started to boom, who moved out? Bigger companies. They forced him out of business 

and ended up forcing him to have to sell, because he could not compete in a small way with the big 

companies. So we ended up in Douglas, and then on to Winkelman, Oracle. The mines started to 

be building, and that's how we ended up here in Tucson. 

There1s one thing that I can say, that I feel like 1

1

m keeping up with the family tradition on the 

Parson1S side. Everywhere he went and worked for, somebody else wanted and took it away. Now I 

feel kind of, that public lands ranching in t.hl:'\ west, we1re working for it, now somebody from 

Washington, D.C. is figuring out a way to take it away from us. But, I've got more faith in the 

system, I donlt believe that's going to happen or I'm not quite as 11Doomsdayn as Steve is, I think it's 

going to turn around. 

Now, that's where 1

1

m from, you know that I have agriculture in my background, years and years 

of it. And, even though we were removed from it for twenty or thirty years, my family is back into 

134 
now. And, it's in your blood, you feel that there's nothing better than being able to produce 

something, to grow something that's going to benefit somebody else. And, Steve's right, it's not all 

monetary, it's not all the money. One thing that I have done a little different than my grand ad and 

dad did, is, when you look at my name tag, it says: "Rancher, Steel Contractor." 

So, if we remove ranching, I'm not going to be in the position my granddad was, and have to go 

somewhere else. If you take ranching away, and build developments, I will be here benefiting from 

the building of the developments. So, I have leveraged my family and my kids to a different 

position. That's not the one I want, I want to see cattle, and grazing and wildlife, and ranching here. 

I think the alternative with the building, would be, development of urban sprawl would devastate this 

country, on what we perceive we want it to look like. 

Now, I'm going to tell you quickly about our ranch, how we manage it, because I know that's 

what specifically I was asked to talk about. We, currently, ranch on approximately 75,000 acres of 

private, public and state trust land, on three different ranches. The one that I am specifically going 

to talk about is the Empirita Ranch, which is in the Benson area between Pima and Cochise County, 

and we border the Empire Cienega on our south boundary. 

About ten years ago the ranch of the deeded land had been bought by some developers, that 

were going to assure a water supply with the Cienega. They were going to build developments. They 

had a lot of land converted to commercial uses, from just the regular Rezonings, the rural zonings. 

And they had a big planned development going. So in the interim, while they were getting everything 

ready, they had kept the ranching operation. They had a foreman, they had about a 130-140 head 

of cattle, on 32,000 acres of land, and they had three water supplies working. Needless to say, 

with absentee owners, with a foreman that probably hadn't had a lot of ranching background, when 

we took it over, it was basically unusable. We made a deal with the developer, to lease it, we made 

a year long agreement with him. We saw that it was going to take a tremendous amount of money 

to get it back into operation, and negotiated a ten-year lease with them, so we could afford to put 

the improvements on the property that it needed to get it functioning again, and be an economic 

asset to the county. So, what we did first was, we found out, we got all of our windmills and water 

supplies working in the upland areas away from the Cienega creek. And, we basically shut off all the 

water supplies down low, which had been operating, because that's where the cattle had 

congregated. Approximately 50 to 70 cattle in an area with no rotation. It was just basically, the 

cattle were there because it fit the agricultural status. The man was in the agriculture. business, so 

he had his taxes they way they should be. We shut that off and moved the cattle up. 

What we found out was it was hard to keep the cattle up there, because they were used to 

being in the bottoms. So, the cattle would either come back in there, live without water, staNe to 

death from no water, because they wanted to be in the bottoms. Or, they would go through the 

fence to Donaldson's, and we'd have to go and get them over there. So, Clay and I, (my brother), 

said, every cow that we can't manage and control, teach her to stay where we want her to stay, 

we're going to get rid of her. So, we ear tagged them, given them one more chance, if they went 

through the fences, we sold them. We started off with a new herd of cattle, Heifers. Taught them 

to live in the upland areas and gave the bottoms a chance to replenish itself, and got a functioning 

herd going. About that time, the Pima County Flood Control bought some of that land. The BLM 

bought the deeded land from the developers, they assumed the state leases. And, we were part of 

the take. When they got the land, they took our lease, and took us with it. So, at that time, I was 

concerned with what was going to happen. And, I met with the Range ConseNationist, and I said, 

"where are we going to go from here, what are we looking at, at the end of this time frame?" He 

said, "Well, we need to get a management plan in place. We need to look at the ranch as a whole, 

and we need to get started." Well, I will be honest with you, at that time I didn't know everything 

135 
that was available to a rancher, I really didn1

t. We started out, we called the Soil Conservation 

Service. Kristin Egen was our Range Con. She said the first move was to get with Phil Ogden at the 

University of Arizona. We had Phil's class do a total range invento._.ry. Kristin took the preliminary work 

that the kids had done in class. Her and I worked the ranch, drove the ranch, we talked about our 

goals, what our plans were. She did a complete inventory of the ranch, it's current forage. And, 

collectively we sat down with Grant, from the BLM, Wally with State Lands. Kristin and myself, we 

worked out a management plan, where it is a rotational management plan. And, 1

1

m sure most 

people understand that. 

We rotate from pasture to pasture by the use of fences and water supplies. We can shut off 

certain waters, and the cattle, once they learn the cycle, believe it or not, come May, once those 

cattle have been through the cycle, there may still be all the feed in the world up at a certain area, 

but they start working there way, knowing that the time is coming that they are going to change to 

another area. So, I have to disagree with Steve, tremendously. I think there is a tremendous 

amount of knowledge at the University, and through the Natural Resource Conservation Service. A 

tremendous wealth of information. I know the Santa Rita Experimental Range has got information in 

boxes down there, that they say they have been studying since 1913. We need to be taking that 

information and using it. I've got a whole lot more, 1

1

m a whole lot more excited about the future. 

1

1

m not near as dismal and bleak. At our little ranch, I say it is a little ranch, we produce enough 

beef to feed 4,500 people a year, just our little small operation. So, if you take that out of the 

production cycle, it may be just 4,500 people that I don1

t feed. But, then the rancher next to me. 

In Arizona, alone, we feed 4.6 million people. That's not my numbers, that's not my statistics, those 

are government statistics. So, I don1

t think it is as simple as just saying we are going to take 

cattle off the land, everything is going to be good. 

I would hope that we could collectively focus all of our energy beyond a specific grassland 

species, or any simple, any individual species, and look at the whole area, the whole ecosystem. 

And, I would hope we can keep people as part of that planning process. Thank you very much. 

136 
Ecological Characteristics 

of Invasive Alien Plants 

John H. Brock1 

ABSTRACT 

An influx of alien plant material to the North American flora 

accompanied the settlement of the continent by immigrant peoples 

during the latter part of the 19th century. Plant materials were 

introduced as ornamentals, agronomic crops, land conseNation 

material, and many were accidentally introduced as contaminants in 

seeds of desirable plants such as small grain crops. In the early 

20th century introductions continued as people wanted to improve 

on the natural vegetation, and have plants that seemed to be better 

adapted to habitats than were components of the native flora. 

Several of these well-intended introductions are now considered as 

invasive. This paper presents information about some of the general 

characteristics of invasive plants including: pollination strategies, 

regeneration strategies, seed and propagule dispersal, formation of 

ecotypes, the lag time from introduction until the plant is termed 

invasive, and some aspects of the physiology of invasive plants. 

Many alien plants have naturalized to the environment of North 

America, and are so widespread that vegetation management 

strategies to control the whole population are probably not feasible. 

However, strategies to control the further invasion by the alien 

species are needed and will most likely incorporate integrated weed 

management techniques that are socially and politically acceptable. 

INTRODUCTION 

When taking a global view, there is a question among plant ecologists if a species is ever truly 

an "alien". However, in studying invasion ecology, an introduced species of a flora must be treated 

as alien to an ecosystem because it would not be there without human inteNention (Pysek 1995). 

Some alien plants grow only for one season and fail to establish and these are termed 

"accidentals" if included in a floristic suNey. Some of the alien plants establish but are very 

passive in their new ecosystem, while others adapt with a broad ecological amplitude and invade 

man-made and natural areas. When native plants widen their historic range the term expanding is 

suggested, and when an alien plant is becoming more common on the landscape the term invasive 

is more appropriate (Pysek 1995). Where and under what circumstances alien plant species are 

likely to attain a weed status has emerged as a central question for those studying plant ecology 

1. Environmental Resources Department, School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

137 
(de Waal eta/. 1994). 

Alien invasive plants have been a concern to land managers in the western United States for 

the past 100 years. The largest immigration of alien plant species to the United States 

accompanied the "taming-of-the-west" from about 1870 through 1900. Alien invasive plants are 

also a global concern, since plant materials have been relatively freely exchanged between varying 

ecosystems and the continents. In many cases the alien plants have provided many benefits to 

mankind, but some of the plants have displayed an invasive nature which has created management 

problems. 

Alien invasive plants often have ecological characteristics that allow them to be colonizers on 

disturbed sites, and in some cases are truly invasive, by literally invading existing stands of native 

vegetation. Through direct competition they become dominant plants in the habitat. Many alien 

invasive plants are classed as weeds, or as colonizers, that is, they are often plants found in the 

pioneering stages of succession (Rejmanek 1995). There is another class of alien plants that while 

not particularly invasive, alter the environment in undesirable ways. Lesica and Deluca (1996) 

discuss a plant of this nature, which is probably the most commonly planted exotic grass in western 

North America, Agropyron cristatum, A. desertorum (crested wheatgrass). A. cristatum is a strong 

competitor that modifies soil resources to the disadvantage of native species limiting their 

recruitment and establishment in mature stands of this exotic grass (Lesica and Deluca 1996). 

The receptor area where alien plants colonize has often undergone some type of disturbance 

that has allowed open niches or spaces in the community. The type of disturbances are mostly 

man induced, but variations in weather patterns, natural fire frequencies, and flooding can result in 

receptive areas for alien plants to become established. Man-induced disturbances include anything 

that contributes to bare soil such as: agriculture, urbanization, development of transportation 

corridors, modification of natural landscapes through extraction of minerals, timber harvest, and 

poorly managed livestock grazing. For suscessful establishment of alien plants the following factors 

(Mooney and Drake 1986) are required: (1). An opening in the community, (2). Climatic conditions 

at the receptor area similar to the source area, (3). Vegetation lifeforms of both areas should be 

similar, (4). Soils of the areas are not significantly different, and (5). Similar latitudinal range is also 

a good predictor of invasiveness (Rejmanek 1995). 

While these factors are very important for an alien plant to establish on the new area, the 

ecological traits of alien invasive plants are what is largely responsible if the new plant is to function 

as a weedy species. Baker (1986) presents information related to patterns of plant spread into 

North America, and Pysek eta/. (1995) evaluated invasion success in relation to plant traits by 

analysis of flora in the Czech Republic. The purpose of this paper is to review the ecological 

characteristics of alien invasive plants. The characteristics of the plants to be discussed include: 

(1.) Pollination strategies of alien invasive plants, (2). Regeneration and development of seed 

banks, (3). Seed and propagule dispersal, (4). Adaptability of alien species through ecotype 

formation, (5) Lag time from introduction to invasive status, and (6). Physiological ecology of 

invasive plants. 

DISCUSSION 

Pollination Strategies 

Alien invasive plants that are most successful have generalist pollination strategies. They may 

be wind pollinated as is often the case with invasive grasses of the western United States, such as 

Bromus tectorum (downy brome), Eragrostis lehmanniana (Lehmann's love grass), Cenchrus ci/iaris 

( buffelgrass), and Taeniatherum asperum (medusahead rye). Plants may be self pollinated, or like 

138 
Tamarix chinensis (salt cedar), may be a generalist for insect pollination. In general, successful 

alien invasive plants do not have specific insect pollinators, or specific pollination requirements. 

Regeneration 

Typically successful alien invasive plants produce either large numbers of viable seeds that will 

readily germinate, or seeds with dormancy requirements so that when dormancy is overcame they 

produce large populations of seedlings. T. chinensis fits the first case, in that it produces a nearly 

continual seed rain during the growing season, and the seeds will rapidly germinate on a moist 

media (Brock 1994). E. lehmanniana may fit the second case, in that the plant produces many 

small hard seeds that contribute to a seed bank. Conditions for favorable germination of E. 

lehmanniana is achieved on almost a yearly basis in its adopted ecological range, but seems to be 

more prolific in seedling establishment following a period of soil heating resulting from fire (Ruyle et 

a/. 1988). Invasive plants often display early sexual maturity, such as can be observed in T. 

chinensis. Rejmanek (1995) reported on the genus of Pinus and found that invasiveness in this 

genus is predictable based on a small number of factors such as small seed mass, short juvenile 

growth periods, and short mean intervals between seed crops. This may well apply to other woody 

species of seed plants in disturbed landscapes (Rejmanek 1995). 

Not all alien invasive plants spread because of successful sexual regeneration. In some cases, 

alien plants with no or very little viable seed production are invasive and have become noxious 

weeds. The case in point is illustrated by Reynoutria japonica (Japanese knotweed), listed as 

Polygonum cuspidatum in Whitson's (1991) "Weeds of the West" book, and also as Fallopia 

japonica in European weed science literature. This plant in North America and Europe reproduces 

almost exclusively by vegetative means (Bailey eta/. 1995). The most commonly known 

reproduction strategy of R. japonica is from its extensive rhizome/root system (Beerling 1990). 

Brock and Wade (1992) reported that even pieces of rhizome tissue of 1 em provided about 40 % 

regeneration success. In 1991, vegetative regeneration from stem portions of R. japonica was 

only hypothesized. Greenhouse research was initiated in the spring of 1992 to test this 

hypothesis. From the greenhouse research by Brock et a/. (1995), it was found that R. japonica 

also regenerates from stem tissue. Over all treatments, R. japonica had the capability to 

successfully reestablish rooted shoots from 6% of the stem portions, but in water (the most 

probable dispersal mechanism for stems along water courses) 63% regeneration success was 

observed. R. japonica occurs in the United States in areas of temperate and humid climates. It is 

known in the Pacific Northwest and is found in the deciduous forest ecosystem of the eastern 

United States. 

Seed and Propagule Dispersal 

Seed and propagule dispersal is the result of both passive and active processes. Passive seed 

dispersal results from seed being blown about by wind as is very common for seeds of the 

Asteraceae family, and T. chinensis. Passive dispersal is often accomplished by seed falling into 

moving water which is important for riparian and wetland plants. Seed dispersal by water provides 

a spread mechanism for T. chinensis and is considered to be a major way R. japonica stem 

segments spread along riparian corridors. A third passive agent for seed dispersal is gravity. 

Active seed and propagule dispersal is primarily aided by members of the animal kingdom 

(Rejmanek 1995). Many animals eat plant fruits containing seeds and the seeds may pass through 

the digestive system largely intact and germinate from the fecal deposits of the host animal. This is 

139 
one of several dispersal mechanisms employed by B. tecto rum (Bazzaz 1986). Seeds attach to 

the skin or pelts of animals and spread across landscapes as the animals either migrate, or 

establish new territories. In the case of domestic animals, the seeds may be deposited where the 

animals are first introduced to the new habitat. This seed dispersal strategy is one working 

hypothesis concerning the introduction of Halogeton g/omeratus (halogeton) from Asia to the Great 

Basin region of the western United States, possibly in the wool of Karakul sheep (Mack 1986). 

In many cases, the main seed dispersal mechanism of alien invasive plants has been the willful, 

or unknowing action by people. Many plants have been introduced accidentally because of 

contaminated agronomic or forage crop seeds. This is believed to be the case for B. tectroum 

which probably was a contaminate in winter wheat. The phenology of B. tectroum fits the culture of 

winter wheat and the rapid spread of this plant is considered to be from many introduction loci 

rather than one large locus (Bazzaz 1986). Sa/so/a iberica (Russian thistle) and Kochia scoparia 

(kochia), two species of the Chenopodiaceae family introduced from Eurasia are also tied to the 

introduction of small grain crops to North America. People are further implicated in the spread of 

these 2 species since they were repeatedly first observed along transportation corridors (railroads 

and highways) in landscapes remote to agricultural areas. 

Many invasive weeds are actively spread during construction in man built areas. The spread of 

R. japonica follows this pattern in urbanized areas of Europe. It is also interesting to note that 

Kowarik (1995) stated that Ailanthus altissima (tree-of-heaven) expressed its invasive nature after 

the industrial revolution was firmly in place in Germany and the "heat island" effect had developed 

in the cities (annual average temperature is 1.5° C greater in metropolitan Berlin). Man both 

accidentally and knowingly spreads alien invasive plants. The saving argument in some cases for 

plants like E. lehmanniana, C. cilaris, T. chinensis, and R. japonica is that the alien plants were 

being introduced as beneficial organisms, and their weedy nature came as a surprise. 

Ecotype Formation 

Many alien plants adapt to their receptor areas and after several generations experience 

ecotype differentiation (Baker 1986). This action probably involves genetic recombination and as a 

result the species becomes better adapted to the environment of the new habitat. This is 

hypothesized to be the case for B. tectorum and other plants that have undergone plant breeding 

selection processes since introduction to the United States. Another hypothesized example involves 

E. lehmanniana ecotypes currently growing in Arizona. These may ecologically react differently 

compared to the native strains if they were now reintroduced to South Africa. The process of 

ecotype formation allows the alien plants to more specifically adjust to the environmental 

characteristics of a new area and perhaps become better competitors. 

Kowarik (1995) and Pysek eta/. (1995) both reported on woody alien species in Europe. 

Kowarik (1995) from work in Germany reported that 41% of alien woody plants had successfully 

moved from their introduction site indicating that successful ecotypes had formed. Of these 41% 

successful plants, 19% were only naturalized on man made sites, and 12% had successfully 

naturalized to natural sites. In the report by Pysek eta/. (1995), of the 132 alien plants studied in 

the Czech Republic, 80% were not successful in establishment. For the 20% that were successful, 

14% were found on man made sites, with the remainder being found in natural sites. One 

successful species from North America, invading natural sites in the Czech Republic is Robina 

pseudoacacia, the black locust tree. 

140 
LAG TIME FROM INTRODUCTION TO INVASIVE STATUS 

There is much variation in the time lag of introduction until a species is clearly recognized as 

being invasive. Some species that acted as weeds in their original habitats acted as weeds almost 

immediately after introduction to the United States. This is apparently the case for common crop 

weeds such as Amaranthus sp. (pigweed) and Chenopodium album (lambsquarters). Other plants 

experienced lag times to allow for seed dispersal and for populations to reach a critical number for 

wider dispersion in the new landscape. Research in Europe (Kowarik 1995), indicates that often 

there is a lag time of 50 years from introduction until a plant is invasive. For tree species 

introduced to Germany, this time period was found to be an average of 170 years. The 

development of lag times for species commonly believed to be alien invasive plants to the western 

parts of North America would provide an interesting research topic. 

PHYSIOLOGICAL ECOLOGY OF INVASIVES 

Most of the knowledge about the physiological ecology of invasive plants is inferred from 

studies dealing with colonizer type plants compared to those of late successional stages. In 

general, the physiological ecology of specific alien invasive plants is not well understood. Generally, 

early successional plants have high photosynthetic, respiration, transpiration rates, and behave 

opportunistically to disturbance. These plants have great ability to acclimate to changes in the 

environment, and quick response to changes in environmental resources, water and nutrients as 

examples. 

Climatic change may also be having a large impact on plant physiology and the invasive nature 

of some plants. This topic was reviewed by Mayeaux (1995) with plant invasiveness related to 

changes in the earth's atmosphere and by Patterson (1995). Both Mayeaux and Patterson 

indicated that global warming and related climatic changes would affect the growth, phenology, and 

geographic distribution of weeds. Carbon dioxide (C02) at the current level of about 350 ppm is 

increasing in the atmosphere at about 0.4 %/year from a pre - industrial revolution level of 280 

ppm (Ashmore 1990). Another greenhouse gas, methane (CH.J is increasing at 0.9 o/o/year from 

the current level of 1.7 ppm (Ashmore 1990). Crop plants with C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways 

have increased average biomass by 40 %for C3 plants and by 11 %for C4 crop plants (Kimball 

1983). Response in doubling C02 in the air of C3 and C4 weedy plants resulted in a mean 

biomass increase of 130 % and 115 % respectively (Patterson 1995). With increased C02 (350 to 

675 ppm) and limited water, the following weedy grasses, Echinochola crus-gal/i (barnyardgrass), 

Eleusine indica (goosegrass), and Digitaria sanguinalis (crabgrass) increased dry matter production 

by 43, 46, and 37% respectively (Patterson 1986). These data support Mayeaux's and 

Patterson's hypothesis that changing atmospheric conditions will alter the physiology of invasive 

plants and perhaps change their distribution, so that the geographic range will expand northward, 

such as Impatiens glandulifera (Himalayan balsam) and F. japonica (Japanese knotweed) in the 

British Isles (Beerling 1994), and a subtropical alien plant like Pueraria lobata (kudzu) will invade 

deeper into the North American continent. 

The following material related to physiological aspects of plants is adopted from Bazzaz (1986) 

and summarizes some of the characteristics shared by invasive species: (1). High rates of 

photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration, (2). Rapid response to available environmental 

resources, (3). Fast population growth rates, (4). Relatively short life cycle, (5). Early reproduction 

capability, (6). Allocation of growth activity to reproduction in favor of foliage growth, (7). Self, wind, 

or serviced by generalized insect pollinators, (8). Seed dispersal mechanisms that provide for 

141 
establishment of large ecological ranges, (9). Generalists in resource use (broad niches), and (10). 

Readily adapt to changes in the environment. 

CONCLUSION 

Alien invasive plants have changed many of the habitats of the western United States. In many 

cases there may have been an associated lost of biodiversity, and that loss may be at a rate that is 

barely discernible. For example, what is the impact of Bromus rubens (red brome grass) on the 

recruitment of Carnegia gigantea (saguaro cactus) in desert habitats? It is a rare riparian plant 

community in Arizona that does not have either or both Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) or T. 

chinensis represented in the vegetation. On the uplands, especially in southeastern Arizona, E. 

lehmanniana is common. In the Phoenix area, many horticultural plants are currently displaying 

invasive characteristics. Some of these plants include the tree Rhus lancea (African sumac) and 

Cenchrus setaceum (fountain grass). Alien invasive plants have become parts of our landscapes, 

and land managers need to learn how to manage those lands in the presence of those plants, or 

devise strategies to return native plants to the habitats through the practice of ecological 

restoration. 

Alien invasive plants have become firmly naturalized in most of the habitats of the United States 

and the world. Management attempts that extol eradication of these alien plants most likely will be 

futile. Management to control the plants on critical portions of the habitat can be achieved with 

economic, ecological, social, and perhaps political costs. Many times the ecological and economic 

costs are bearable, but the social and poiittcat costs curtail widespread successful vegetation 

management programs. It is my belief that existing management tools will effectively control alien 

invasive plants if there is both a political and social consensus for vegetation management. 

REFERENCES 

Ashmore, M. 1990. The greenhouse gases. Trends Ecological Evolution. 5:296-297. 

Bailey, J. P., Child, L. E. and Wade, M. 1995. Assessment of the genetic variation and spread 

of British populations of Fallopia japonica and its hybrid Fallopia x bohemia. In: P. Pysek, K. 

Prach, M. Rejmanek and M. Wade. (eds.), Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special 

Problems, pp. 141-150. SPB Academic Publ., Amsterdam. 

Baker, H. G. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America. In: H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake, 

(eds.), Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Ecological Studies 58, pp. 

44-57. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY 

Bazzaz, F. A. 1986. Life history of colonizing plants: Some demographic, genetic, and 

physiological features. In: H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake, eds.), Ecology of Biological 

invasions of North America and Hawaii. Ecological Studies 58, pp. 96-110. SpringerVerlag, New York. 

Beerling, D. J. 1990. The ecology and control of Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica Houtt.) 

and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens g/andulifera Royle) on river banks in South Wales. 138 pp. 

Thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff. 

Beerling, D. J. 1994. Predicting the response of the introduced species Fallopia japonica and 

Impatiens glandulifera to global climate change. In: L. C. de Waal, L. E. Child, P. M. Wade, and 

J. H. Brock, (eds.), Ecology and Management of Invasive Riverside Plants, pp. 27 - 44. J. W. 

Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England. 

142 
Brock, J., and M. Wade. 1992. Regeneration of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) from 

rhizomes and stems: Observations from greenhouse trials. Proceedings: IXth International 

Symposium on the Biology of Weeds, Association Nationale Pour La Protection Des PI antes, 

Dijon, France. pp. 85 - 94. 

Brock, J. H. 1994. Tamarix spp. (Salt Cedar), an invasive exotic woody plant in arid and semiarid riparian habitats of western USA. In: L. C. de Waal, L. E. Child, P. M. Wade, and J. 

H. Brock, (eds.), Ecology and Management of Invasive Riverside Plants, pp. 27- 44. J. W. 

Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England. 

Brock, J. H., L. E. Child, L. C. de Waal, and P.M. Wade. 1995. The invasive nature of 

Fallopia japonica is enhanced by vegetative regeneration from stem tissues. In: P. Pysek, K. 

Prach, M. Rejmanek, and M. Wade, (eds.), Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special 

Problems, pp. 132-139. SPB Academic Publ., Amsterdam. 

de Waal, L. C., L. E. Child, P.M. Wade, and J. H. Brock. 1994. Ecology and Management of 

Invasive Riverside Plants. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England. 

Kimball, B. A. 1983. Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield: an assemblage and analysis of 770 

prior observations. WCL Report 14. U.S. Water Conservation Lab., USDA Agricultural 

Research Service, Phoenix, AZ. 

Kowarik, I. 1995. Time-lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of 

alien species. In: P. Pysek, K. Prach, M. Rejmanek, and M. Wade, (eds.), Plant Invasions: 

General Aspects and Special Problems, pp. 15-38. SPB Academic Publ., Amsterdam. 

Lesica, P. and R. H. Deluca. 1996. Long-term harmful effects of crested wheatgrass on Great 

Plains grassland ecosystems. J. of Soil and Water Conservation. 51:408-409. 

Mack, R. N. 1986. Alien plant invasion in the Intermountain west: A case study. In: Mooney, 

H. A. and J. A. Drake, (eds.), Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. 

Ecological Studies 58. pp. 191 - 213. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY 

Mayeaux, H. S. 1995. Invasiveness and earth's changing atmosphere. Keynote Paper. Third 

International Conference on the Ecology and Management of Invasive Riparian and 

Wetland Plants. October, 1995. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Mooney, H. A., and J. A. Drake (eds.). 1986. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North 

America and Hawaii. Ecological Studies 58. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY 

Patterson, D. T. 1986. Responses of soybean (Glycine max) and three C4 grass weeds to C02 

enrichment during drought. Weed Science. 34:203-210. 

Patterson, D. T. 1995. Weeds in a changing climate. Weed Science. 43:685-701. 

Pysek, P. 1995. On the terminology used in plant invasion studies. In: P. Pysek, K, Prach, 

M. Rejmanek, and M. Wade, (eds.), Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems. 

pp. 71-81. SPB Academic Publ., Amsterdam. 

Pysek, P., K. Prach, and P. Smilauer. 1995. Relating invasion success to plant traits: An 

analysis of Czech alien flora. In: P. Pysek, K. Prach, M. Rejmanek, and M. Wade, (eds.), 

Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems. pp. 39-60. SPB Academic Publ., 

Amsterdam. 

Rejmanek, M. 1995. What makes a species invasive? In: P. Pysek, K. Prach, M. Rejmanek, 

and M. Wade, (eds.), Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems. pp. 3-13. SPB 

Academic Publ., Amsterdam. 

Ruyle, G. B., R. A. Roundy, and J. R. Cox. 1988. Effects of burning on germinability of Lehmann 

lovegrass. J. of Range Management. 41:404-406. 

Whitson. T. D., editor. 1992. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science and University 

of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

143 
Stowaways and Invited Guests: 

How Some Exotic Plant Species Reached 

the American Southwest 

Barbara Tellman1 

ABSTRACT 

Introduction of non-native plant species has occurred throughout 

the world for thousands of years. This poster describes the 

introduction and spread of nine invasive exotic plant species to the 

American Southwest. 

Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) 

Some introduced plants actually preceded the Spaniards. Ships that docked off the California 

coast brought seeds in their ballast, packing materials or on the fur of animals. Plants established 

near the shore were spread by birds on the great migratory flyways. In this way, the plants spread 

inland years before the people did. Filaree was found in California when the first missions were built 

and was plentiful enough to be incorporated into the adobe bricks. 

In March 1844, Captain John Fremont found filaree as he came down from the California 

foothills towards the valley. He wrote " ... we discovered three squaws in a little bottom, and 

surrounded them before they could make their escape. They had large conical baskets, which they 

were engaged in filling with a small leafy plant (Erodium cicutarium) just now beginning to bloom and 

covering the ground like a sward of grass." By April 12 he had descended into the valley and again 

reported filaree saying "instead of grass the whole face of the country was closely covered with 

Erodium cicutarium, here only two or three inches high. 

In 1886, the Leitch brothers introduced it to Arizona in a big way as fodder on their ranch. 

Filaree quickly became a popular range plant and was promoted in Agricultural Extension bulletins. 

But it was found in Arizona long before that, having come on the wings of birds, the wool of sheep 

and via many other paths. 

Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon} 

Bermuda grass was considered a sacred plant in the Veda of ancient India, where it was called 

"the preserver of nations" and the "shield of India," because of its forage value. It also has a long 

history in African medicinal lore and was probably introduced to Africa on Arab merchant ships 

before 500 A.D. It is now found worldwide and on every continent except Antarctica. 

Georgia Governor, Henry Ellis, introduced it to Savannah in 1751. (Actually his neighbor, a man 

we know only as Mr. C., an ardent plant collector who frequently traveled to distant places such as 

Bermuda probably gave it to the Governor). It spread rapidly and within 50 years a botanist found it 

"frequent on roadsides and cultivated ground" in the East and Southeast. In 1856 it was sold in 

San Francisco for $5 a flat. By 1880 it had become a troublesome weed near San Bernardino, in 

Southern California. Rivers and canals were ideal dispersers, as the seeds spread rapidly in water. 

1 Water Resources Research Center, u1-11versity of Arizona, Tucson AZ. Presented as a poster. 

144 
By 1911 it had become a serious problem as it invaded fields and canals. 

Extension agents recognized it as a problem before 1911, but believed they had found a way to 

control its spread, writing in a special bulletin "Following the practice outlined above, we have 

ceased to dread Bermuda grass at Yuma, finding it not only possible but practicable to keep it in 

subjection." It is now found through the lower elevations of Arizona. 

Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense) 

Johnson grass first appeared in Southern states under the names Guinea grass, Means grass, 

Bankruptcy grass and many other names before 1840. The South Carolina Means family played a 

major role in its introduction. One family story relates that a relative, John Davis, brought back "fine 

Swiss watches packed in Johnson grass seed." Another story says that John Means introduced it in 

contaminated hemp seed from Egypt shortly after the Revolutionary War. One of the Means 

daughters became Mrs. Johnson and moved to Alabama. In 1880 Herbert Post stated that he had 

managed the Johnson farm" near Selma Alabama on which Johnson grass had been grown for 40 

years. In areas where frost didn't kill it, it became a noxious weed, which could survive drought, 

grazing and even a little freezing. 

The Arizona Gazette in 1890 wrote "In the last two years farmers in the Salt River Valley have 

been greatly annoyed by the appearance of Johnson grass on their ranches. The grass is far more of 

a pest to the farmer than is sour clover or fox tail grass (both introductions from the Old World) to a 

blue grass lawn. Investigation as to the cause of the grass spreading over the valley developed the 

fact that there are two ranches away up at the head of Salt River, above the Tonto Basin, which are 

covered with Johnson grass, and from these ranches the seed has been carried down by the water 

to the farms." 

Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) 

Father Pierre Nicholas de Chevron d'lncarville was sent to Peking in the 17 40s as a Jesuit 

missionary. For ten years he labored on both his religious mission and his personal mission to 

introduce hitherto unknown plants to Europe. Because of China's strong isolationist policies, seven 

years passed before he was allowed to travel to areas where plants could be collected. Shortly 

before his death, he entrusted some seeds to a confidant in a Russian caravan, making the long trek 

across Siberia and finally to England. 

From those seeds Philip Miller grew the first successful European Ailanthus trees in all of Europe 

in 1751 at the Chelsea Physic Garden. William Hamilton's plantings of offspring of those trees on 

American soil in 1784, were viewed as "great novelties from a far distant land." Soon they became 

common throughout the Eastern U.S. About 75 years later the tree was introduced far more easily 

to the West Coast by Chinese gold miners who planted them along California streams. It has 

naturalized in Arizona along the Verde River, Sonoita Creek and elsewhere and is rapidly becoming a 

problem species. 

Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) 

Some early researchers believed the Spanish introduced tamarix, but National Herbarium 

specimens do not support for this hypothesis. While Spaniards certainly traveled to places where 

tamarix is common, the pattern of distribution does not show a spread from Mexico as a central 

source location. 

Although the original collector is unknown, several species were advertised by U.S. nurseries by 

the 1820s. The Old American Nursery of New York offered French tamarisk for sale in 1823 and 

Bertram's Botanical Garden and Nursery listed French and German tamarisk "much admired" for 37 

145 
cents. By the 1830s many nurseries were offering tamarix, but seldom made clear which species 

they had. The U.S. Department of Agriculture grew tamarix at the National Arboretum in Washington 

and in 1868 reported that six species had become established at. It released Tamarix pentandra 

(ramosissima) for cultivation in 1870. 

It escaped cultivation in 1880 in Utah and in 1897 in Texas. In 1901 it was "common in river 

bottoms," from the Salt River in Arizona." The Arizona Agricultural Extension Service recommended 

several species of tamarix for landscaping. Tamarix naturalized most rapidly from the 1930s to the 

1960s, most often in areas disturbed by human activity, such as upstream and downstream of 

dams. 

Local ranchers reported that tamarix first appeared along the Gila River after the floods on 

1916. It is now found along many rivers throughout the West and northern Mexico up to about 

5000 feet in elevation, and sometimes even higher, especially in disturbed areas such as upstream 

and downstream of dams. 

Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) 

The Russian Forestry Department conducted extensive research on the Elaeagnus and in 1887 

published a pamphlet in which the tree was considered "a valuable tree for hedges in south Russian 

steppes." In the late 17th Century, Prussian Mennonites migrated to south Russia seeking religious 

freedom. Less than 100 years later, again under religious persecution, they again migrated to 

Canada and the northern United States. A small group settled in South Dakota and other Plains 

states, bringing with them not only their religion, but many crops and farming practices, including 

Russian olive. N.E. Hansen, of the South Dakota Agricultural Extension office traveled to Russia and 

experimented with it extensively and recommended it highly as a drought, animal, and frost tolerant 

ornamental plant in 1901. He said, "As a hedge it will turn any stock that Osage orange will. 

Horses or cattle will not attempt to go through it, and it does not sap the ground like Osage orange.'' 

It was easily available in South Dakota nurseries by 1900. 

In Utah and Arizona Mormon communities, it was widely used as a landscape plant after 1900, 

with cuttings passed from one community to another by plant lovers such as W.H. Crawford of St. 

George, Utah, who introduced hundreds of plant species in the Virgin River area. 

Extension agents recommended it for Arizona in 1909. It remained a cultivated landscape 

plant for several decades, but escaped cultivation by 1941 in Oak Creek Canyon. The National Park 

Service planted it in Canyon de Chelly for soil stabilization in 1964. By 197 4 it was one of the 

dominant trees of the canyon bottoms. 

Tumbleweed (Sa/sola kali) 

Another introduction to South Dakota from Russia was tumbleweed, probably brought by the 

same Mennonite farmers. One of their crops was flax, which did not develop into a major 

agricultural crop, but planting flax did have a lasting effect, as the seed was contaminated with 

tumbleweed, also called "Russian thistle," "Wind Witch," or "Leap the Field." It first appeared in 

Bon Homme in southeast South Dakota. It spread from there within ten years to neighboring 

Nebraska. The Nebraska Extension Service published a bulletin in 1982, with a 10-point plan for 

fighting the weed, including the last directive to familiarize " ... every child in the public schools, with 

the appearance of this pest in order that he may destroy it wherever he finds it." It became a 

noxious weed so quickly that its spread has been carefully documented. 

It reached California and Oregon on the west and Minnesota and Ohio to the east by 1895. An 

1898 Arizona Agricultural Bulletin reported that "there is no direct evidence that this weed has as yet 

found its way into Arizona," but it did quote a report from the Philadelphia Ledger "Russian thistles, a 

146 
patch of which has flourished for some time near Whipple, Arizona have overgrown well trodden 

paths there and made them impassable either for man or animals" and warned farmers to be alert 

for its appearance. Within a few years it was common. 

The newly built railroad was an ideal vehicle for spreading tumbleweed throughout the West and 

tumbleweed's early distribution pattern shows it moving outward along railways and roadways. In at 

least two documented cases, new colonies were established after train wrecks in which wheat cars 

were overturned. Wind was also a good dispersal method, especially on the Great Plains with its 

high winds traveling for miles. 

According to an 1891 U.S.D.A. study, the form of Sa/so/a in the U.S. was for more troublesome 

than its counterpart in Russia where it could be found mingled with wormwoods, sages, mulleins, 

true desert thistles and a multitude of other plants. Along roadsides there, the plant was not 

allowed to ripen. In southern Russia the plant did cause problems and severe measures were taken 

to protect sugar beet fields. In the United States, however, no such measures were taken. By 1894 

it was estimated to have caused over $2 million in damages to wheat fields in the Great Plains 

states. 

Camelthorn (Aihagi camelorum) 

While it is tempting to relate the introduction of this legume to Beale's 1850 great camel 

expedition from Texas to California, and theorize that it accidentally came on the fur of those 

camels, there is no evidence that it entered Arizona or California before the twentieth century. 

In the 1890s, University of Arizona horticulturalist, Robert Forbes, and others introduced dates 

to California and Arizona. The survival rates were very low during the long ship voyages and land 

journeys. A new packing method developed by Walter Swingle, using local plant materials, brought 

the survival rate up to about 90%, but apparently was also ideal for dispersal of weed seeds, among 

which was Alhagi. Swingle described his new method in 1898: 1

'The awkward wooden tub method 

was eliminated in favor of wrapping the roots of offshoots in cocoons of damp moss or palm fiber. 

The relatively light plants were then hauled by camel over 90 miles of desert to the town of Biskra 

where they were ... loaded into a special railroad car for another journey of over 200 miles to Algiers 

... "just the beginning of a long journey. 

Camelthorn probably also came in alfalfa seed from Turkestan, which was a prime source of 

weeds. N. Wykoof of Napa Valley, California wrote in his diary: "In the winter of 1854, I sowed 4 

acres with alfalfa or lucerne, as it was then called, seed brought from Chile. As far as I know, it was 

a part of the first parcel of seed brought into this country. My sowing proved so foul with weeds that 

I plowed it up and did not resow until 1864." 

It spreads both by seeds carried in water and vegetatively. It quickly became a pest in the 

date-growing areas of California and Arizona, and later spread to the Gila River and as far north as 

the San Juan River in Utah. It was listed as naturalized near Gillespie Dam along the Gila River in 

1940, and can still be found there along irrigation canals today, downstream from an abandoned 

ranch with many old palm trees as well as alfalfa fields. It recently reached the Grand Canyon. 

Buffel Grass (Pennisetum cilliare) 

Arizona's most recent invasive plant introduction is Buffel grass. In the 1940s the Soil 

Conservation Service (SCS) brought it to the United States from the Turkana Desert of Kenya (where 

it was adapted to grazing by large herds of about 30 species of ungulates), as part of a major plant 

introduction program. It was formally releA~Prt from the SCS nursery in San Antonio in 1946, as a 

forage crop for semi-tropical and trop1cal areas of the southern U.S. and Mexico. The plant was 

found to be cold-hardy up to about 30oo• elevation. Attempts begun in 1983 to develop a cold147 
hardy strain from South Africa were dropped by SCS in 1991 due to lack of interest and increased 

environmental concern. Mexican ranchers have enthusiastically replaced thousands of hectares of 

Sonoran Desert vegetation with this invasive grass, which can now be found throughout southern 

Arizona and northern Sonora where winters do not get too cold. In some areas of Sonora, fires have 

increased many-fold and native vegetation has usually lost out to this aggressive grass, which is well 

adapted to fire. Cacti and other native plants have been almost eliminated from some areas. 

REFERENCES 

Baker, Herbert G. 1972. Migrations of Weeds. In: Taxonomy, Phytogeography and Evolution. 

Valentine, D.H. Academic Press London. 430 p. 

Bessey, Charles E. 1893. The Russian Thistle in Nebraska. Bulletin of the Agricultural Experiment 

Station of Nebraska. Vol 6 #31. 67-73. 

Bottel, A. E. 1933. Introduction and Control of Camelthorn. In: Monthly Bulletin #22. California 

Department of Agriculture, Sacramento. 261-263. 

Crosby, Jr, Alfred W. 1993. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 368 p. 

Delaney, Robert W. 1987. The Modification of Land Use by Plant Introduction: The Spanish 

Experience. Journal of the West (July), 26-33. 

Dewey, Lyster H. 1964. Migration of Weeds. Yearbook of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Washington D.C. 263-286. 

Foy, C.L.; Forney, D.R.; Cooley, W.E. 1983. History of Weed Introductions. In: Exotic Plant Pests and 

North American Agriculture. (Eds: Wilson, Charles L.; Graham, Charles L.) Academic Press, New 

York, 65-92. 

Groh, Herbert. 1940. Turkestan Alfalfa as a Medium of Weed Introduction. Scientific 

Agriculture 21 (36-43). p 

Hansen, N.E. 1901. Ornamentals for South Dakota. South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Brookings. 31.p. 

Harris, D.R. 1966. Recent Plant Invasions in the Arid and Semi-arid Southwest of the United 

States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 56 ( 408-422). 

Horton, Jerome S. Notes on the Introduction of Deciduous Tamarisk. U.S. Forest Service Research 

Note RM-16. 7 p. 

Hedrick, U.P. 1950. A History of Horticulture in America to 1860. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 634 

pages. 

Hendry, George W. 1934. The Source Literature of Early Plant Introduction into Spanish America. 

Agricultural History 8(2). 64-71. 

Hendry, George W. and M.K. Bellue. 1936. An Approach to Southwestern Agricultural History 

through Adobe Brick Analysis. In Symposium on Prehistoric Agriculture. University of New 

Mexico Bulletin #296. Albuquerque. 65-72. 

Mack, R.N. 1986. Alien Plant Invasion into the Intermountain West: A Case History. In: Ecology of 

Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. (Mooney, Harold A.; Drake, James A. eds.) 

Springer Verlag, New York, 191-209. (Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and 

Hawaii; Mooney, Harold A.; Drake, James A.; New York; Springer-Verlag; 191-209). 

McWhorter, C.G. 1971. Introduction and Spread of Johnson grass in the United States. Weed 

Science 19, 196-500. 

Mitich, Larry W. 1989. History and Taxonomy of Bermuda grass. In: 41st Annual California Weed 

Conference. Sacramento. 181-187 

148 
Mooney, H.A.; Drake, James A .(Eds.) 1986. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and 

Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York. 321 p. 

Robbins, W.W. 1940. Alien Plants Growing without Cultivation in California. Agricultural Experiment 

Station. University of California Bulletin #637. Berkeley. 

Robinson, T.W. 1965. Introduction, Spread and Areal Extent of Saltcedar (Tamarix) in the Western 

States. Geological Survey Professional Paper 491-A. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Washington D.C. 12 

Shinn, Charles H. 1895. The Russian Thistle in California. California Agricultural Experiment Station 

Bulletin# 107. 16 p. 

Swingle, Walter T. 1916. The early European History and the Botanical Name of the Tree of 

Heaven. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 6:490-498. 

Tell man, Barbara. 1997. Exotic Pest Plant Introduction in the American Southwest. Desert Plants 

13 (1): 3-10. 

Welsh, S.L.; Nelson, C.R.; Thorne, K.H. 1971. Naturalization of Plant Species in Utah -

1842 to Present. In: Noxious Range Weeds. (Eds: James, Lynn F.; Evans, John 0.; Ralphs, 

Michael H.; Child, R. Dennis) Westview Press, Boulder, 17-29. 

149 
The Influence Of Climate, Soil And Grazing 

On the Distribution 

Of Lehmann Lovegrass 

Jerry R. Cox1 and George B. Ruyle2 

ABSTRACT 

Overstocking of the range at the end of the nineteenth and 

beginning of the twentieth centuries led to a decline in perennial 

grasses. To replace those grasses, new species were introduced 

from Africa and Asia. The purpose of this paper is to describe 

factors which have contributed to the spread of Lehmann's lovegrass 

and to discuss relationships between soils and climate which may 

influence the long-term persistence of the grass in Arizona. 

INTRODUCTION 

Between 1860 and 1930, large numbers of cattle and sheep were stocked on southwestern 

USA rangelands (Cox et al. 1983). Overstocking and drought caused a decline in perennial grasses 

and a subsequent decrease in livestock numbers. Because rangeland productivity could not be 

restored with native species, Lehmann love grass [Eragrostis lehmanniana (LL)], a perennial 

warm-season bunch grass from southern Africa, was introduced to Arizona (Cox and Ruyle 1986). 

In 1932, F. J. Crider, Director of the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum at Superior, 

Arizona received LL seed collected in the Griqualand West Region of South Africa (Crider 1945). 

Crider planted LL seed on the arboretum grounds and observed that seedlings produced seed heads 

during the first year or growth. In 1935, Crider joined the USDA-Soil Conservation Service (currently 

named the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service) and organized a series of screening tests 

at the Plant Materials Nursery in Tucson. Of the many LL accessions tested, Crider selected one that 

matured quickly and produced abundant seed under irrigation. The accession was named 11A-6811 , 

and the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) initiated a seed production program 

in 1937. 

Between 1937 and 1950, approximately 136 kg of LL seed were produced at Tucson and 

distributed to soil conservationists and scientists within USDA-NRCS for field plantings. By 1940, LL 

seed had been sown in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (Cox et al 1982). Between 1940 and 

1950, the grass began to appear on areas which had not been seeded. 

Early seeding successes sparked interest and the demand for LL exceeded what NRCS could 

supply. Between 1951 and 1984, the USDA-NRCS provided 1,197 kg of seed to commercial seed 

growers, and growers produced 75,069 kg (Cox and Ruyle 1986). Approximately 70% of the 

1 Texas A&M, College Station TX. 2 School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

150 
commercially available seed was sown on rangeland and along highways in Arizona, New Mexico and 

Texas. The majority of the remaining seed was transported to Mexico and planted in the northern 

frontier states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Sonora (Cox et al. 1982). As more and more stands 

were established, Cable (1971) predicted that LL wold spread naturally to adjacent rangelands. 

With this natural spread of LL, it was suspected that a subsequent decline in native grasses 

would occur. Both of these predictions have come to pass. Since about 1975, this scenario has 

occurred on an alarmingly large acreage in southeastern Arizona. 

DISTRIBUTION FACTORS 

In 1986, we hypothesized that five major factors have significantly contributed to the spread of 

LL in southeastern Arizona (Cox and Ruyle 1986). Since then, several studies have been published, 

both supporting and rejecting our original tenets. 

Of the direct factors contributing to the spread of LL, mechanical soil disturbance and sowing of 

LL seed are perhaps the most obvious. These seedlings have provided the seed source and the 

multiple loci largely responsible for setting the stage for LL invasion (Moody and Mack 1988, 

McClaran and Anable 1992). 

Approximately 69,000 ha of shrub land have been cleared and sown to LL in Arizona (Cox and 

Ruyle 1986). Mechanical treatments were used to reduce shrub competition, increase water 

infiltration and prepare a seedbed to enhance LL seed germination and seedling growth. 

Mechanical soil disturbances due to highway, pipeline, and power line construction began to 

accelerate after 1960 in southeastern Arizona. Because of soil erosion on disturbed areas the 

Arizona Department of Transportation began to seed LL in 1965. The majority of the seeded area 

(75%) was along Interstate 10 between Tucson and the New Mexico border, and along Interstate 19 

between Tucson and No gales. Approximately 3,060 kg of LL seed have been sown along highways 

in southeastern Arizona. 

The total land area successfully sown to improve rangeland is more than 31 times greater than 

that area sown along highway, pipeline and powerline right-of-ways because highway, pipeline and 

powerline plantings established continuous corridors into rangelands, and traverse many 

environmental gradients, whereas field plantings were made in rectangular shapes and were 

confined to localized areas (Cox and Ruyle 1986). Additionally, vehicular use of these corridors 

likely increases seed dispersal from existing stands into new areas (Robinett 1992a). 

Seeding of LL continues, both along disturbed right-of-ways and on privately held rangelands for 

forage production, although higher elevation seeding is discouraged. Seeding the exotic lovegrass 

on public lands is no longer routinely approved. It was also previously suggested that, on suitable 

sites, brush control without soil disturbance can influence LL invasion (Cox and Ruyle 1986). Cable 

and Tschirley (1961) reduced mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) competition with a herbicide and aerially 

applied LL seed to treated and untreated areas. LL production was nil in the treated and untreated 

areas in fall 1954. LL production increased from 125 kg'ha in fall 1955 to 4 75 kglha in fall 1959 

on treated areas, and from 20 kg'ha in fall 1955 to 210 kgtha in 1959 on untreated areas. Native 

grass production during the same period varied from 350 to 910 kgtha on the treated, and from 

130 to 7 40 kgtha on the untreated areas. Cable (1975) reevaluated the study 21 years post 

treatment and found that LL had replaced native grasses on both treated and untreated areas. Cable 

(1976) speculated that LL would continue to invade native grasslands at elevations between 1,200 

and 1,500 m with or without chemical or mechanical brush control. 

It appears that brush control is not the primary factor influencing LL movement onto a site. The 

presence of native perennial grasses on the site and the availability of a nearby LL seed source 

151 
interact with management and climatic influences to determine subsequent invasiveness of LL. Cox 

and Ruyle (1986) also suggested several indirect factors that may contribute to LL invasion. Of these 

factors, drought and fire appear to be most important. 

Drought conditions severe enough to kill both native perennial grasses and LL periodically occur 

in southeastern Arizona. Droughts of this magnitude occurred during the 1950's and 1960's. 

Anecdotal accounts made subsequent to these drought cycles indicated a substantial decline in 

both native grass and LL populations. When growing conditions improved, especially after the later 

dry cycle, native grasses did not re-establish as quickly or completely as did LL. Studies to 

document the influence of drought on LL are few, but mostly support this premise (Cable 1971, 

Robinett 1992a and b). 

LL plants growing on shallow soils are particularly susceptible to drought. About 90% of the 

plant population on shallow soils died during a mid-summer drought in South Africa, but seedlings 

quickly re-occupied the site when soil moisture improved (Fourie & Roberts 1977). 

The loss of perennial grasses including LL was documented due to drought conditions in 1988 

and 1989 in southern Arizona (Robinett 1992a and b). By the fall of 1990, the dead patches had 

filled in completely with mature LL plants. Native species reduced were primarily black gram a 

(Bouteloua eriopoda, and three awn (Aristida) species but also included hairy gram a and spruce top 

gram a (B. hirsuta and B. chondrosioides). However, McClaran and Anable (1992) found consistent 

increases in LL over time, on the Santa Rita Experimental Range, including a dry period during 1979 

and 1980, perhaps indicating that drought did not hasten the spread of LL. 

Natural or man-caused fires that occur prior to the summer growing-season, when the soil profile 

is dry, are known to kill mature LL plants (Humphrey and Everson 1951, Cable 1965 and 1967). 

However, plant populations do not decline because new seedlings from available seed, which 

germinate during the summer growing-season, quickly replace dead plants (Cable 1965, Ruyle et al. 

1988b). Where native grasses occur, fire creates bare areas that are quickly colonized by LL. 

Since 1986, numerous studies have supported this claim. For example, Robinett (1994) found 

that LL increases as fire frequency increased on certain range sites. The increase in LL was at the 

expense of native grasses. Biedenbender and Roundy (1996) determined that LL seedling 

establishment increased after burning as did studies by Ruyle et al. (1988b) and Summrall et al. 

(1991). Increased fire-fuels in Lehmann love grass stands seem to have increased the fire on sites 

formerly dominated by native grasses (Anable et al. 1992). Evidence exists that a fire-induced 

positive feedback pattern may develop where heavier stands of LL lead to higher fire frequencies 

leading to still heavier stands of LL (Anable et al. 1992). 

Cattle grazing has also been suggested as a mechanism that enhances the spread of LL. In 

pastures where LL occurs with native grasses, selective cattle grazing may favor the establishment 

and spread of LL. Under conventional year-long grazing management, cattle prefer native grasses 

during the summer growing season and lightly graze LL (Martin 1983, Ruyle et al 1988a). In 

contrast, cattle utilize LL in fall, winter and spring because the foliage remains green longer than the 

native grasses (Cable and Bohning 1959). This seasonal pattern of animal selectivity reduces 

native-grass vigor, because plants are repeatedly grazed during active plant growth. Consequently, LL 

may obtain a competitive advantage. 

Further study only partially supports this assumption. McClaran and Anable (1992) have 

demonstrated that the adventive spread of LL does not require livestock grazing. However, 

increased grazing intensity increased the proportion of lovegrass in the total grass population, albeit 

due to decreases in native grass densities and not from absolute increases in LL density with grazing 

intensity. Additionally kangaroo rats (Dipolomys spp.) appear to be critical to increased LL stands in 

Chihuahuan Desert shrub habitat (Brown and Heske 1990). 

152 
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOILS, TEMPERATURE, 

PRECIPITATION AND THE SPREAD OF LEHMANN LOVEGRASS 

Surface soils at 33 sites where LL was successfully established in southeastern Arizona are sand 

to sandy loams, and soil depth varies from 0 to 120 em (Cox and Ruyle 1986). At one-third of the 

sites, LL has spread from the seeding site to surrounding rangeland. Where the plant spreads, the 

sand to sandy loam surface soils are at least 15 em deep, the soil profile is greater than 50 em 

deep and soils are well drained. Soils are classified as either Cornaro, Forest, Sonoita, Tubac, or 

Whitehouse series (Soil Taxonomy 1975, Richmond 1976, Richardson et al. 1979.) Surface soils at 

the remaining sites are sandy, but soil depth is either less than 6 em or greater than 30 em. At 

these sites, LL has been slower to spread to surrounding rangeland. 

Elevation, mean annual winter temperature, and mean summer precipitation for the 33 planting 

sites was evaluated by Cox and Ruyle (1986). Elevation is less than 1,000 m at 6 sites, greater than 

1,000, and less than 1,500 m at 21 sites, and greater than 1,500 at 6 sites. Annual winter 

temperatures are less than 12 C at 8 sites, greater than 12, and less than 14 C at 21 sites, and 

greater than 14 C at 4 sites. Total summer precipitation is less than 200 mm at 13 sites, greater 

than 200, and less than 250 mm at 15 sites, and greater than 250 mm at 5 sites. 

CONCLUSIONS 

It is commonly believed that LL will continue to spread in the southwestern USA because the 

plant is adapted to a wide range of climatic and soil conditions (Cox 1984, Cox and Martin 1984, 

Martin and Cox 1984, Frasier et al. 1984 and 1987, Cox et al. 1990, Ruyle et al. 1988b, Roundy 

et al. 1993). In southeastern Arizona, approximately 90% of the area where summer rainfall ranges 

between 200 and 300 mm is currently occupied by LL. Because of shallow soils, dense shrub 

stands, and low summer rainfall, we do not believe LL is likely to invade at elevations below 1,000 

m, except in localized cases. We suspect that subsequent population increases will largely be 

through increased stand densities and continued invasion of areas above 1,500 m. 

There is little to indicate that LL will decline under natural successional processes where it has 

dominated favored sites. None-the-less attempts to reduce LL stands and favor native perennial 

grasses continue. Spring burning, moving or heavy grazing, herbicide treatments after the onset of 

summer rains and LL seedling emergence, followed by seeding native grasses may be the best 

suggestions to date to accomplish the above objective (Biedenbender and Roundy 1996). 

As Anable et al. (1992) and Robinett (1992a) suggest, seed arrival appears to be a major 

influence on LL invasion at elevations above 1,000 m in southern Arizona regardless of perturbation 

levels or management practices. Where seed sources are available we believe that the primary 

factors influencing continued invasion of LL are drought and a positive feed-back response to fire. 

REFERENCES 

Anable, M.E., M.P. McClaran and G.B. Ruyle, 1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass in 

Southern Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 61:181-188. 

Biedenbender S.H. and B.A. Roundy 1996. Establishment of native semidesert grasses into existing 

stands of Eragrostic lehmanniana in southeastern Arizona. Restoration Ecology 4:155-162. 

Brown, J.H. and E.J. Heske. 1990. control of a desert-grassland transition by a keystone rodent 

guild. Science 250:1705-1707. 

Cable, D.R. and J.W. Bohning. 1959. Changes in grazing use and herbage moisture content of 

153 
three exotic lovegrasses and some native grasses. J. Range Manage. 12:200-203. 

Cable, D. R. and F. G. Tschirley. 1961. Responses of native and introduced grasses following aerial 

spraying of velvet mesquite in southern Arizona. J. Range Manage. 14: 155-159. 

Cable, D. R. 1965. Damage to mesquite, Lehmann love grass and black gram a by a hot June fire. 

J. Range Manage. 18: 326-329. 

Cable, D. R. 1967. Fire effects on semidesert grassland shrubs. J. Range Manage. 20:170-176. 

Cable, D.R. 1971. Lehmann love grass on the Santa Rita Experimental Range, 1937-1968. J. 

Range Manage. 24:17-21. 

Cable, D. R. 1975. Influence of precipitation on perennial grass production in the semi-desert 

Southwest. Ecology 50: 981-986. 

Cable, D. R. 1976. Twenty years of change in grass production following mesquite control and 

reseeding. J. Range Manage. 29: 286-289. 

Cox, J. R., H. L. Morton, T. N. Johns en, G. L. Jordan, S. C. Martin and L. C. Fierro. 1982. Vegetation restoration in the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts of North America. U.S. Dep. Agric., 

Agric. Research Service, Agric. Reviews and Manuals. ARM-W-28. Govt. Printer, Washington, DC. 

Cox, J. R., H. L. Morton, J. T. LaBaume and K. G. Renard. 1983. Reviving Arizona1s rangelands. J. 

Soil and Water Conservation 38: 342-345. 

Cox, J. R. and M. H. Martin. 1984. Effects of planting depth, and soil texture on the emergence of 

four love grasses. J. Range Manage. 37: 204-205. 

Cox, J. R. 1984. Temperature, timing of precipitation and soil texture effects on germination, 

emergence and seedling survival of South African love grasses. J. South African Botany 

50: 159- 170. 

Cox, J. R. and G. B. Ruyle. 1986. Influence of climatic and edaphic factors on the distribution of 

Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees in Arizona, USA. J. Grassland Society S. Africa 3: 25-29. 

Cox, J. R., G. B. Ruyle and B. A. Roundy. 1990. Lehmann love grass in southeastern Arizona: 

Biomass production and disappearance. J. Range Manage. 43:367-372. 

Crider, F. J. 1945. Three introduced love grasses for soil conservation. U. S. Dep. Agric. 

Circular No. 730. 

Fourie, J. H. and B. R. Roberts. 1977. Seasonal dry matter production and digestibility of Themeda 

triandra and Eragrostis lehmanniana. Agroplanta 9: 129-133. 

Frasier, G. W., D. A. Woolhiser and J. R. Cox. 1984. Emergence and seedling survival of two warm 

season grasses as influenced by the timing of precipitation: A greenhouse study. J. Range 

Manage. 37: 7-11. 

Frasier, G. W., J. R. Cox and D. A. Woolhiser. 1987. Wet-dry cycle effects on warm-season grass 

seedling establishment. J. Range Manage. 40: 2-6. 

Humphrey, R. R. and H. C. Everson. 1951. Effect of fire on a mixed grass-shrub range in southern 

Arizona. J. Range Manage. 4: 264-266. 

Martin, S. C. 1983. Responses of semi-arid grasses and shrubs to fall burning. J. Range Manage. 

36: 604-610. 

Martin, M. H. and J. R. Cox. 1984. Germination profiles of introduced love grasses at six constant 

temperatures. J. Range Manage. 37: 507-509. 

McClaran, M.P. and M.E. Anable. 1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann love grass along a grazing 

intensity gradient. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:92-98. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nacent foci. J. Appl. Ecol. 25: 1009-1021. 

154 
Richardson, M. L., S. D. Clemmons and J. C. Walker. 1979. Soil Survey of Santa Cruz and parts of 

Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conservation Service and the Univ. 

of Arizona Agric. Exp. Sta., U. S. Govt. Printer, Washington, DC. 

Richmond, D. L. 1976. Soil Survey of the Wilcox area, Arizona. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conservation 

Service and Univ. of Arizona Agric. Exp. Sta., U. S. Govt. Printer, Washington, DC. 

Robinett, D. 1992a. Lehmann love grass and drought in southern Arizona. Rangelands 1 

4:100-103. 

Robinett, D. 1992b. Drought recovery in the upper Sonoran desert. Rangelands. 14:219-222. 

Robinett, D. 1994. Fire effects on southeastern Arizona plains grasslands. 16:143-148. 

Roundy, B. A., V. K. Winkel, J. R. Cox, A. K. Dobrenz and H. Tewolde. 1993. Sowing depth and soil 

water effects on seedling emergence and root morphology of three warm-season grasses. 

Agronomy J. 85: 975-982. 

Ruyle, G.B., P.R. Ogden and R.W. Rice. 1988a. Defoliation patterns of cattle grazing Lehmann love 

grass. Appl. Agric. Res. 3: 177-181. 

Ruyle, G. B., B. A. Roundy and J. R. Cox. 1988b. Effects of burning on germination of Lehmann love 

grass. J. Range Manage. 41: 404-406. 

Soil Taxonomy. 1975. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbook No. 436. U.S. Govt. 

Printer, Washington, DC. 

Summrall, LB., B.A. Roundy, J.R. Cox and V.K. Winkel. 1991. Seedbed ecology and emergence of 

Eragrostis lehmanniana as influenced by burning. Int. J. Wild land Fire 2:35-40. 

155 
156 
Riparian Areas, Watersheds and 

Water Quality: a Panel Discussion 

Roy Jemison, Moderator1 

Introduction to the Panel 

Riparian areas within desert grassland ecosystems provide many useful functions and benefits 

on which we depend and which we enjoy. To unsure the availability of these ecosystems now and in 

the future, we must understand how they function and be willing to work in harmony with them. 

Water in excess of the surrounding ecosystems in combination with soils, geology, and other site 

conditions determines the location and extent of riparian ecosystems. However, it is not enough to 

know that water is present in excess. We also need to know the quantity, quality, and source of the 

water. As we investigate these parameters, we will find that they are linked inseparably to parameters in the surrounding ecosystems. For example, water quantity can be linked to watershed area, 

water quality to non-point source pollution, soil erosion to excessive runoff and land misuse. 

Continued investigation can show that riparian areas, in many instances, are the results of delicate 

balances between water and multiple environmental parameters. 

Reference (exemplary) riparian systems should be noted during investigations. These areas can 

then serve as barometers by which other sites are judged and as examples of the potential of other 

sites with similar conditions. Monitoring of environmental parameters such as water quality and 

quantity and/or the health and abundance of dependent species can serve as indications of when 

these ecosystems are unbalanced. Simulation models can be used to predict the future of these 

systems based on our past and current understanding of them. 

A logical approach to address the maintenance of our riparian grassland ecosystems and waters 

is to involve an informed public. The papers and comments which follow provide a foundation on 

which to build an understanding of the hydrologic concerns of grassland riparian areas and their 

adjoining ecosystems. 

1 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. 

157 
•. ;- ..... ·,·= 

Hydrology and Watershed 

Management in Semi-Arid Grasslands 

Malchus B. Baker, Jr .

1 

ABSTRACT 

Ecosystems in the semi-arid southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico are sustained in a delicate balance under a limited 

water regime and a highly variable climate. This balance has 

frequently been overwhelmed by past land use and abuse, resulting 

in severe and widespread watershed degradation. This paper 

discusses existing hydrologic and watershed information for the 

semi-arid grassland vegetation type and provides suggestions for the 

restoration of severely degraded watershed areas. 

INTRODUCTION 

The climate of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico is mainly arid, with the 

isolated higher elevation mountain ranges being subjected to a more semi-arid climate (Baker et al. 

1995). This biogeographic region, also known as the Madrean Archipelago, is especially sensitive 

to climatic fluctuations and human impacts. Therefore, a knowledge of the hydrologic processes 

regulating these water-limited ecosystems is essential to understand the soil-vegetation 

relationships that are responsible for sustaining landscape stability in this region (Ffolliott and 

Thorud 1975). The hydrologic response of this region to potential, global, climate changes is also 

important because of the delicate equilibria and interrelationships existing between precipitation 

and soil-vegetation assemblages. 

Only a few comprehensive hydrological studies have been reported for the semi-arid grassland 

type (Lopes and Ffolliott 1992). Probably the best known study is the long-term research effort at 

the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watersheds in southeastern Arizona (Renard 1978). The objectives 

of this paper are to characterizes the hydrology of the semi-arid grassland type by summarizing 

existing information obtained from within the vegetation type, and to supplement this information 

with data extrapolated from associated ecosystems in the region. 

VEGETATION 

Brown (1982) indicates that the semi-arid grasslands in the southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico were historically found at elevations of between 1,000 and 1,600 m on level 

plains and along the larger river valleys. These areas are typically grass-dominated systems with 

scattered woody plants--a savanna landscape. Since the root system of grasses is generally 

shallow, and of woody plants is generally deeper, removal of grasses by animal grazing can reduce 

1 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ragstaff AZ. 

158 
water loss near the soil surface. As a result, more water becomes available for use by the deeper 

and more extensive root systems of the woody plants, and scrub or bush encroachment begins. If 

grasses are not allowed to recover and the likelihood of lightning or human-caused fires to increase, 

woody plants will continue to spread at the expense of the grass species (Brown 1982). 

CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY 

Precipitation 

The southwestern United States receives an average of less than 100 mm of annual 

precipitation in the lower desertscrub to over 800 mm on the higher mountain peaks (Sellers et al. 

1985; Brown 1982, Ffolliott and Thorud 1975) (Rgure 1). One-half or more of the annual 

precipitation falls during the growing season between July and September (Osborn et al. 1980). 

These precipitation events are mainly high intensity, short duration convectional storms originating 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Winter precipitation is generally rain that comes during November through 

April, with occasional snow occurring in the higher elevations. Winter precipitation normally comes 

as frontal storms from the Pacific Ocean. 

Precipitation supplies moisture for plant maintenance and growth and in turn vigorous plant 

growth tends to reduce soil erosion. However, the high intensity precipitation events that frequently 

occur in this region often create overland flow from both vegetated and nonvegetated areas, and as 

a result, significantly increase erosion. 

Plants growing in semiarid grasslands are engaged in a race against time. Green and Martin 

(1967) show that the effectiveness of precipitation in relation to plants varies with season. The 

length of time that the soil remains wet after a rain is much longer in winter than in summer. 

Evaporation from a free water surface in Tucson is eight times greater in June than December, and 

soil moisture after each rain is available only until it evaporates or is used by plants. Plants grow 

little in December and January, regardless of the availability of water, because ambient 

temperatures are low. 

Although plants can grow 

rapidly during the summer, they ELEVATION (M) 

only have a few days to use 

water made available by rain 

because of high evaporation 

losses. 

Green and Martin (1967) 

pointed out that heavier rains 

will often produce visible growth 

on shrubs or perennial grasses, 

and provide conditions for the 

germination of annual grass 

and forb seeds. A deep 

wetting of the soil in summer 

can produce significant 

amounts of perennial grass 

herbage, but it rarely produces 

substantial annual plant 

growth. Most southern Arizona 

soils require from 6 to 8 mm of 

3000 

2700 

2~0 

2100 

1800 

1500 

1200 

goo 

eoo 

300 

CHIHUAHUAN 

SCRUB 

SEMI DESERT 

GRASSLAND 

, oo 200 3oo 400 soo eoo 100 eoo 

ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (MM) 

Figure 1. Elevation and precipitation relationships of 

biotic communities in southwestern United States 

and northern Mexico. 

159 
precipitation to wet the surface 8 em of soil (Green and Martin 1967). However, rains of 6 mm or 

even less a day or two apart, interspersed with heavier rains, can maintain usable soil moisture 

levels. The surface layers of many soils in the region hold about 38 mm of water per 30 em of soil 

at field capacity, and 13 mm of water per 30 em of soil at the wilting point of herbaceous plants 

(Green and Martin 1967). Therefore, about 25 mm of water per 30 em of soil is available to 

support plant growth. 

Summer rains produced 90 percent of the perennial grass herbage on the Santa Rita 

Experimental Range (Culley 1943) and are responsible for major plant growth in New Mexico 

(Nelson 1934). Green and Martin (1967) showed that the amount and distribution of rainfall 

affects not only the amount of forage produced, but composition as well. Perennials account for 

only 20 percent of the grass herbage at the lower elevations, compared to 70 percent at the higher 

elevation where rainfall is greater. An additional 25 mm of summer rainfall can increase average 

perennial grass yields by about 140 kglha. 

Temperature 

Freezing temperatures in the grassland savanna can be expected during any winter, but these 

freezes are not of a long duration and temperatures rarely drop far below -4 oc (Brown 1982). 

Killing frosts are infrequent. Therefore, evapotranspiration loses can occur year-long in this region. 

Evaporation 

Information on water losses from the soil, by both evaporation from the soil surface and 

transpiration from vegetation, has been used to calculate water balances. Buol (1964) calculated 

annual potential evapotranspiration (PET) values (by the Thornthwaite (1948) method) for Arizona 

from available climatic records. Calculated PET in the southwestern United States ranges from 760 

to 1,020 mm of water per year, while actual evapotranspiration ranges from 250 to 760 mm per 

year. In general, these values are within the range of measured annual ET values of 989 mm from 

an area supporting riparian grasses along the Gila River (Leppanen 1981), and of 493, 389, and 

335 mm for actual ET measured in a 150-day growing period from a forested area, a clear cut 

forest area, and a cienega, respectively, in the White Mountains (Thompson 1974). Estimates of 

evaporation from a free water surface in this region range from 1,525 to 1, 780 mm (NOAA 1982). 

Interception and Throughfall 

Precipitation falling on a watershed is partitioned into water intercepted by leaves, twigs, or 

stems and returned to the atmosphere by evaporation; water channeled to the soil surface as 

streamflow, or drip from the foliage; water passing through the foliage to the soil surface as 

throughfall; and water falling directly on the soil surface in areas having sparse vegetation (Brooks 

et al. 1991). 

Throughfall in taller vegetation can be intercepted by low-growing vegetation, litter, or the soil 

surface. Crouse et al. (1966) indicated that the water storage capacity of grasses is proportional to 

the product of the average plant height and percent of ground cover. Interception losses vary from 

0.2 to 9 mm. Corbett and Crouse (1968) found that the amount of water evaporated from surface 

litter is governed primarily by the moisture-holding capacity of the litter, and the evaporation 

potential during and following storms. Interception losses from small storms are normally much 

higher (i.e, up to 90 percent), while those from larger storms range between 2 and 5 percent. 

160 
Approximately 20 percent of the gross precipitation intercepted in the coniferous woodland 

canopies is lost to evaporation (Skau 1964) and from 10 to 25 percent is lost from the ponderosa 

pine canopies (Aidon 1959). 

A study of rainfall distribution in the evergreen woodlands of southeastern Arizona, plant 

communities that are largely evergreen or a mix of evergreen and deciduous species (Brown 1982), 

showed that up to 70 percent of the late summer-early fall rains are intercepted directly under the 

canopies of Emory oak trees (Haworth 1992). Throughfall varied from 100 percent (all trees, large 

storms) to about 30 percent (large trees, small storms). Rainfall was distributed evenly under and 

around trees in storms generally larger then 25 mm. 

Infiltration 

Once precipitation reaches the land surface it can infiltrate into the soil, evaporate, or contribute 

to overland flow and eventually runoff. The rate that water enters the soil depends upon the nature 

of the precipitation, vegetation, topography, and soil properties (Brooks et al. 1991). Important soil 

properties are texture and restricting subsurface layers. 

Desert grassland vegetation generally grows on alluvial soils (Hendricks et al. 1985). These are 

well-drained soils on valley bottoms and floodplains in the Santa Cruz, Sulphur Springs and San 

Simon Valleys. Native vegetation is mainly grasses at the higher elevations, while desert shrubs 

and cacti dominate the lower elevations. These soils support the best rangeland in the Southwest. 

Beutner et al. (1940) studied infiltration in a wide range of Arizona desert soils. All of their 

infiltration curves for dry soils began with high infiltration rates, which declined rapidly during the 

first 10 minutes until a nearly constant infiltration rate was reached. Infiltration rates varied from 7 

to 56 mm/hr when rainfall was applied to dry soils compared to 5 to 32 mm/hr when applied to 

soils at field capacity. 

Infiltration rates are also influenced by grazing animals that remove plant material and compact 

the soil (Branson et al. 1981). As a result, runoff often increases as range and soil condition 

deteriorates. Hendricks (1942) found that infiltration is improved if grazing management allowed 

for the accumulation of grass litter on semi-arid rangelands. 

Soil wettability is a phenomenon found on many rangelands and forested areas. In more arid 

climates, water repellency has been found particularly under various species of oak, chaparral, and 

coniferous woodland communities and often affects water infiltration into the soil (DeBano 1981). 

Runoff 

If water reaching the soil surface does not infiltrate or evaporate, it becomes runoff. Of the three 

major components of runoff--(surface or overland flow, storm seepage or interflow, and 

groundwater flow)--surface runoff is the most common runoff component in arid environments. 

Surface runoff normally occurs only briefly during summer rainfall events when intensities exceed 

the infiltration capacity of the soil, or during periods of rapid snowmelt in the spring. 

Studies of runoff relationships in arid and semi-arid areas are complicated by the variability in 

precipitation and by the infrequent nature of runoff events. Studies using comparable amounts of 

artificially applied rainfall on small, adjacent plots show that differences in runoff can occur, and 

that these differences are attributed to variations in soils, plant type, and range condition (Branson 

and Owen 1970; Kincaid and Williams 1966; Schreiber and Kincaid 1967). 

Much of the surface runoff originating in the mountain tops of southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico flow into ephemeral stream channels in the lower elevation woodlands, grassland, 

161 
and desertscrub types (Baker et al. 1995). Therefore, it is important that watershed management 

practices protect these areas from accelerated erosion and sedimentation because of their eventual 

negative impact on water quality and on long-term site productivity (Lopes and Ffolliott 1992; 

Marsh 1968). 

Osborn et al. (1980) reported that ephemeral stream channels in arid and semi-arid regions can 

accommodate large volumes of runoff in their normally dry streambeds. Storm movement (i.e., 

direction that a storm moves across ·a watershed) has little effect on major flood peaks from small 

watersheds. However, storm movement can affect flood peaks and volumes for smaller storm 

events. If storms move too rapidly across a watershed, reduced surface runoff can be entirely (or 

mostly) absorbed by the channels above the watershed outlet. 

Streamflow in southwestern United States is often linked directly to groundwater regimes (Davis, 

1993), as is illustrated in the upper San Pedro River Basin (Jackson et al. 1987). Local citizens 

and government officials are concerned about groundwater depletion resulting from accelerated 

pumping in this river basin in both Mexico and the United States. A University of Arizona study 

(1991) indicated that pumping water from the regional aquifer in the Sierra Vista area is depleting 

stored groundwater reserves, and that future water pumping will only accentuate this trend. 

Although the depletion rate of groundwater is currently small compared to the total volume of water 

in aquifer storage, these withdrawals can directly affect surface flows in the San Pedro River, which 

are particularly important to the riparian vegetation and existing wildlife. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

As mentioned, streamflow in southwestern United States is generated mainly from the higher 

elevation forested areas, while the majority of the sediment originates in lower elevation 

ecosystems (Branson et al. 1981). For example, Dortignac (1956) found that the Rio Puerco 

watershed in New Mexico, which represents less than 20 percent of the Upper Rio Grande Basin, 

contributes nearly half of the total sediment supply but produces less than 8 percent of the total 

water yield from the area. Langbein and Schumm (1958) concluded that maximum sediment 

yields, under natural vegetation regimes, occur at about 300 mm of annual precipitation. 

Sediment yields decrease on the dry side of this curve because there is a lack of runoff to transport 

sediment, and decrease on the wet side of this curve because the naturally denser vegetation 

produced by higher precipitation regimes has a greater ability to protect the soil from erosion. This 

relationship is complicated by removal of vegetation by such activities as grazing and logging 

(DeBano and Wood 1992). As a consequence of all these factors, sediment is frequently the major 

product of non-point source pollution in southwestern streams (Branson et al. 1981). 

Sediment yields at Walnut Gulch decreased from an average annual production of 3, 7 40 to 290 

kg/ha following vegetation conversion of brush to grass (Simanton, Osborn, and Renard 1977). 

Although runoff increased during the transition period, it decreased once grass became established-

-contributing to the reduction in erosion. 

Clary et al. (197 4) reported annual sediment yields from the woodland vegetation type on 

volcanic soils of 2,000 to 4,500 kglha. Vegetation conversion treatments on these volcanic soils 

did not increase sedimentation, however, sediment losses on other soil types (such as sedimentary 

soils) following conversion were greater. 

Chaparral brushlands intermingle with evergreen woodlands on the flanks of isolated mountain 

ranges in southeastern Arizona. Sediment yields from chaparral watersheds with soils derived from 

granitic parent materials are often of the same magnitude as those observed in the coniferous 

woodlands. Sediment production, however, can be greatly accelerated immediately after treating 

162 
chaparral vegetation, especiaiFy when burning is involved (Overby and Baker 1995; Hibbert et al. 

1974; Morenno 1968). 

Sediment yields depend upon the magnitude of overland flow and the stability of stream 

channels. Important climatic, geomorphic and hydrologic parameters controlling sediment 

production and transport are: high intensity thunderstorms, which can produce large peak 

discharges per unit area; limited areal extent of rainfall which can result in partial area runoff; 

transmission losses in normally dry stream channels, which can decrease downstream sediment 

transport capacities; steep channels, which can produce high flow velocities with increased 

potential for transporting sediment; and unconsolidated stream channel material and unprotected 

stream banks, which can produce a large supply of sediment (Lopes and Ffolliott 1992). 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 

Watershed management in the semi-arid grassland region must consider the soil and water 

resource as related to livestock production, wildlife habitats, and recreational use on the watershed 

and along the riparian areas of the stream channels. Conservation of the soil and water resource is 

important because of the fragile nature of the soils and limited amounts of available water in the 

region (Lopes and Ffolliott 1992). Therefore, watershed management practices should be carefully 

planned and implemented to ensure protection and (wherever possible) enhancement of the soil 

and water resource. 

Riparian areas are closely related to their surrounding watershed area (LaFayette and DeBano 

1990). These riparian plant communities stabilize stream channels, provide repositories for 

sediment, serve as nutrient sinks for surrounding watersheds, and improve quality of water leaving 

the watersheds. Riparian areas also provide temperature control through shading, reduce flood 

peaks, and serve as recharge points for renewing ground-water supplies. Riparian areas, however, 

must be managed within the context of the entire watershed because all tributary effects cumulate 

to influence riparian plant stability (DeBano and Schmidt 1989). A delicate balance exists between 

the riparian community and its surrounding watershed. DeBano and Schmidt (1989) describe this 

scenario, upland watersheds in satisfactory condition absorb storm energies, provide regulation of 

stormflows through the soil mantle, and bring stability to the entire basin. This condition results in 

sustained flows necessary for supporting a healthy riparian ecosystem. 

In contrast, watersheds receiving past abuse have developed more extensive channel systems 

throughout the watershed, including ephemeral, gully networks. These gullies are formed in 

response to increased runoff resulting from the production of more rapid and concentrated surface 

runoff. These gully networks also produce higher peak flows and increases in erosion and resulting 

sedimentation. Past abuse and overuse of wildlands throughout the southwestern USA by grazing, 

trail and road construction, timber and fuelwood harvesting, mining, and other land uses have 

destroyed plant cover, increased soil erosion, and in the process have reduced riparian habitat 

(DeBano and Schmidt 1989). Riparian communities in the southwestern USA are particularly 

sensitive to overuse because they exist in a semi-arid climate and are subjected to wide variations 

in annual precipitation (Leopold 1946). 

The sensitive hydrologic interrelationship that exist between watershed condition and the health 

of associated riparian areas has been illustrated by DeBano and Schmidt (1989) and the use of 

watershed treatments and properly designed, constructed, and maintained structures for enhancing 

riparian habitats have been presented (DeBano and Schmidt 1990; DeBano and Hansen 1989; 

DeBano and Heede 1987). Objectives of the use of these structures are to affect streamflow 

hydraulics and sedimentation, and therefore, create a more favorable environment for riparian 

163 
habitat establishment. Beneficial uses of man-made structures have been used extensively 

throughout the Southwest and play an important role in management of riparian areas. However, 

some structures have produced less desirable influences. 

WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES 

Watershed improvement practices can be grouped into two general categories, those which 

minimize adverse impacts to the soil and water resource and rehabilitation practices used to 

improve watershed condition. 

Minimizing adverse impacts 

Fragile soils and limited water make it important to protect the semi-arid grasslands from further 

deterioration of the soil and water resource. Past degradation has been contributed to overgrazing 

by livestock, reduction in wildfires by man, and precipitation events at both extremes--high intensity 

rains and droughts. Therefore, a positive plan of action is needed to protect this unique resource 

from further degradation. Management practices that minimize adverse impacts on the soil and 

water resource are similar to those used to prevent excessive rates of erosion (Lopes and Ffolliott 

1992). Roads should not be constructed in or near stream channels. When roads are closed to 

public travel; roadways should be seeded with native herbaceous plant species to protect against 

erosion. Grazing and recreational use should be monitored to minimize impacts on stream 

channels, riparian areas, and water quality. These practices are all essential components of an 

integrated watershed management program that accommodates multiple uses. 

Numerous attempts have been made to control erosion with various types of structures and 

management practices, particularly on rangelands, but failures have been frequent (Branson et al. 

1981). Peterson and Hadley (1960) reviewed the effectiveness of a number of erosion abatement 

practices (including nearly 200 erosion control structures) on semi-arid rangelands in the Upper 

Gila River Basin. They found that vegetation was often not benefitted appreciably by structures and 

that excessive maintenance costs often make there use prohibitive or resulted in no maintenance 

being applied. 

Peterson and Branson (1962) evaluated the effectiveness of various land treatments undertaken 

by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the mid-1930s. Treatments included earth fill dams, earth 

dike spreaders, loose rock spreaders, hand placed rock spreaders, brush spreaders, .. cement wormu 

spreaders, cable and wire spreaders, and rock rubble gully control structures. More than half of 

these structures breached within a few years after construction. However, vegetative cover was 

improved where earth dikes were not breached and water was distributed by the spreader system. 

Lusby and Hadley (1967) studied the influence of low dams and barriers on sedimentation. 

They concluded that slope of deposition was largely dependent upon the particle-size distribution of 

transported sediment, and the rate that steep-sided gullies filled was dependent upon availability of 

material approaching the size of the original channel bed material. Deposits behind low permeable 

barriers had steeper surface gradients than the original stream channels, and deposits behind low 

dams had lower gradients than the original channels. 

As previously mentioned, properly constructed and maintained structures can have a positive 

influence on riparian vegetation (DeBano and Schmidt 1990; DeBano and Hansen 1989; DeBano 

and Heede 1987). Therefore, why have so many failures been observed? The key is in understanding where and how to use structures. One needs a good understanding of the hydrology of 

the area and the interrelationships with and between the geology, soils, and native vegetation. 

Monitoring of the short- and long-term functioning of the structures can also provide more specific 

164 
information about the functioning of various types of structures and their successful use in specific 

areas. 

The extreme variability in climate in southwestern United States makes it difficult to isolate 

natural erosion and sedimentation rates from those induced by human activities. However, much 

of the severe erosion and sedimentation observed in the woodlands and semidesert grasslands in 

southeastern Arizona has been attributed to overgrazing by livestock, mainly during the last half of 

the 19th century (Cox et al. 1984). 

Cox et al. (1984) estimated that cattle numbers in the desert southwest exceeded 500,000 

between 1830 and 1840, and increased to a peak of about 1.5 million in the late 1880s. Large 

areas of sacaton and grama grass existed here prior to 1870, and beaver dams often restricted 

water flow. But, human disturbances between 1870 and 1901 (including the plowing of sacaton 

bottoms, channeling of rivers to provide irrigation water, overgrazing by livestock, and extermination 

of beaver by trappers) dramatically changed this landscape. Most of the water sources were dried 

up by 1893 and about 65 percent of the cattle had died because of these changes, which were 

amplified by a severe drought. Although the drought ended by 1895, the added effects of 

overgrazing, farming, and subsequent flooding resulted in accelerated sheet and gully erosion 

throughout the region. 

Restoration efforts in the San Simon Valley illustrate the benefits arising from the 

implementation of proper engineering and land management practices (Baker et al. 1995). 

Historically the area was a broad grassy valley that was bisected by an intermittent stream with little 

apparent erosion prior to the 1880s. The broad, flatter areas were covered by sacaton and tobosa 

grass with few trees. Willows grew in the wetter areas, and cottonwoods were found in San Simon 

Cienega, near the current day Arizona-New Mexico state line. Little channel erosion was present, 

and the bottom was well vegetated. 

From 1883 to 1916, head cutting of San Simon had advanced 60 miles up the channel, and 

had ranged from 3 to 10 m in depth and 12 to 245 m in width. Factors contributing to this rapid 

erosion included overgrazing by livestock, widespread drought, subsequent flooding, and 

construction of a drainage ditch, a wagon road, and a railroad. By 1919, the San Simon valley was 

recognized (by the U.S. Government) as needing extensive restoration. 

Numerous erosion control measures have been implemented on San Simon since 1934, 

including diversion dikes, water spreaders, detention dams, gully plugs, and rangeland seedings. 

After 50 years of monitoring the results of the various control measures, installation of main 

channel structures were judged to be most effective. Side channel structures have been largely 

ineffective in regrading steep channels slopes although these structures have stopped further 

head cutting of the side channels, and have reduced water velocities. 

Watershed rehabilitation 

Management practices used to rehabilitate watersheds include: controlling gullies and mass 

wasting with properly constructed check dams (Heede 1970); establishment of a protective tree, 

shrub, or herbaceous plant covers on degraded sites (Cox et al. 1984); and (when necessary) 

curtailment of livestock grazing and other exploitative practices (Lopes and Ffolliott 1992). 

Artificial seeding of rangeland plants has been studied for nearly a century in the Southwest. 

The results of these studies provide information necessary for rehabilitating severely degraded 

watershed. For example, Cox, et al. (1984) found several grass species that can be successfully 

established in the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts. Unfortunately, frequent drought and continual 

abuse by man has caused the deterioration of semi-desert grasslands through accelerated erosion, 

165 
brush invasion, and reduced forage production. However, even though revegetation is difficult and 

costly, it is possible. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

The ecosystems in the Southwest represent a wide assemblage of hydrologic conditions within 

the context of a arid and semi-arid _environment. These ecosystems sustain themselves in a 

delicate balance within an environment having limited water and a highly variable climate. This 

balance has frequently been overwhelmed by past land abuse, resulting in severe and widespread 

watershed degradation. Careful implementation of existing watershed and hydrologic information 

has been demonstrated by the successful restoration of some highly degraded sites. However, 

widespread application of existing technology is dependent upon a more thorough understanding of 

the fundamental hydrologic processes operating in the unique environment of the semi-arid 

grasslands. 

REFERENCES 

Aldan, Earl F. 1959. Watershed management research in the ponderosa pine. In Watershed 

management research in Arizona, progress report 1959. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. p. 19-23. 

Baker, M.B., Jr., L.F. DeBano, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1995. Hydrology and watershed management in 

the Madrean Archipelago. In: DeBano, L.F., G.J. Gottfried, R.H. Hamre, C.B. Edminster, P.F. 

Ffolliott, and A. Ortega-Rubio, Technical Coordinators. Biodiversity and Management of the 

Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico, 

September 19-23, 1994, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 329-337. 

Beutner, E.L., R. R. Gaebe, and R. E. Horton. 1940. Sprinkled plot runoff and infiltration 

experiments on Arizona desert soils. American Geophysical Union, Transactions. Part 2:550-

558. 

Branson, F. A. and J. R. Owen. 1970. Plant cover, runoff, and sediment yield relationships on 

Mancos Shale in Western Colorado. Water Resources Research 6:783-790. 

Branson, F. A., G. F. Gifford, K. G. Renard, and R. F. Hadley. 1981. Rangeland Hydrology. Society 

For Range Management, Range Science Series No.1, Second Edition. 339 pp. 

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and J.L. Thames. 1991. Hydrology and the 

management of watersheds. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 392 p. 

Brown, David E. 1982. Biotic Communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. 

Desert Plants 4(1-4)1-342. 

Buol, S. W. 1964. Calculated actual and potential evaporation in Arizona. Agricultural Experiment 

Station, University of Arizona. Technical Bulletin 162. 48 pp. 

Clary, W. P., M. B. Baker, Jr., P. F. o•connell, T. N. Johnsen, Jr., and R. E. Campbell. 197 4. Effects 

of pinyon-juniper removal on natural resource products and uses in Arizona. USDA For. Serv. 

Res. Pap. RM-128, 28 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 

Corbett, E. S. and R. P. Crouse. 1968. Rainfall interception by annual grass and chaparral. USDA 

Forest Service Research Note PSW-48. 12 p. 

Cox, J. R., H. L. Morton, T. N. Johnsen, Jr., G. L. Jordan, S. C. Martin, and L. C. Fierro. 1984. 

Vegetation restoration in the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts of North America. Rangelands 

6:1112-115. 

166 
Crouse, R. P., E. S. Corbett, and D. W. Seegrist. 1966. Methods of measuring and analyzing 

rainfall interception by grass. International Association of Scientific Hydrologic Bulletin 11:110-

120. 

Culley, M. J. 1943. Grass grows in summer or not at all. American Hereford Journal 34:8, 10. 

Davis, J. C. 1993. The hydrology and plant community relations of Canelo Hills Cienega, An 

emergent wetland in southeastern Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

210 p. 

DeBano, L. F. 1981. Water repellent soils: a state-of-the-art. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-46, 21 p. Pacific Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif. 

DeBano, L.F. and W.R. Hansen. 1989. Rehabilitating depleted riparian areas using channel 

structures. In: Gresswell, R.E., B. A. Barton, and J.L. Kershner, editors, Practical approaches to 

Riparian Resource Management, an educational workshop, May 8-11, Billings, Montana, pp. 

141-148. 

DeBano, L.F. and B.H. Heede. 1987. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems with channel 

structures. Water Resources Research 23:463-4 70. 

DeBano, L.F. and L.J. Schmidt. 1990. Potential for enhancing riparian habitats in the southwestern 

United States with watershed practices. Forest Ecology and Management 33/34:385-403. 

DeBano, L.F. and L.J. Schmidt. 1989. Interrelationship between watershed condition and health of 

riparian areas in southwestern United States. In: Gresswell, R.E., B. A. Barton, and J.L. 

Kershner, editors, Practical approaches to Riparian Resource Management, an educational 

workshop, May 8-11, Billings, Montana, pp. 45-52. 

DeBano, L.F. and M.K. Wood. 1992. Soil loss tolerance as related to rangeland productivity. In: 

Proceedings of the Soil Quality Standards Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, October 23, 1990. 

USDA Forest Service Watershed and Air Management WO-WSA-2. pp 15-27. 

Dortignac, F. J. 1956. Watershed resources and problems of the Upper Rio Grande Basin. US 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Station Report. 107 p. 

Ffolliott, P.F. and D.B. Thorud. 1975. Water yield improvement by vegetation management focus in 

Arizona. NTIS PB-246 056. 

Green, C. R. and S. C. Martin. 1967. An evaluation of precipitation, vegetation, and related factors 

on the Santa Rita Experimental Range. The University of Arizona Institute of Atmospheric 

Physics, Technical Reports on the Meteorology and Climatology of Arid Regions. No. 17. 82 pp. 

Haworth, Kathryn. 1992. Effects of Quercus emoryi trees on microclimate, precipitation 

distribution, and herbs in a semi-arid savanna.· M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Heede, B. H. 1970, Design, construction and cost of rock check dams. USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper RM-20, 24 pp., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Hendricks, B. A. 1942. Effect of grass litter on infiltration of rainfall on granitic soils in a 

semidesert shrub grass area. US Forest Service Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Research Note 96. 3 p. 

Hendricks, D.M., P.R. Krausman, R. W. Mannan, F.D. Hole, H.W. Pierce, S.L. Levine, D. F. Post, C. 

W. Guernsey, Y.H. Havens, J.E. Jay, and M. L. Richardson. 1985. Arizona soils. College of 

Agriculture, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

Hibbert, A. R., E. A. Davis, and D. G. Scholl. 197 4. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part 

1: Water resources and effects on other resources. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM126. 

167 
Jackson, W., T. Martinez, P. Cuplin, W. L. Minckley, B. Shelby, P. Summers, D. McGlothlin, and B. 

Van Haveren. 1987. Assessment of water conditions and management opportunities in support 

of riparian values: BLM San Pedro River Properties, Arizona Project Completion Report. USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Report No. BLM/YNPT-88/004+ 7200. 180 p. 

Kincaid, D. R. and G. Williams. 1966. Rainfall effects on soil surface characteristics following range 

improvement treatments. Journal of Range Management 19:346-351. 

LaFayette, R.A. and L.F. DeBano. 1990. Watershed condition and riparian health: Linkages. In: 

Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action, Symposium Proceedings of IR Conference, 

Watershed Management and Irrigation Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Durango, Colorado, July 9-11, pp. 4 73-484. 

Langbein, W. B. and S. A. Schumm. 1958. Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual 

precipitation. American Geophysical Union, Transactions 39:1076-1084. 

Leopold, A. 1946. Erosion as a menace to the social and economic future of the Southwest. 

Journal of Forestry 44:627-633. 

Leppanen, 0. E. 1981. Evaporation from forage grass replacing native vegetation in the Gila River 

Valley of Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81--1018, 38 p. 

Lopes, V. L. and P. F. Ffolliott. 1992. Hydrology and watershed management of oak woodlands in 

southwestern Arizona. In Ecology and Management of Oak and Associated Woodlands: 

Perspectives in the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-218, 224 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Lusby, G. C. and R. F. Hadley. 1967. Deposition behind low dams and barriers in the southwestern 

United States. Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand) 6:89-105. 

Marsh, J. A. 1968. The effect of suspended sediment and discharge on natural infiltration of 

ephemeral streams. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 42 p. 

Morenno, M., E. 1968. Effect of controlled burning on basal cover and soil erosion within a desert 

grassland community near Cananea, Sonora, Mexico. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona. 53 p. 

Nelson, E. W. 1934. The influence of precipitation and grazing upon black grama grass range. 

U.S.D.A. Technical Bulletin 409:32. 

NOM. 1982. Evaporation atlas for the contiguous 48 United States. NOM Technical Report NWS 

33.26 p. 

Osborn, H. B., E. D. Shirley, D. R. Davis, and R. B. Keohler. 1980. Model of time and space 

distribution of rainfall in Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Science and Education Administration, 

Agricultural Reviews and Manuals, ARM-W-14. 27 p. 

Overby, S. and M.B. Baker, Jr. 1995. Sediment and nutrient regime from a central Arizona 

chaparral watershed. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 

22-25:61-67. 

Peterson, H. V. and F. A. Branson. 1962. Effects of land treatments on erosion and vegetation on 

rangelands in parts of Arizona and New Mexico. Journal of Range Management 15:220-226. 

Peterson, H. V. and R. F. Hadley. 1960. Effectiveness of erosion abatement practices on semiarid 

rangelands in western United States. International Association of Scientific Hydrology. 

Publication 53:182-191. 

Renard, K.G. 1978. The southwestern rangeland watershed research center. Agricultural 

Engineering 59:19-21. 

Schreiber, H.A. and D. R. Kincaid. 1967. Regression models for predicting on-site runoff from 

short-duration convection storms. Water Resources Research 3:389-395. 

168 
Sellers, William D. Richard H. Hill, and Margaret Sanderson-Rae. 1985. Arizona climate: the first 

hundred years. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Simanton, J.R., H. B. Osborn, and K. G. Renard. 1977. Effects of brush to grass conversion on 

the hydrology and erosion of a semiarid southwestern rangeland watershed. Hydrology and 

Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 7:249-256. 

Skau, C. M. 1964. Interception, throughfall, and streamflow in Utah and alligator juniper cover 

types of northern Arizona. Forest Science 10:283-287. 

Thompson, J. R. 197 4. Energy budget measurements over three cover types in eastern Arizona. 

Water Resources Research 10:1045-1048. 

Thornthwaite, C. W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical 

Review 38:55-94. 

University of Arizona. 1991. A study of the water resources of the San Pedro Basin and options for 

efficient and equitable water management. Water Resources Research Center, Final Report, 

Tucson, Arizona. 96 p. 

169 
Using RUSLE for Erosion Control 

and Grassland Management 

Kenneth G. Renard2 

ABSTRACT 

Overgrazing over the years has contributed to soil erosion in many 

areas. The method described in this paper was developed to 

calculate the rate and type of soil loss and environmental 

degradation. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) 

provides a very useful tool for land managers. 

Alan Paton (1948) in Crv. the Beloved Country states: 

~~where you stand the grass is rich and matted you cannot see the soil. But the rich 

green hills break down. They fall to the valley below, and falling, change their nature. 

For they grow red and bare; they cannot hold the rain and mist, and the streams are dry 

in the kloofs. Too many cattle feed upon the grass, and too many fires have burned it. 

Stand shod upon it, for it is coarse and sharp, and the stones cut under the feet. It is 

not kept, guarded, or cared for, it no longer keeps men, guards men, cares for men. 

The tithoya does not cry here any more." 

Although this passage describes conditions in southern Africa, it might well have been about 

grasslands in the United States. 

Some of the earliest water erosion research started in the Western U.S. (e.g. the work by 

Sampson and Weyl (1912) on the overgrazed rangelands in Central Utah). Such research 

languished until the latter part of the 197o•s (Renard, 1985). Thus, current technology for 

controlling water erosion on rangelands has evolved primarily from research performed on cultivated 

croplands and transferred with minimal validation to rangeland and grasslands (especially on the 

drier climate that dominate the western U.S.). 

The National Research Council, Board of Agriculture•s Committee on Long-Range Soil and Water 

ConseNation (1993) published an assessment of Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture 

which enumerated the nation•s resource problems on agricultural land. A considerable portion of 

this major undertaking involved a discussion of .. soil degradation .. and the physical-chemicalbiological facets of the problem. Soil degradation and the associated phenomenon of compaction, 

fertility depletion, soil organic matter decline, loss of moisture holding capacity (through profile 

depth decreases), and loss of seedbed attributes, all result in environmental deterioration as well as 

the downstream consequences of water erosion. 

The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978) and its predecessor 

versions has been widely used for conseNation planning. The technology as presented in the 1978 

2 USDA-ARS-SWRC, and Biosystems Engineering Department, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 

170 
handbook includes many limitations for problems encountered in the later part of the 20th century. 

At a 1985 workshop of researchers and users of the USLE technology, it was decided that erosion 

prediction technology needed to be revised and new technology developed to eventually replace the 

regression based USLE. The results are RUSLE, the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (Renard et 

al., 1991; 1994; 1996) and the WEPP model (Laflen et al., 1991). 

One of the most significant decisions associated with RUSLE development was to computerize 

the technology. The software produced is available from the Soil & Water Conservation Society in 

Ankeny, Iowa. The software package includes data bases for application to conditions encountered 

in the USA and a Users Manual. The society also has a video which assists with training new users. 

RUSLE: THE REVISED UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION 

RUSLE is based on the same regression equation as the USLE (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). 

The USLE and RUSLE (compute sheet and rill erosion using terms representing the major factors 

affecting erosion) are given as: 

A=RKLSCP 

where A is the computed soil loss, R is the rainfall-runoff erosivity factor, K is a soil erodibility factor, 

Lis the slope length factor, Sis the slope steepness factor, Cis a cover management factor, and P 

is a supporting practices factor. The empirically based equation, is derived from a large mass of 

field data. 

DATABASES 

A major difference between the USLE and RUSLE is the development of databases that permit 

easy and repetitive solutions with RUSLE. Three databases are included: CITY, CROP, and 

OPERATIONS. 

The CITY DATABASE includes the basic climate information necessary for a soil loss estimate. In 

addition to an estimate of the annual rainfall erosivity ® = I, KE*I where KE is the rainfall kinetic 

energy and I is the maximum 30 minute intensity), the data base includes monthly precipitation, 

temperature, frost free period, % of the annual erosivity occurring by the first and fifteenth of each 

month, and 10-year frequency maximum daily El. These data are available for many locations in the 

USA and a procedure has been developed for estimating R and the 10-year El from precipitation 

data where it is available (Renard and Freimund, 1994). 

The CROP DATABASE, as the name implies, includes fundamental information about those 

features of the crop that might affect erosion. Features include residue at harvest time, residue 

decomposition rate (both above and below ground are requested although lack of data may lead to 

a single value for both), and the amount of residue cover (weight per unit area) at 30, 60, and 90% 

cover. In addition, the amount of root mass in the top 100 mm (4 inches), the canopy cover(%), 

and the fall height of raindrops intercepted by the canopy are needed at 15 day intervals 

throughout the growing season. The computer software includes estimates of these data files for 

most major crops along with a procedure for estimating the values for various crop yields. 

The OPERATION DATABASE reflects soil disturbing activities resulting from land use operations. 

Again the software contains examples of most operations used in the USA. The information needed 

includes up to five effects with each effect drawn from a list of nine possible scenarios. The 

information for each effect includes the percent of the surface area disturbed, the initial and final 

171 
REFERENCES 

Laflen, J.M., L.J. Lane and G.R. Foster. 1991. WEPP; a new generation of erosion 

prediction technology. J. Soil & Water Cons.46(1):34-38. 

McCool, D.K., K.G. Renard and G.R. Foster. 1993. The Revised Universal Soil Loss 

Equation. Proc. lnt'l Workshop on Soil Erosion. Eds. G.A. Larionov & M.A. Nearing. 

Center for Techn. Trans. & Pollution Prevention, W. Lafayette, IN. Pg 45-59. 

National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Committee on Long-Range Soil and 

Water Conservation. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An agenda for agriculture. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 516 pgs. 

Paton, Alan. 1948. Cry, the Beloved Country. Charles Scribners Sons, New York. 

Renard, K.G. 1985. Rainfall Simulators and USDA Erosion Research: History, Perspective, 

and Future. IN: Proceedings of the Rainfall Simulator Workshop, Tucson, AZ. Soc. for 

Range Management, Denver, CO. pg.3-6. 

Renard, K.G. and J.R. Freimund. 1994. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the 

R-factor in the revised USLE. J. Hydrology 157:287-306. 

Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies and J.P. Porter. 1991. RUSLE: Revised universal 

soil loss equation. J. Soil & Water Cons. 46(1):30-33. 

Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, D.C. Yoder, and D.K. McCool. 1994. RUSLE revisited: Status, 

questions, answers and the future, J. Soil & Water Cons. 49(3):213-220. 

Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, and D.C. Yoder. 1996. Predicting 

Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil 

Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA Agriculture Handbook #703. Washington, D.C. 

Sampson, A.W. and L.H. Weyl. 1918. Range preservation and its relation to erosion 

control on western grazing lands. Bul. 675, U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, D.C., 35 pp. 

Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses. U.S. Dept. 

Agric., Agric. Handb. No. 537. Washington, D.C. 

174 
Water Supply Issues in Grasslands 

Barbara Tellman, Panel Moderator3 

INTRODUCTION TO THE SESSION 

Water supply is crucial to grassland health. In arid regions, any depletion of water supply can 

make the difference between a thriving grassland and an unhealthy system tending towards 

dessication. In this session we will look at two studies of water supply in a healthy grassland 

system in southern Arizona, the Patagonia-Elgin-Sonoita area. The area is southeast of Tucson, 

Arizona, just north of the border with Sonora. The Audubon-Whittell Research Ranch is located in 

this area, as are many other private thriving ranches. The area has been relatively stable for the 

past one hundred years since Anglo settlement in the area took root. The area has had fewer 

problems from overgrazing than most other parts of Arizona. 

Over the past ten years urbanization has been creeping into the area. Since 1990, the impacts 

of this urbanization have been a major concern for many ranchers. Impacts include change in fire 

management regimes, changes in grassland composition as large ranches are broken up into 

subdivisions, with ranchettes of 4 acres or less, and changes in the ability of wildlife to use the area 

for corridors. Vineyards and other types of agriculture have increased greatly in recent years also. 

One of the greatest concerns to managers of the Research Ranch and many others, is a threat 

to the local water supply. Ranching uses relatively little water, compared to more urban uses. 

Today we will look at two studies of water supplies in the area, as examples of how people in 

rural areas can examine water supply problems and threats to determine what the impacts of 

population growth will be in regard to water supply. But before looking at these studies, I will briefly 

describe a water supply problem that occurred more than twenty years ago in the area and was 

solved through the use of water supply data. 

The areas where the BLM Empire-Cienega Conservation Area is today was once slated for a 

major development of at least 50,000 people. The area had been owned by a mining company 

who decided to sell to a land speculator for the purpose of established a planned community within 

easy commuting distance of Tucson. A rezoning was necessary, complicated by the fact that the 

land extends into two very different counties - Pima County and Santa Cruz County. The area is in 

the upper reaches of the watershed from which Tucson (in Pima County) derives some of its surface 

water supply. 

Opposition to the rezoning was fierce in both counties, but the most heated battles were waged 

before the Pima County Board of Supervisors. Among many arguments, opponents challenged the 

availability of water for such a large community. There was no provision in Arizona water law that 

would deny the rezoning, so the counties had to be convinced to deal with the issue through the 

zoning process. 

To make a very long story short, the rezoning was approved on a scaled down basis, with the 

provision that construction could only proceed in phases, dependent on the developer proving the 

availability of water. The burden was on the developer to do the necessary studies to prove longterm availability. A first phase was approved allowing for as many homes as could be supported on 

the known water supply. If the developer could prove the existence of more water, he could then 

3 Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ.. 

175 
proceed with phase two, and later other phases until full build-out. The developer did not find this 

financially feasible and dropped the project. Thus, the land became available at a later date for a 

publicly owned Conservation Area. 

The two studies which follow discuss water supply for an area south of the one just described 

They are instructive in terms of knowing what are the right questions to ask. Neither study was 

very costly, but both are extremely useful to current residents. 

176 
Arid Grasslands 

And Water Resources 

Charles W. Stockton, David Meko, and Mary F. Glueck1 

ABSTRACT 

The grasslands of the Sonoita-Elgin area are among the best 

preserved in the state. These grasslands have been occupied for 

years, but the rate of occupation has increased rapidly in the past 

ten years. Whether or not there is enough water to maintain the 

grasslands and their riparian areas is the subject of this paper that 

examines water supplies and projected uses. 

GRASSLANDS ARE ATTRACTIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT 

The old saying .. lush green valley .. has a pleasant ring to most people, and grasslands have 

traditionally been attractive to human settlement. In the past, when grassland valleys were relatively 

remote, the pressure of development was slight. Grassland valleys near Sonoita and Elgin were 

homesteaded relatively late, in the period 1910-1920. Much of the land was already occupied by 

large ranches such as the Empire, Babocomari, and San Rafael and only a few 160 acre parcels 

were available. For some reason, perhaps because the grassland area appeared similar to the 

Great Plains region, many of the homesteaders thought the land could be tilled and began farming 

operations in the area. Most commonly, the crops were rain-fed, and consisted of cereals, such as 

wheat and barley. The soil in the grassland area is relatively fertile, and because of an anomalous 

wet period extending from roughly 1905-1925, many small farming operations flourished. From 

the end of this wet period to the present, however, the primary use for water has been for livestock. 

Because of the abundance of wind in the Sonoita-Elgin region, a common early source of water 

was ground water from either drilled or hand-dug wells pumped by windmills. These water sources 

were of course subject to the vagaries of the wind, and an additional source of stock water was 

needed. The rancher was quick to realize that grassland produces a high percentage of runoff, and 

many stock ponds -- most with less than 5 acre-feet capacity -- were built during the period 

1920-1950. Contracting companies developed the expertise to construct stock ponds on draws 

and washes capable of providing water to livestock on an annual basis and yet able to withstand 

large runoff events. These stock ponds, built with minimal engineering design, have been 

remarkably durable and many have survived and are in use today. The total amount of water 

retained by stock ponds and produced from wells pumped by windmills has resulted in only minimal 

use of the water resources and little stress on local water supplies. But this scenario seems to be 

changing, and the point of this paper is to address some of the possible ramifications of the 

changing patterns of water use on the valley grasslands. 

1 All at the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

177 
-----------,.;::::: 

0 

"' .., 

178 

Ill 

a: 

..... Ill ... 

..... ..... ...... :l 

:E 3 

~~ i 

Ct:l 

E 

0 

(.) 

0 

.0 

Ct:l 

a:::l 

<1.) 

.c 

+-' 

'0 

c 

Ct:l 

>< 

<1.) 

a. Em 

01'-

(.)(j) 

+-'~ 

::::s ~ 

~ ~ c 3: ~~ cO 

ro E 

u e 

.E 1::::-

=s: 

Ct:l Ct:l (/) c 

c 2 '(0 ·;::::: +-'<!: 

c c ::::s lo.... 

0 <1.) 

~t) 

<1.) Ct:l 

c <1.) 

o.c .....J'5 

<1.) 0 

.c en +-' '+-

en o 

Ct:l c 

.c 0 (.) ''CD 

~ ~ en Ct:l +-' 

::::s c 

~ en +-' ~ en ::::s ::::S+-J 

lo..... Ct:l 

£~ lo..... (.) 

o ·so 'CO' 0 

Eo 

~~ '§ lo..... 

0 <1.) 

.c£ 

en o 

a. en Ct:l Ct:l 

~ 

~ 
BASIN AND RANGE PROVINCE: VALLEYS ARE PRESUMED TO BE 

LARGE SOURCES OF GROUND WATER 

As cities in southeastern Arizona have grown, they have tended to look at nearby valleys as 

potential sources for expansion of municipal supplies of water. This is an understandable approach, 

because in the Basin and Range Province it is not uncommon for the valleys to be large gravel filled 

grabens with abundant ground water. Examples are the Tucson Valley and Avra Valley west of 

Tucson. Both valleys are classic in that they are occupied by pervious valley fill thousands of feet in 

thickness with large quantities of stored water. Not all valleys in the Basin and Range Province, 

however, are of this type. Two that are not are the San Rafael and the Sonoita-Elgin Valleys, both 

classic grassland valleys in which geologic structural events have produced valleys with fill 

conducive to neither storage nor transmission of large quantities of water. In the San Rafael Valley, 

there appears to be only a relatively thin layer of surface alluvium capable of storing and 

transmitting water to wells. This layer is underlain by older volcanic and well indurated sedimentary 

rocks. The tectonic map of the Lochiel quadrangle (Simons, 197 4), which includes the San Rafael 

Valley, confirms that, with isolated exceptions, faults and folds have not had an important impact 

on the occurrence of ground water in this valley. In general, the thinness of the alluvium and the 

character of the underlying volcanic and sedimentary rocks make large quantities of ground water 

rare in this Valley and wells yield only moderate quantities of water. 

In the Sonoita - Elgin Valley, the geologic framework is totally different, and structural features 

along with rock types play an important role in the occurrence of ground water. Two faults, the Lone 

Mountain-Sawmill Canyon fault complex along the western edge of the valley and the Babocomari 

fault running approximately along the channel of the Babocomari River along the eastern edge of 

the Valley have tremendous influence on the availability of ground water (Figure 1). There is 

disagreement among geologists as to the types and ages of these two faults (see for example 

Drewes, 1976) but their influence on the occurrence of ground water in this Valley is proved by the 

numbers of dry holes. Nearby and immediately to the east of Elgin, the Pantano Formation, a 

siltstone capable of storing and transmitting only small quantities of water, is exposed at the 

surface and only small quantities of water are available to wells. This is the up thrown block of the 

Babocomari fault, according to Drewes (1976). Towards the center of the valley, the alluvium is 

thicker and moderate quantities of water are available to wells at moderate depths. This portion of 

the valley is the down-thrown block, if in fact the faults are high angle faults -- segments of the 

Lone Mountain-Sawmill Canyon and the Babocomari faults. Apparently, the resulting trough is not 

deep and the valley fill is not very thick. Consequently, the water is available to wells in only small 

to moderate quantities. These two faults merge, according to Drewes, 1976, near the head waters 

of Gardner Canyon. Toward the northern end of the valley, wells have been drilled with production 

ranges of 1oo•s to 1000•s of gallons per minute, but ground water appears to be available only in 

moderate amounts (100 spin or less) over most of the valley. 

CLIMATIC VARIABILITY AND MISCONCEPTIONS 

ABOUT WATER AVAILABILITY 

Water resources management is often based on a period of record rainfall, runoff, or ground 

water recharge -- in general, a period of supply -- presumed to be average or "normal. .. This 

average of past values is considered to be the best estimate of the future supply. A problem arises 

in identifying the most representative period of record to be used to compute the average. This is 

because climatic variations are not random in time and the average computed from climate records 

179 
~ .... 

can vary considerably depending on length of record and the time period involved. Examples of 

water resource development in_the western United States can be cited in which the period of record 

used to estimate the future supply has been anything but average. Is the present state of the water 

resources in the Sonoita-Elgin and San Rafael Valleys the result of average rainfall? 

To examine this issue, we have analyzed some of the longest term precipitation records 

available in the Sonoita-Elgin and San Rafael Valleys along with a 296 year tree ring record 

collected in the Huachuca Mountains in October of 1995. The precipitation series include records 

from Tombstone, Ft. Huachuca, Elgin and Canelo. The Tombstone record is the longest and most 

complete, 1899-1996. 

The Canelo record is also complete but covers the shorter period 1918-1996. The Fort 

Huachuca record is very sparse and missing values have been estimated based on records from 

nearby stations. The Sierra Vista record was used to extend this record from 1982 to the present. 

The Elgin record contains a period of 5 years, 1986-90 with no data. These values were estimated 

from the monthly regional averages. 

We have chosen to group the monthly distribution of rainfall into annual values composed of 

the sum of monthly total rainfall for November through October. This monthly grouping facilitates 

splitting the annual total into a cool-season and warm-season component. We define the cool 

Tombstone Canelo 

200~--~--~--~--~--~ 

50 

o~--~------~------~ o~------------------~ 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Elgin Ft. Huachuca 

50 

o~----------~--~--~ o~--~------~------~ 

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 Year Year 

Figure 2. Annual precipitation time series expressed as a percentage of the long term 

mean for the period of record for Tombstone, Canelo, Elgin, and Ft. Huachuca. Annual 

period defined as November-October. (See text). A seven weight binomial filter was used 

to obatin the low frequency overlay curves. 

180 
season as November through April, a period corresponding to predominantly winter-type 

atmospheric circulation patterns, and convenient for comparison with winter runoff and soil 

moisture recharge for use by cool season grasses. We define the warm season as May through 

October, a period encompassing summer rains and occasional tropical storm rainfall. 

Plots of the annual time series expressed as percentages of the long term mean for the period 

of record for all four stations are shown in Figure 2. Similar plots of the cool season values are 

shown in Rgure 3, and of the warm season, in Rgure 4. On each time series plot of the individual 

station values, we show an overlay of the series filtered by a 7 weight binomial filter. This allows 

comparison of the low frequency component of the series. Examination of the annual low frequency 

series reveals an important aspect of climate in southwestern United States. During the early 

19oo•s, from about 1905 though 1930, the precipitation tended to be above normal; in some 

years as much as 170% of normal, but on average about 115% of normal. This is especially 

evident in the Tombstone record but is, in general, corroborated by the other records. This wet 

period is followed by an extended period of generally below normal precipitation extending from 

about 1931 through 1982. This dry period again shows in all four records with individual-year 

severity varying from one record to the other. Rainfall during this period averaged about 90% of the 

Tombstone 

Elgin 

250~--~--~------~--~ 

i 200 CD 

:E 

I § 150 t! . 

~100~--~~~~~~~~~+H~~ 

~ so M 'MV.~ ~r 

o~------~------~--~ 

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Year 

Canelo 

Ft. Huachuca 

300 

200 

o~------~--~--~--~ 

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Year 

Figure 3. Cold Season (November-April) Precipitation time series as a percentage of the 

long term mean for the period of record for Tombstone, Canelo, Elgin, and Ft. Huachuca. 

A seven weight binomial filter was used to obatin the low frequency overlay curves. 

181 
- ·,·, 

long term mean. This extended dry period has been followed by another wet period extending from 

1983 to the present. Again the mean for this period may be as much as 110-115% of the long 

term mean. The large swings in annual precipitation point out an important characteristic of 

precipitation in this area: precipitation occurrence is non-random in time and above /below mean 

occurrences predominate for extended periods of time. 

The time series variations in precipitation for the cool season are broadly similar to those for the 

annual series, though the peaks and troughs differ slightly in location (Figure 3). The wet period of 

the early 1900's appears to extend only about to 1920, the extended dry period ends in the late 

1970's and in at least the Canelo record, the wet period beginning in 1978 has a magnitude nearly 

equal to that of the early 1900's. 

Station-to-station consistency in precipitation variations deteriorates for the warm-season totals 

(Figure 4). Each station, although showing some synchrony from year to year and over short periods 

with the other stations, does not exhibit the same regional synchrony in low frequency variance as 

the annual and cool season records. All four records, however, show the last few years as being 

predominantly below normal during the warm season. 

In Arizona, the seasonal origin of storms changes from the warm season, monsoon and tropical 

~ 150 

:::E 

$: 

Tombstone 

Elgin 

5i 

~100~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Ol 

c: 

0 

...J 

~ 50 

o~-----~-----~-----~------------~ 

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Year 

Canelo 

Ft. Huachuca 

200~-----~-----~-----~-----~-----~ 

0~------------~-----~-----~-----~ 

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

Year 

Figure 4. Warm season (May-October) precipitation time series expressed as a 

percentage of the long term mean for the period of record for Tombstone, Canelo, Elgin, 

and Ft. Huachuca. A seven weight binomial filter was used to obatin the low frequency 

overlay curves. 

182 
storm, to the cool season, frontal type storms from the west and northwest. The atmospheric 

circulation changes associated with the seasonal storm type changes are roughly the same as 

warm and cool season distinctions. These distinctions are also important from the hydrologic 

viewpoint because cool season precipitation is associated with runoff from higher elevations 

resulting in reservoir storage replenishment and recharge to the ground -water basins. 

Comparison of the plots for the warm season shows some high frequency agreement, especially 

in dry years but little low frequency agreement. This is most likely because most warm season 

storms are extremely local whereas the dry periods (droughts) are caused by more regional 

atmospheric phenomena. The cool season plots, however, show a greater uniformity in low 

frequency variance. In the Tombstone record, the longest and most complete of the four, the 

1905-25 period shows rainfall as high as 200-300% of the long term mean (i.e. the mean for the 

entire period of record), for the period 1979-95, the wet years are 200-250% of the long term 

mean. The other three records are incomplete but show evidence of similar wet periods in the early 

1900's, Ft. Huachuca and Elgin, or the period 1979-95, Cane lo. The two wet periods are 

separated by an extended period of below average rainfall, reaching a downward trending low 

around 1972 around 25% of the record mean. These same trends are seen in the variance in the 

annual records even though the cool season amount is only about 30% of the annual total at these 

4 stations. 

It is apparent that the variance of the cool season precipitation is greater than that of the warm 

season. These extended periods of wetness in the cool season precipitation are associated with the 

extended, southward displacement of mid latitude storm tracks. The cause of this displacement is 

currently unknown. 

A natural follow-up question is "How rare are these anomalous wet \dry periods in the annual 

and cool season precipitation when viewed in the extremely long term context"? To answer this 

question, we use a Douglas-fir tree-ring chronology collected in September 1995 in Scheelite 

Canyon, on the north side of the Huachuca Mountains. This series appears to give a good 

representation of cool season precipitation at least back to the year A.D. 1700. Correlation 

coefficients with the four precipitation stations plotted in Figures 24 are about 0.40 for the annual 

series, 0.63 for the cool season and near zero for the warm season. 

The Scheelite Canyon tree ring record has also been filtered with the 7 -term binomial filter used 

on the precipitation records. The original annual tree-ring series and its filtered version are plotted in 

Figure 5. These data show that the long term variance so evident in the station precipitation data 

are not unusual. In fact, there appear to have been at least 4 extended, anomalously wet periods 

during the past 296 years The first centered around 1770 was rather short when compared to the 

others and showed moisture in the range of 170% of normal, the second, centered around 1835, 

was extended and shows moisture around the 180% of normal, the third centered around 1914, 

also was extended and also was around the 180% of normal, the last apparently centered around 

1988 and whose duration is continuing, also shows moisture in the 180% of normal. Apparently, 

the extended wet periods are not too uncommon, occurring about every 7 4 years, but the dry spell, 

extending from 1925 - 1972 has no analog in the long-term record. In the worst year, 1954, 

moisture is only about 25% of normal. The cool season of 1995-96, not shown here, could easily 

have been as severe as that for 1954. 

183 
RAMIFICATIONS FOR GRASSLANDS OF 

SONOITA-ELGIN AND SAN RAFAEL VALLEYS 

The climatic record clearly shows large swings in precipitation over periods of decades. The 

health and appearance of the grasslands would be expected to vary with these climatic swings. With 

recent variations (except for the exceptionally dry 1995-96), it is mostly the cool season grasses 

that have benefitted. Such grasses as plains love grass, alkali sacaton, and vine mesquite are most 

directly affected by the increase in cool season precipitation, though warm season grasses may 

also benefit from the high soil-moisture reserves in the dormant season. It is important that the 

recent anomalously wet period not lead to a misconception that the land is less arid than it really is, 

and to ill-conceived changes in land use, such as increased farming operations similar to those of 

the early 19oo•s. The limited ground water reserves in the region are unlikely to be able to support 

extended increased ground water development for such ventures. The immediate impacts would be 

lowered ground water tables, with increased pumping costs, and possibly dry wells. A possible 

related detrimental effect of lowered ground water tables would be harm to the vegetation in the 

cienegas of the Sonoita-Elgin region. 

Regardless of the known limitation on supplies of water, these arid grassland valleys are likely to 

remain targets for future expansion. Besides stressing ground water supplies, additional 

development could be detrimental in altering patterns of runoff. The problem of changing land use 

2 

1.8 r1.6 r1.4 r1.2 .... 

' 0.8 

0.6 ,.. 

0.4 -

0.2 

1700 

~ • . , 

~ 

1750 

Scheelite Canyon Tree-Ring Index 

I 

-

I 

~ I I 

~ ~ ,, 

I 

I 

I 

-

1800 1850 1900 1950 

Year 

Figure 5. Douglas Fir tree-ring chronology collected in September 1995 from Scheelite 

Canyon on the north side of the Huachuca Mountains. As in the precipitation analyses a 

seven weight binomial filter was used to obatin the low frequency overlay curves. 

184 
in grassland areas and increasing percentages of runoff per unit of rainfall, especially in upland 

valleys like the Sonoita-Elgin area, upper drainage's for the Pantano Wash and the San Pedro River 

and the San Rafael Valley, upper drainage area for the Santa Cruz River can have deleterious 

effects on downstream communities. It has been noted that the magnitude of peak flows on the 

Santa Cruz at Tucson (and probably the Pantano Wash at Tucson) have increased dramatically in 

the past 30+ years (Saarinen et al. 1984). These increased flow magnitudes are attributed to large 

flows resulting from tropical storms and increased runoff associqted with upstream changes in land 

use. When storms of the magnitude and intensity of tropical storms dump 

SUMMARY 

Grassland valleys in southeastern Arizona present unique challenges to water development. A 

trend toward wetter cool season conditions in recent years might lead to misconceptions about the 

available water. Considerations in water development include limited aquifer storage, health of 

cienegas, and possible problems with increased erosion, and runoff. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This research was supported by National Biological Service Agreement A950-AI-0012. 

Precipitation data for 1970-present at Elgin was supplied by Ray Thibault. 

REFERENCES 

Drewes, H., 1976, Laramide tectonics from Paradise to Hells Gate, southeastern Arizona: 

Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. X, no. March 1976, p. 151-167. 

Gray, W. M., 1983, Atlantic seasonal hurricane frequency: Colorado State University 

Atmospheric Science Paper No. 370, Fort Collins, 48 pp. 

Saarinen, T. F., Baker, V. R., Durrenberger, R., and Maddock, T., Jr., 1984, The Tucson, 

Arizona, Flood of October 1983: Report No. CETS-CND-029: National Academy Press. 

Simons, F. S., 197 4, Geologic map and sections of the Nogales and Lochiel Quadrangles, 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona: Misc. Investigation Series, Map 1-762: U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

185 
Water Use and the 

Future of the Sonoita Valley1 

Robert Naeser and Anne St. John2 

INTRODUCTION3 

Many arid grasslands and native wildlife will continue to be degraded as increasing groundwater 

extraction reduces surface flows, natural waterholes, and seeps. In addition, increased human 

settlement will fragment the open range, also degrading the areals historic open-space character 

and reducing its native wildlife. These issues are evident but not widely understood. The Sonoita 

Valley of southeastern Arizona is an example. 

The Sonoita Valley has limited groundwater storage capacity, yet its great beauty as well as its 

location between Mexico and 1-10, are stimulating new growth that further places its water 

resources at risk. There is no economically feasible replacement for rural groundwater. Our best 

hope is that local citizens will cooperatively formulate an area-wide plan to safeguard groundwater, 

the open range environment, native wildlife and riparian areas, as well as a sustainable, robust 

economy. Our central, most recognizable issue is water. Failure to act would ultimately undermine 

our water resources, create adverse economic and public health consequences, and fragment the 

open range. 

National Audubon Society1S Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch seeks and provides information 

to assist individuals and groups to formulate and test area-wide mechanisms that will safeguard 

water resources. 

In the summer of 1996, the Research Ranch hosted two water resource economics graduate 

students from Yale University1

S School of Forestry and Environmental Studies -- Rob Naeser and 

Anne St. John -- for ten weeks as they prepared the attached report. 

Their report, which has been very favorably accepted locally, has helped citizens realize the 

disparity between a general rural zoning regulation that allows one house per five acres, and a 

groundwater recharge capacity that would probably support only one house per 25 acres. Getting 

the public to recognize the local groundwater supply limitations has been difficult. 

We believe that such studies should be valuable in other areas whose population growth 

threatens its water resources and open range character. 

THE SONOITA VALLEY- BACKGROUND 

The Sonoita valley receives no outside water, relying entirely on rainfall; precipitation averages 

17 inches per year (Bota, 1996). Of this, only six to seven percent (approximately 11,000 acre 

1 This study was funded by the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch of the National Audubon Society 

and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Contents of this paper do not necessarily reflect 

the views and policies of the National Audubon Society or the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental 

Studies. 2 Both from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT. 3 The Introduction to this report is by Bill Branan manager of the National Audubon Society 

Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Elgin, AZ, who presented the study at the conference. 

186 
feet per year) of the rain falling on the upland areas contributes to aquifer recharge. The remainder 

is lost through evaporation, evapotranspiration and stream flow. Depletion of stored water and 

lowering the water table will occur if groundwater withdrawals exceed annual recharge. Over time, 

streams will dry up, riparian plant community composition will change and residents will be forced 

to seek alternative sources of water (Glennon et al., 1994). 

While the Sonoita valley has not yet reached a critical point in its water use, other communities 

in southeastern Arizona are experiencing the results of excessive groundwater use. In the Kansas 

Settlement area (Cochise County) for example, over-use of water for irrigation has resulted in a 

significant decline of the water table and increased pumping costs to $80 per acre-ft, up from $25 

(Towne, 1987). San Pedro River flows, upon which the Bureau of Land Management's San Pedro 

National Riparian ConseNation Area depends, are threatened by groundwater withdrawals in the 

Sierra Vista area (Glennon et al., 1994). The Tucson area is experiencing land subsidence and 

environmental damage as a consequence of many decades of excessive pumping (Schumann et 

al., 1985). The aim of this study is to provide Sonoita valley residents with a water management 

tool to help avoid similar problems in their community. 

With the above in mind we set out to answer two questions: First, how much water is currently 

being used in the Sonoita valley? Second, what is a safe yield development density that will keep 

the area from growing beyond the capacity of the water supply? 

Increased groundwater withdrawals for domestic and irrigation purposes have changed the 

Sonoita valley's natural environment over the last 100 years (Bahre, 1977; Glennon et al., 1994). 

The area was once home to extensive riparian systems that included perennial streams. The first 

wells were hand dug by settlers moving into the valley. Within the last fifty years, technology has 

enabled deeper wells to be drilled with increasingly more powerful pumps (Glennon et al., 1994). 

More and more people settled in the Sonoita valley as water became a less limiting factor. 

Residential developments have sprung up throughout the area on land historically used for 

cattle ranching. Houses are being constructed as vacation homes, retirement homes, and primary 

residences for the residents who commute to jobs in Tucson, Nogales and Sierra Vista. Attracted 

by the rural lifestyle, people are relocating to the Sonoita valley in increasing numbers. By 1994 

the population of the valley reached 2,351 people, and conseNative growth estimates put the 

population at 2,980 people by 2002 (Bota, 1996) and 9,142 residents by 2040 (Mann et al., 

1994). In addition to residential development, the area has emerged as a viticultural center. 

Home to five vineyards, the Sonoita/Elgin area is promoted as the wine capital of Arizona. 

Subdivisions and vineyards use significantly more water than cattle ranches, where wells are 

widely spaced around the property to provide water for the stock. Residential and viticultural land 

uses impose significant water withdrawals on small areas. The degree to which local withdrawals 

will impact the groundwater supply vary depending on annual precipitation and proximity of wells to 

one another. Wells too closely spaced will interfere with one another (hydrologists call this 

capture), resulting in less water available to pump. 

METHODOLOGY 

We undertook four major steps to determine a safe yield density for the Sonoita/Elgin area. 

First, we conducted an extensive literature search. Second, we inteNiewed local residents in an 

attempt to ascertain water consumption by various user types. Third, we combined the findings 

from the initial two steps to develop a water budget for the Sonoita valley. The water budget 

contains inputs to the system (annual recharge) and demands on the system (well pumping and 

187 
natural requirements) based on the best available information. Finally, we calculated a safe yield4 

development density- the maximum population that the area can support without exceeding 

average annual recharge. 

STUDY AREA 

The Sonoita valley study area covers 206 square miles in northeastern Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona (Map 1). The study area measures approximately 17 miles east to west and 12 miles north 

to south. The northern and eastern boundaries are the Pima and Cochise county lines, 

respectively. The southern boundary is an east-west line running approximately through the town of 

Canelo, and a line running north-south approximately one mile east of the town of Patagonia 

delineates the western edge. The study area was chosen because a significant amount of future 

development is likely to take place in the Sonoita valley. 

Surface flow in the Sonoita valley flows toward one of three groundwater basins: Cienega Creek, 

Sonoita Creek, or the Babocomari River (Map 2). Precipitation falling southeast of the town of 

Sonoita will flow toward Sonoita Creek; precipitation on the north side flows toward Cienega Creek. 

Because hydrologists are unclear whether Cienega and Sonoita Creeks are in separate groundwater 

basins, we have included the northeastern part of the Sonoita Creek basin in our analysis of the 

Upper Cienega Creek Basin. Area 1 covers 109 mi2 with most of the population centered around 

the town of Sonoita. Area 2 covers 97 mi2 and includes the town of Elgin at the headwaters of the 

Babocomari River. 

4 Geologists call the amount of water an aquifer will yield without depletion "safe yield." The term has also 

been used by economists, courts and legislatures to describe rates of depletion not in excess of recharge 

(Getches, 1990). 

188 
/·., 

/ ' 

,.(.111111'" ~.111Ch -· ,....,.-..,. 

I 

Map 1 

Location of the Sonoita Valley Study Area 

189 

/ 

I 
Source: USGS, 1986 

Map 2 

Hydrologic Map of the Sonoita Valley Study Area 

190 
SONOITA VALLEY WATER BUDGET 

The water budget for the Sonoita valley contains ten categories. Table 1 contains estimated water 

budgets for Area 1 and Area 2. 

Area 1 Area 2 

(Sonoita) (Elgin) 

Recharge 3,980 not available 

Ranching (14) (13) 

Vineyards 0 (100) 

Residential (337) (106) 

Municipal 0 0 

Industrial/Commercial (60) 0 

Cienega Creek (346) 0 

Evapotranspiration (759) 0 

Underflow to Sonoita Basin (1,147) not applicable 

Babocomari River not applicable not available 

TOTAL USE (2,663) (219) 

SURPLUS WATER 1,317 ? 

Table 1: Annual Water Budgets for the Sonoita valley (acre-ft) 

Recharge 

The Upper Cienega Creek Basin (UCCB), which underlies Area 1, has been the focus of at least 

six hydrologic investigations attempting to quantify recharge.5 By comparison, the Babocomari 

drainage, which underlies Area 2 (4 7% of the study area) has never been studied. Because of this, 

our evaluation of recharge is limited to Area 1. 

The UCCB is surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges: Empire and Santa Rita Mountains 

to the west, Whetstone and Mustang Mountains to the east, and Canelo Hills to the south. The 

aquifers beneath the valley floor are recharged by mountain front precipitation and from flood flows 

in the creeks and washes. Precipitation that falls on the valley floor probably does not percolate 

into the aquifer because the soils are deep (60 inches) and most of the water is lost to evaporation 

and plants before it has an opportunity to seep through to the groundwater. In the arid Southwest, 

all precipitation falling on soils deeper than eight inches is lost to evapotranspiration (Kafri et al., 

1976). 

The U.S. Geological Survey (1986) estimates that annual recharge to the UCCB is 11,000 

5 There are two common methods for estimating recharge: one is based on the identification of recharge 

areas in the watershed and estimation of their properties. The second method estimates recharge as the 

difference between annual precipitation and losses: evapotranspiration, runoff, etc. (Ben-Asher et al., 1980). 

191 
Recharge Area Percentage of Average Annual Percentage of Annual Recharge 

Annual Recharge Recharge {acre-ft} Annual Recharge Available to Area 

to UCCB {Boggs, to UCCB {USGS, to Area 1 1 {acre-ft} 

1980} 1986} 

Whetstone 40% 4,439 0% 0 

Mountains 

Empire Mountains 23% 2,581 0% 0 

Mustang 22% 2,406 100% 2,406 

Mountains 

Santa Rita 8% 841 100% 841 

Mountains 

Canelo Hills 7% 733 100% 733 

TOTAL 100% 11,000 3,980 

Table 2: Distribution of Upper Cienega Creek Basin Recharge 

acre-feet (acre-ft)6 per year, and the total recoverable groundwater7 is 5.1 million acre-ft (maf), 

which is divided between the Sonoita and Cienega Creek basins. Only 24 percent of the 457 mi2 

UCCB lies within the study area, so groundwater storage beneath Area 1 is no more than 1.2 maf.8 

Table 2 contains estimates of the percentage of annual recharge originating in each mountain 

range. 

Because UCCB groundwater flows northward, usable recharge in Area 1 is limited to water 

flowing from the Santa Rita and Mustang mountains, and Canelo Hills (36% or 3,980 acre-fVyear). 

Map 2 shows the average elevation of the water table to be approximately 4, 700 ft in the Sonoita 

area or roughly 200 feet below the land surface. Going north from the town of Sonoita the 

elevation of the water table declines steadily to its lowest elevation (3,800 ft) where Cienega Creek 

enters the lower Cienega Creek basin, north of the study area. The elevation of the water table 

declines steadily between Sonoita and Patagonia, however, the actual values are not available 

(USGS, 1986). 

Ranching 

The Sonoita valley was historically a ranching community, and it remains the single largest land 

use in the area. Cattle are grazed on upwards of 64,000 acres within Area 1 and Area 2. The 

6 One acre foot of water is equal to 325,850 gallons. An acre foot can also be thought of as the amount of 

water required to cover one acre a foot deep in water, or the amount of water consumed annually by an 

average family of four in the United States. 

7 The USGS defines recoverable groundwater as the estimated amount of water in the basin-fill material to a 

depth of 1,200 feet below the land surface (USGS, 1986). 

8 In the absence of a better methodology, we assume homogeneity of groundwater storage beneath Area 1. 

192 
average cow/calf unit requires 40 acres of forage each year, and consumes approximately 15 

gallons per day on hot, dry days (Jacobs, 1991; Rouda et al., 1994). We estimate that local 

ranches maintain 1,600 cow/calf units, consuming approximately 27 acre-ft of water each year. 9 

Wildlife water consumption for deer, pronghorn and javelina is included in the estimate for ranching 

usage because wildlife utilize the same water resources as cattle (stocktanks, seeps, springs, etc.). 

Vineyards 

Local vineyard owners are promoting the Sonoita valley as the "wine capital of Arizona.~~ It is 

currently home to five vineyards covering approximately 200 acres. All of the vineyards are 

presently located in the upper Babocomari basin. 

Even though vineyards use an efficient drip irrigation system, they are being established on land 

that was traditionally used for raising cattle. Annual vineyard groundwater withdrawal varies 

inversely with precipitation. Generally, each acre of grapes is irrigated with three to six inches of 

water per year (Private conversation A, 1996). The area currently has about 200 acres of grapes, 

such that annual water consumption approaches 100 acre-ft per year. 

Residential (Domestic) 

The increasing subdivision of ranches into ranchettes is an often expressed concern by local 

residents. By 1989, Sonoita had approximately 400 homes and Elgin had about 200 homes. This 

number increased to 707 in Sonoita and 223 in Elgin by 1995 (Bota, 1996). This is a 76 percent 

increase in Sonoita and 11 percent in Elgin. The average occupancy is 2.8 residents per house 

(Bota, 1996). 

It is difficult to estimate domestic water consumption because very few homes have water 

meters. The Casas Arroyo and Papago Springs subdivisions are metered, as these subdivisions are 

served by private water companies. Casas Arroyo residents each use an average of 150 gallons per 

day (0.17 acre-ft/yr/person). 10 Water consumption in Papago Springs averages less than 125 

gallons per person per day (0.14 acre-ft/yr/person) (Private conversation C, 1996). These figures 

likely under-represent actual use in the Sonoita valley since they are based upon water use in 

subdivisions that encourage water conservation - Casas Arroyo residents are not permitted to 

maintain lawns or extensive gardens. Papago Springs residents are uncertain of their water supply 

after a severe shortage in 1994 forced them to truck in water from Tucson. During that time 

residents were asked to limit their consumption to 7,500 gallons per month. Despite a new deep 

well, residents are still unsure about the reliability of their system and continue to voluntarily restrict 

water use (Private conversation C, 1996). 

Some past studies have assumed that septic systems reduce consumptive use in residential 

homes. The argument is that water flows out through the septic system and slowly percolates 

down, recharging the aquifer (Geraghty & Miller, 1970). However, soils in the Sonoita valley are 

classified as "severen11 for septic percolation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Santa 

9 Cow/calf units in the Valley estimated by dividing 64,000 acres by 40 acres per cow/calf unit. 

10 This number was calculated using biannual Casas Arroyo meter data from 6/84 - 6/96 for 17 houses. 

The average Casas Arroyo residence has 1. 7 people. Annual per person consumption ranged from 0.01 

acre-ft to 0.66 acre-ft, with an average of 0.17 acre-ft. 

11 A severe rating means soil properties are so unfavorable and so difficult to correct or overcome as to 

require major soil reclamation, special designs, or intensive maintenance 

193 
Cruz County Health Department likewise believes that groundwater recharge from septic systems is 

minimal (Private conversation B, 1996). While there may be some recharge from septic systems, 

without any data we assume it to be zero. 

A conservative estimate, using Casas Arroyo consumption numbers, of annual domestic water 

use in the Sonoita valley is 443 acre-ft per year (930 homes* 2.8 residents/home* 0.17 

acre-ft/person/year). Of this, 337 acre-ft is in Area 1 (Sonoita), while 106 acre-ft is used in Area 2 

(Elgin). 

Municipal 

The Sonoita valley currently has no municipal water providers. All demands are served by 

individual wells or private water companies. 

Industrial/Commercial 

No industrial developments are currently located in the Sonoita valley. In the 1970s, the 

Anamax Corporation considered using local water to operate a copper mine northwest of Sonoita, 

centered on the Rosemont Ranch. When the market price of copper fell, Anamax determined that 

such an operation was uneconomical and sold the property. More recently, the ASARCO 

corporation purchased the same land for future mining. ASARCO is currently negotiating a large 

(13,000 acre) land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service but does not foresee opening the mine 

for at least 20 years. 

Operation of an open pit copper mine requires approximately 200 gallons of water per ton of 

raw ore (Private conversation 1996). ASARCO plans to extract 30,000 tons of ore daily from the 

Rosemont mine, for a daily water consumption of 18.4 acre-ft. The company acknowledges that 

the groundwater resources in the area are not sufficient to cover their water use. ASARCO's current 

plan is to construct a pipeline to import water from its Mission Mine (Green Valley) or to bring in 

Central Arizona Project (CAP) water from the Tucson area. 

Although the mine will not withdraw any water from the UCCB, it may employ as many as 600 

workers, which will result in a population increase of about 2,000 people to the surrounding area 

(Private conversation F, 1996). A portion of these people will probably move into the Sonoita valley 

and will add greatly to domestic water consumption. 

The water budget includes 60 acre-ft per year of commercial use; restaurants, gas stations and 

other small businesses. The businesses considered here occur entirely in Area 1. 

Cienega Creek 

Cienega Creek contains some of the last cienega communities12 in southeastern Arizona. 

Sections of the Creek are bordered by giant cottonwoods, mesquite, willows and deep grasses. 

Cienega Creek is also home to several endangered and threatened fish species: the Gila 

topminnow, the Gila chub, and the Longfin dace. The Creek also provides important riparian habitat 

for numerous other species, including the Mexican garter snake, yellow-billed cuckoo, lowland 

12 11Cienegan is a term applied to mid-elevation wetlands characterized by permanently saturated, highly 

organic soils. Until the late 18oo•s cienega communities were common to southwestern riparian systems. 

The number of cienega communities has dwindled in the 1900s due to declining water tables, channel 

erosion, and conversion to agriculture. 

194 
leopard frog, and the belted kingfisher (Bota, 1996). 

Cienega Creek is a perennial stream that flows along a seven mile reach in the northern part of 

the UCCB. Except during seasonal precipitation events, the flow of the Creek is fed entirely by 

groundwater. The average baseflow between 1975 and 1983 was calculated to be 1,440 

acre-ft/yr (Montgomery & Associates, 1985). The highest flows occur in the winter, with lower 

summer flows attributed to a lower water table and increased phreatophyte (water loving plant) use. 

We estimate that Area 1 contributes 346 acre-ft per year to Cienega Creek baseflows. 13 

Underflow to the Sonoita Creek Basin 

The groundwater divide southeast of Sonoita (Map 2) serves to partially separate the UCCB 

from the Sonoita Creek basin. Approximately 4,000 acre-ft of groundwater flows into the Sonoita 

Creek basin from the surrounding basins each year (Ben-Asher et al., 1980). The groundwater 

divide is 29 percent of the Sonoita basin perimeter. Thus underflow from the UCCB to the Sonoita 

Basin is 1,14 7 acre-ft per year (0.29 * 4,000 acre-ft). 

Babocomari River 

The Babocomari River is largely unstudied at this time. Thus, a safe yield density for Area 2 

(Elgin) cannot be calculated until additional data becomes available. Future hydrologic studies are 

imperative to answer such important water supply questions for Elgin. 

Evapotranspiration 

Evapotranspiration (ET) by riparian plants in the UCCB averages 3,300 acre-ft/yr (Kafri et al., 

1976). Most of the ET occurs along the perennial section of Cienega Creek, although many of the 

intermittent streams in the study area also support riparian habitats. The 759 acre-ft of ET 

included in the water budget represents 24 percent of the total ET in the basin, but this number 

may over represent ET in the study area. It is included because maintaining the current level of the 

water table is crucial to sustaining much of the plant life in the basin as a whole. 

SONOITA VALLEY SAFE YIELD DEVELOPMENT DENSITY 

The average annual recharge in Area 1 is 3,980 acre-ft per year based on the water budget 

presented in the previous section. Of this, 2,663 acre-ft of water is accounted for, leaving 

approximately 1,317 acre-ft available for future use. Area 1 encompasses 109 mi2 (69,875 

acres). 

13 Twenty-four percent of the UCCB is within the Sonoita valley study area (109 mi2 I 457 mi2

). Thus, we 

calculated 24% of Cienega Creek baseflows to estimate the contribution from Area 1. Again this assumes 

homogeneity in aquifer characteristics, but it is the best method available until specific data becomes 

available. 

195 
Current Zoning Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 

Lot Size Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total 

(acres) of Lots Acreage of Lots Acreage of Lots Acreage of Lots Acreage 

4.13 8,213 33,920 0 0 534 2,205 1,232 5,088 

12.26 0 0 2,767 33,920 1,660 20,352 692 8,480 

20 0 0 0 0 568 11,363 390 7,802 

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 6,445 

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 6,106 

Total 8,213 33,920 2,767 33,920 2,762 33,920 2,681 33,910 

Average Lot 4.13 12,26 12.28 12.65 

Size 3,909 1,317 1,315 1,276 

Water Use 

(acre-ft) 

Table 3. Residential Build-out Scenarios for Area 1 (Sonoita) 

Approximately 53 mF (33,920 acres) 14 of this is privately owned, and developed or eligible for 

future development. The remainder is public and administered by state and federal agencies; this 

study assumes that public lands will remain undeveloped. The privately owned land consists of 

ranch land, developed land and speculative acreage. 

The safe yield development density in Area 1 is one residence per 12.26 acres. This assumes 

2.8 residents per household and a consumption rate of 151 gallons per person/day (average water 

use in Casas Arroyo). A safe yield withdrawal rate of 0.04 acre-ft/year is obtained by dividing 1,317 

acre-ft (the unused portion of annual recharge) by 33,920 acres (total private land). 

Santa Cruz County zoning ordinances classify much of the developable acreage in Sonoita valley 

as General Rural (GR); minimum lot size of 4.13 acres (180,000 square feet). Under current 

zoning the Sonoita valley can accommodate 17,000 homes at build-out (8,200 in Area 1 and 

8,800 in Area 2), assuming a total developable private acreage of approximately 70,400 acres. 

This level of density would result in annual groundwater withdrawals of 8,092 acre-ft/year (17,000 

homes* 2.8 residentS/home* 0.17 acre-ft/person/year). 

Using the calculated safe-yield development density (one home per 12.26 acres), Area 1 will 

have a total of 2, 767 homes at build-out - three times the current level of 930 homes. The annual 

water withdrawal for residential use will be 1,317 acre-ft (2, 767 homes * 2.8 residents per home * 

0.17 acre-ft/person/year). This level of development allows the area to use most of the recharge 

water each year without mining the stored groundwater, which then remains available to carry the 

population through severe droughts and prevents damage to the ecosystem. While these numbers 

may also be useful for planning in Area 2, the actual safe yield density cannot be estimated without 

a determination of annual recharge. 

A different variation of the safe yield density could accommodate those people interested in 

buying smaller lots. This scenario would involve segmenting the basin into zones of varying lot size. 

The periphery of the basin would be restricted to large lot subdivisions. Since the aquifer is 

recharged by the surrounding mountains, and all water flows toward the north, limiting development 

in the recharge zones would minimize capture of groundwater as it flows toward Cienega Creek. As 

14 This number was estimated from the BLM map Surface Management Status: Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 

196 
long as the average lot size is greater than or equal to 12.26 acres, water withdrawal should 

proceed at a sustainable rate (Table 3). 

Current zoning was included in Table 3 to provide a basis for comparing the presented scenarios 

with the current Santa Cruz County zoning. Scenario 1 assumes build-out at the recommended 

safe yield density of one residence per 12.26 acres. Scenarios 2 and 3 are mixes of different lot 

sizes that achieve an average lot size larger than the suggested minimum. Table 3 illustrates that 

there are many possible combinations that will ensure an average safe yield development density 

while still enabling some future residents to purchase smaller lots (4.13 acres). 

CONCLUSION 

Available information (both scientific and anecdotal) on the local water resources allows us to 

draw four basic conclusions. First, groundwater is the only available source of water for both 

environmental and human needs. While the basin may contain a significant amount of stored 

water, the annual recharge amounts to less than one percent of the total storage (USGS, 1986). 

Second, groundwater is not found uniformly or predictably throughout the Sonoita valley. For 

example, in Elgin, residents of one house were forced to drill to a depth of 330 feet for a three 

gallon per minute well, while their neighbor's well produces 15 gallons per minute from a depth of 

100 feet (Private conversation E, 1996). Third, siting developments without a careful hydrologic 

assessment can result in water scarcity for individual property owners, as well as interfere with the 

recharge of the basin. Fourth, periods of drought may result in a lowering of local water tables, 

which will exacerbate any overdraft that has already occurred. 

The results of our safe yield density study indicate the need to establish minimum lot sizes for 

future development in the Sonoita valley. Under current zoning, Area 1 will have 8,213 homes at 

build-out withdrawing 3,909 acre-ft of groundwater annually. That withdrawal rate is three times 

greater than the surplus of water available for future development (1,317 acre-ft). Using the safe 

yield development density presented in this paper, the minimum lot size in Area 1 is 12.26 acres. 

At that density, Area 1 will contain 2, 767 homes at build-out with annual groundwater withdrawals 

of 1,317 acre-ft. 

While our results are based on the best available data, the current literature leaves more 

questions than answers. Additional research is needed to enhance the available information. For 

example, metering wells could help tremendously in quantifying the amount of water withdrawn for 

different uses. Another needed study would measure the water level in wells across the Sonoita 

valley. A database of biannual, or quarterly, water levels would help residents determine if the 

water table is declining. 

REFERENCES 

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1995. Hydrologic assessment for the Elgin/Sonoita 

areas, preliminary report. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Tucson, Arizona. 

The major conclusion that can be drawn from the preliminary assessment of the area is that 

there is no evidence in the Department's files to support the reported declines of water levels in 

the area. This does not mean that declines are not occurring, but it shows that more data 

needs to be collected before concrete conclusions can be reached. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1988. Preliminary report on the hydrology of 

Cienega Creek Groundwater Basin. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Tucson, 

Arizona. The report concludes no evidence, such as land subsidence or depletion of surface 

197 
stream flows, is present to indicate effects of extensive groundwater pumping. The latest 

available information indicates condition of the basin groundwater systems surpass 

development considerations for a safe yield condition. 

Bahre, Conrad J. 1977. Land-use history of the research ranch, Elgin, Arizona. Journal of the 

Arizona Academy of Science 12:1-32. The author provides a detailed overview of the land-use 

history of the upper San Pedro and Babocomari valleys from pre-history through cattle ranching 

in more recent decades. 

Ben-Asher, J., M. Diskin, U. Kafri, S. D. Resnick, M. Sneidovich and E. A. Stull. 1980. 

Develop water management methods for watersheds subject to intensive development. 

Arizona Water Resources Research Center, Tucson, Arizona. The study contains a complete 

hydrologic analysis of the Sonoita Basin. Includes an estimated water budget, with a section on 

groundwater quality in the Patagonia area. 

Boggs, John Mark. 1980. Impact of future ground-water development in Cienega Creek area, 

Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties, Arizona. Master of Science thesis submitted to the 

University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources. The paper contains an 

estimate of recharge in the valley. 

Bota, Liciniu. 1996. Modeling of ground-water flow and surface/ground-water interaction for Upper 

Cienega Creek Basin. Master of Science thesis submitted to the University of Arizona 

Department of Hydrology and Water Resources. Using a computer model developed for his 

Master's thesis, the author concludes that if development continues at a conservative rate, 

some drawdown will occur to the water table in the Sonoita/Elgin area. Furthermore, well 

pumping will capture about eight percent of the water from plant use. 

Eden, Susanna and Mary G. Wallace. 1992. Arizona water: information and issues. Issue 

paper number 11 in a series produced by the Arizona Water Resources Research Center 

(WRRC). The report outlines current water supply issues facing Arizona users, including Indian 

water rights, groundwater recharge, effluent use, protection of riparian habitats, and 

augmentation and replenishment agencies. 

Gelt, Joe. 1994. Managing the interconnecting waters: the groundwater-surface water 

dilemma. Arroyo (The Water Resources Research Center of the University of Arizona) 8 

(1):1-8. Highlights of a University of Arizona conference entitled, "Managing connected 

groundwater and surface water: problems, choices and opportunities. u 

Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1970. Ground-water report, Empire Ranch Property, Pima and Santa Cruz 

Counties, Arizona. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Consulting Ground-Water Geologists, Port 

Washington, New York. 

Getches, David H. 1990. Water law in a nutshell. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, 

Minnesota. Publication contains sections on hydrology and groundwater law in the U.S. 

Glennon, Robert J. and Thomas Maddock, Ill. 1994. In search of subflow: Arizona's futile 

effort to separate groundwater from surface water. Arizona Law Review (3):567-610. 

The article provides a good discussion of hydrogeology. 

Jacobs, Lynn. 1991. Waste of the west: public lands ranching. Lynn Jacobs, Tucson, Arizona. 

The document contains a chapter on the impacts of cattle grazing on water quality, quantity and 

riparian zones. 

Kafri, U., J. H. Randal and E. S. Simpson. 1976. Effects of groundwater pumpage on surface and 

groundwater flows in adjoining basin: an interim report. Tucson, University of Arizona Water 

Resources Research Center. The report contains calculations of recharge using two different 

techniques as well as an estimate of evapotranspiration. 

Knight, Eric. 1996. A water budget and land management recommendations for Upper 

198 
Cienega Creek Basin. Master of Science thesis submitted to the University of Arizona 

Department of Hydrology and Water Resources. 

Lanham, Sandy. 1995. Milagro in the desert: buffalograss raises its seedy head. CEDO News 

7 (2): 1-8. The author examines the spread of an African grass throughout the Sonoran desert. 

Although the grass provides a high nutritive value to cattle, it quickly excludes native plants and 

animals. 

Layne-Western Company, Inc. 1970. Water supply and utilization, Empire-Sonoita planning 

area, Pima-Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. Layne-Western Company, Inc., Kansas City, 

Missouri. The report concludes that recharge in the Upper Cienega Creek Basin is 4.25 million 

gallons/day (4,800 acre-feet/year) and wells that remove 100 gallons/minute have a zone of 

influence of 2,100 feet radius, and should therefore be spaced .5 miles apart. 

Lunine, Cynthia. 1991. Sonoita, Arizona: some issues involved with preserving rural 

character. Unpublished report prepared for class at University of Arizona. The author reviews 

examples from around the western U.S. of communities that have undertaken to preserve the 

rural character of their areas. The report examines the possible effects of large density and 

large-lot zoning for its possible implications in Sonoita. 

Mann, Lawrence D. 1994. Sonoita-Elgin area plan: development capability report. Paper 

prepared by the Advanced Interdisciplinary Planning Laboratory Interdisciplinary Committee on 

Planning at the University of Arizona for the Sonoita-Elgin Plan Steering Committee. 

The report was produced as part of a larger effort to develop an area plan for Sonoita-Elgin. 

Mantell, Michael A., Stephen F. Harper, Luther Propst. 1990. Creating successful 

communities. Island Press, Washington, D. C. and Covelo, California. Discussion of the 

strategies available for rural communities to prevent uncoordinated subdivision of farms and 

ranches. 

Miller, Kathleen A., Lawrence J. MacDonnell and Steven L. Rhodes. 1992. Groundwater 

rights in an uncertain environment: theoretical perspectives on the San Luis valley. 

Natural Resources Journal 33:727-758. The article compares three theoretical perspectives on 

quantifying groundwater rights. 

Montgomery & Associates. 1985. Water adequacy report, stage one development, Empirita 

Ranch Area, Pima County, Arizona. Preliminary report submitted to the ADWR. 

Private conservation A. 1996. Personal interview, July 25, 1996. 

Conversation with a vineyard operation concerning the acreage of the Sonoita valley in 

wine production and the amount of water used for operation. 

Private conversation B. 1996. Personal interview, July 25, 1996. 

Conversation with an employee of the Santa Cruz County Department of Health regarding septic 

systems and sewage pits. 

Private conservation C. 1996. Personal interview, July 22, 1996. 

A Papago Springs Estates resident discussed the present water situation in the subdivision as 

well as plant and wildlife changes that have occurred in the area over the past several decades 

as a consequence of increased water consumption. 

Private conversation D. 1996. Personal interview, July 20, 1996. 

An employee on the Babocomari Ranch provided general information regarding the Ranch. 

Private conversation E. 1996. Personal interview, July 3, 1996. 

An Elgin resident discussed the water situation in one neighborhood. 

199 
· .... ·_., 

Private conversation F. 1996. Personal interviews during Summer 1996. 

A couple living in the Crown C subdivision supplied information regarding the proposed ASARCO 

copper mine on the Rosemont Ranch property as well as information concerning the Crown C 

development. 

Quillen, Ed. 1987. What size shoe does an acre-foot wear? In: The High Country News 

(eds.). Western water made simple. Island Press, Washington D. C. and Covelo, 

California. The author provides a figure for annual water usage for a family of four in each of 

the western states. 

Rouda, R. R., D. M. Anderson, J. D. Wallace and L. W. Murray. 1994. Free-ranging 

cattlewater consumption in south-central New Mexico. Applied Animal Behaviour 

Science 39:29-38. The authors' findings indicate that large feedings of protein reduced water 

consumption, while lactation increased water requirements. Furthermore, liveweight was a poor 

predictor of water needs. 

Schumann, Herbert, R. L. Laney and Lucinda S. Cripe. 1985. Land subsidence and earth 

fissures caused by groundwater depletion in southern Arizona. In: T. W. Anderson and A. 

Ivan Johnson (eds.) Regional aquifer systems of the United States southwest alluvial 

basins of Arizona. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland. Paper 

describes the surficial damage related to over-development of groundwater basins in southern 

Arizona. 

Schwartzman, Peter and L. Gray Wilson. 1990. Water resources issues of the Upper San 

Pedro Basin, Arizona. Master of Science thesis submitted to the University of Arizona 

Department of Hydrology and Water Resources. The study contains the only hydrologic 

assessment of the lower Babocomari watershed to date. 

Superior Court of Arizona. 1994. In re the general adjudication of all rights to use water in 

the Gila River system and source. The document illuminates the difficulties the state of Arizona 

faces in defining groundwater. 

Tietenberg, Tom. 1992. Replenishable but depleteable resources: water. In: Tom Tietenberg, 

author. Environmental and natural resource economics. Harper Collins Press, New York, New 

York. An excellent overview of the economics of water allocation. 

Towne, Douglas. 1987. Shrink to fit. In: The High Country News (eds.). Western water 

made simple. Island Press, Washington D. C. and Covelo, California. 

Article contains discussions of irrigated agriculture in southeastern Arizona. 

Waterstone, Marvin. 1992. Of dogs and tails: water policy and social policy in Arizona. Water 

resources bulletin 28 (3) :4 79-285. The article uses the Arizona Groundwater Management Act 

to examine the relationship between water policy and social policy in the western U.S. 

Williams, Mark. 1996. Evapotranspiration in southeast Arizona semi-arid watersheds: 

Walnut Gulch and Cienega Creek. Master of Science thesis submitted to the University of 

Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1979. Soil 

Survey of Santa Cruz and Parts of Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona. Arizona Agriculture 

Experiment Station. The document contains a discussion of soil types located in Santa Cruz 

County. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 1986. Predevelopment hydrologic 

conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico 

(map). USGS, Denver, Colorado. 

200 
Chapter Ill 

Managing Grasslands 

Large scale management issues were presented by Wes Jackson who put grassland 

management in a philosophical framework and Hector Arias who described management of the 

Matape Watershed in Sonora. A series of panels and posters dealt with other important 

management techniques. Monitoring and information gathering are the focus of the first section. 

Peter Warshall and Tony Burgess describe the results of a monitoring workshop in which individuals 

shared experiences in monitoring the state of their grasslands. How grasslands are managed by 

non-profit groups and private landowners was discussed by a panel led by Peter Warren, consisting 

of representatives of the Nature Conservancy, the Animas Foundation and private ranchers. Public 

grassland management was discussed by representatives of the Bureau of Land Management and 

the U.S. Forest Service in sessions led by Jeanne Wade and Karen Sims. Grasslands management 

on tribal lands was discussed by representatives of the San Carlos Apache and Tohono O'odham 

nations in a session chaired by Gary Nabhan. 

Management on a Large Scale 

Agricultural and Human Communities When Nature's Prairie is the Standard 

Wes Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 

Natural Resources Management in the Matape Watershed 

Hector M. Arias, Christopher Watts, David Pefla, 

Gonzalo Luna, Maria L. Fernandez, and Martin Reyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 

Monitoring and Information Gathering and Dissemination 

The Apacherian Savanna: The State and Future of Long-term Monitoring 

Peter Warshall and Tony Burgess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 

Building an Electronic Knowledge Center for Rangeland 

Management: The Arizona AgNIC Project 

Mitchell P. McClaran, Michael Haseltine, 

Barbara Hutchinson, and Jeanne Pfander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 

Distribution of Chihuahuan Desert and Colorado Shortgrass 

Prairie Species Controlled by Soil Moisture Heterogeneity in a 

Desert/grassland Ecotone at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge 

Charles A.Z. Buxbaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 

A Landscape Approach to Monitoring and Assessing 

Ecological Condition San Pedro Case Study 

William G. Kepner, Kurt H. Ritters, Christopher Watts, 

David C. Goodrich, Russell Scott, and Ghani Chehbouni . . . . . . . . . . . 243 

Climatic Causes and Biotic Consequences of Recent Shrub 

Increase in the San Simon Valley 

Thomas J. Valone, James H. Brown, and Charles C. Curtain ........ 245 

201 
Non-profit and Private Grassland Management 

The role of Nonprofit Organizations in 

Grassland Management Panel Discussion 

Peter Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 

Grassland Management by the Animas Foundation 

Ben Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 

Private Ranchers Cooperating on Public Lands 

Dennis Moroney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 

Grassland Management by The Nature Conservancy 

Tom Collazo .......................................... 256 

Use of Volunteers in Land Management 

Bill Branan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 

Cascabel Management Committee: A Report to the Grasslands Conference 

Dave Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 

Public Grassland Management 

Grassland Management on Public Lands: A Panel Discussion 

Jeanne Wade, Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 

The Muleshoe Cooperative Management Area 

Grant Drennen and Ed Brunson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 

Management of the Empire-Cienega Ranch 

Karen Simms, Mac Donaldson, and Joe Sacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 

Grassland Management on Tribal Lands 

Grassland Management on Tribal Lands: A Panel Discussion 

Gary Nabhan, Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 

Tohono O'odham Tribal Herd Ranch 

Erwin Juan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 

Grasses and Livestock on Native American Lands 

Homer Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 

202 
Agricultural and Human Communities 

When Nature's Prairie is the Standard 

Wes Jackson1 

I'm wearing this necktie for symbolic purposes. Increasingly, the abstraction is too distant from 

the particularity. The abstraction, of course, is in the head and the particularity has to do often with 

what the rest of the body is able to do. It is part of the dualism of western civilization. Males, we 

are told, are more prone to dualism so it must be because neckties have cut the flow between the 

head and the rest of the body. 

Were I involved in the presidential debates, here's what I would say. "My fellow Americans, 

grass-fed beef is growing on the tall grass prairies of central Kansas. There's probably no more 

ecologically correct way to raise a pound of red meat protein anywhere on the land surface of the 

planet." And then I would say, "as soon as a critter goes to the feed lot there is probably no more 

ecologically incorrect way to add the pound." I would pause and then say, "when that critter is on 

the grass it is part of a renewable economy and as soon as it goes to the feed lot it's an extractive 

economy. Furthermore, the subsidies from our government to the rancher who owns the grass are 

close to zero but the subsidies going into that pound of red meat protein from the extractive 

economy are huge. Why is it that we now have a system that rewards, through subsidy, the 

nonrenewables and does not reward the renewables? My fellow Americans, this is a metaphor for 

the way we do things in this country. From this point on let's measure our progress by how 

independent of the extractive economy our society can become." I'd win the debate for neither 

Dole nor Clinton would know what to say. They apparently have no way of thinking about that 

question. Why is it that most of us here understand that problem and they understand it not at all? 

Count that as a sidebar for what I want to talk about. 

Agricultural and Human Communities when Nature is the Standard is my chosen title. I will 

begin with a paragraph from Aldo Leopold written for a university committee report in 1944: 

"There are two kinds of conservationists and two systems of thought on the subject. 

One kind feels a primary interest in some one aspect of land such as soil, forestry, 

game or fish, with an incidental interest in the land as a whole. The other feels a 

primary interest in the land as a whole and an incidental interest in its component 

resource. The two approaches lead to quite different conclusions as to what 

constitutes conservative land use and how such use is to be achieved." 

This is our battle. A culture which looks at a forest and thinks board feet instead of foresthood, 

will destroy forest. If we look at a stream and think acre feet, that stream is doomed. If we don't 

have foresthood and streamhood as primary in our minds then forests and streams become 

chattel. The source goes. Leopold noted what we all have observed, that the first approach is the 

most common. Almost everyone feels some primary interest in part of the land. 

1 The Land Institute, Salina, Kansas 

203 
,···. 

' . .... ~ ''. . 

Leopold was forever drawing contrasts. Here's some more of his thinking. These thoughts 

came while he was sitting in a hotel room one evening in Berlin in the mid 1930s. He jotted down 

some notes to himself under the heading, "Wilderness"; 

"One of the anomalies of modern ecology is that it is the creation of two groups, one 

of which seems barely aware of the existence of the other. The one studies the 

human community almost as if it were a separate entity and calls its findings 

sociology, economics and history. The other studies the plant and animal community 

and comfortably relegates the hodgepodge of politics to the liberal arts. The 

inevitable fusion of these two lines of thought will perhaps constitute the outstanding 

advance of the present century." 

That was 1935-and of course it didn't happen. More than half a century has passed since 

Leopold wrote those words about those who will look at an ecosystem with some particular interest 

versus those who will look at it whole, with maybe a minor interest in one aspect, and this idea of 

the fusion of nature's economy with the human economy. Think of the possibilities if we could get 

serious about that thought for after all, nature's economy features material recycling and it runs on 

sunlight. 

John Goudy, an economist at Rensselaer University in Troy, New York, and Karl McDaniel, a 

biologist in the same university-an economist and a biologist-have written in an abstract that 

appeared in a 1995 issue of Ecological Economics: 

"The self-organizing principles of markets that have emerged in human cultures over 

the past 10,000 years are inherently in conflict with the self-organizing principles of 

ecosystems that have evolved over the past three and a half billion years. The rules 

governing the dynamics of ecosystems, within which all human activity takes place, 

are ultimately a function of biological laws, not a function of human-created economic 

systems. The conflict between these systems is illustrated by the fact that economic 

indicators have shown vigorous growth during the last century while a variety of 

environmental indicators have exhibited negative trends." 

Nature's economy is in direct conflict with the human economy! How is it that this came to be? 

We'll talk about that. There are two kinds of conservationists, two systems of thought, an anomaly 

of modern ecology featuring two groups (the human community and the plant and animal 

community), and there are the self-organizing principles of markets versus the self-organizing 

principles of ecosystems. Are we talking about something unique to humans when we're talking 

about a split with nature? And is it so fundamental it cannot be healed? Alfred North Whitehead, 

the mathematician and philosopher, said "The essence of dramatic tragedy lies not in unhappiness 

but in the remorseless, inevitable working of things." It is, however, through people that it's 

experienced as unhappiness. In other words, if you go to a Shakespeare play like Othello and you 

go out before the last act to go to the rest room, one is apt to say something like "It's piling up in 

there. There's going to be bodies all over the stage before this is over." You return for the last act 

and sure enough bodies end up all over the stage. There's a certain inevitableness. So the 

question becomes, are we talking about a certain inevitableness in human economies about a 

fundamental conflict? 

204 
Now let's consider for a moment who we are. If we don't talk about our nature and what needs 

controlled through culture, we'll just keep acting out some horrible side of ourselves. Before the 

invention of agriculture, 10,000 years ago, only 400 generations, (1) we could "take without 

thought for the morrow" and get away with it. (2) Any technological device we invented likely 

increased our adaptive value. (3) There is an aspect of our nature described by Wallace Stegner in 

Wolf Willow which notes the reality of "the things once possessed that can't be done without." He 

was speaking to the creation of necessity. We often say that necessity is the mother of invention. 

Less often said is that invention is the mother of necessity. Here are some major components of 

the human condition with which we must deal. They come with the meat, so to speak. 

There are also some philosophical roots of our problem but they come out of the 

Enlightenment. Frances Bacon, around 1600, writes to King James and says something like, "We 

must bend nature to our will, 0 King. We must torture her, 0 King, even as you tortured witches, 0 

King, in order to get truth out of them." Rene Descartes sitting over in France apparently agrees 

that we must bend nature and the way one does it most effectively is to place priority on the parts 

of things over the whole-without acknowledging that whole influences part even as part influences 

whole, that there is an interpenetration between part and whole. Descartes says that we should 

break a problem down to the point where there is no ambiguity. Of course, when one gets to that 

point it's totally irrelevant. These two men became the architects of the modern, scientific 

technological revolution and their spirit is now so all pervasive in the culture that it "comes with the 

milk." We believe this even when we fight against it. It somehow sticks. 

There is more and it is even worse: Descartes said in his Discourse on Method that the more 

he thought to inform himself, the more he realized how ignorant he was. But rather than regard 

that as an apt description of the human condition and the very proper result of a good education, 

Descartes thought our ignorance correctable. And so we now have a knowledge-based world view. 

And yet we all know that we're billions of times more ignorant than knowledgeable and always will 

be. Why not an ignorance-based world view? Why not go with our long suit? Being billions of 

times more ignorant than knowledgeable doesn't mean that we avoid knowledge, but rather we 

start with the assumption that we're mostly ignorant. I think it is prudent to start with the idea that 

we're stupid and bumbling and wicked besides and always will be. 

What do we do about it? How do we take care of that reality? It should force us to remember 

things, keep the scale small and become students of exits. What are the chances of backing out 

before we go into something? When it comes to managing our landscapes it is more prudent to be 

mindful of the ecosystem concept rather than lower levels of organization. This will cause us to 

keep our boundaries of consideration larger. Dick Levins at Harvard, a theoretical ecologist, has 

written about the cholera pandemic. He points out that when one looks around to see where 

cholera is-inland waters and estuaries mostly around third world countries-there is an algal 

growth which serves as a host for cholera. The surrounding hillsides reveal bad agricultural 

practices. There is soil erosion and fertilizer run off into the water sponsoring that algal growth 

which in turn serves as a host. The World Health Organization officially says that the cause of 

cholera is a bacterium. The cause of cholera, more accurately stated, is bad agricultural practices, 

among other variables. The bacterium is an agent. When the boundary of consideration is closer 

to the boundary of causation we have assistance in dealing with our ignorance. 

Why all of this philosophy about our nature, what does any of this have to do with grasslands? 

First of all, the ecosystem concept still has little standing in our minds. It's beginning to and I want 

to tell you why it should have even more standing and how that ultimately helps our management of 

grasslands. But first, some history. In 1967 Arnold Schultz, an ecologist at University of California, 

205 
Berkeley wrote a paper entitled 'The Ecosystem as a Conceptual Tool for the Management of Our 

Resources", and in that paper Arnold Schultz cited a previous paper by J. Stan Rowe, an ecologist 

at the University of Saskatchewan. J. Stan Rowe was referring to a paper written in 1959 by 

Feibleman and his paper was called, 'Theory of Integrative Levels." In the hierarchy of structure 

starting with atoms and going on to molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, and then to 

organisms, there are certain laws associated with these integrative levels, twelve altogether. There 

are also emergent properties. Biologists naturally asked "What comes next after organisms?" 

Some said species. Some said populations. Stan Rowe asked "What do these other levels of 

organization have in common?" Molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms. Rowe noted that 

they all have contiguous volume. Species don't have volume. Populations don't have volume but 

ecosystems do. By establishing the volumetric criterion for "thinghood", the laws of Feibleman also 

fit the ecosystem. 

P.W. Anderson wrote a paper published in Science in 1972 entitled "More is Different." 

Anderson noted that up the hierarchy of structure, stopping at each level, we can discover 

principles even but as fundamental as the fundamentals of physics. This assumes that there is no 

basement, of course. At the ecosystem level then are principles yet to be discovered that are just 

as fundamental as the principles of physics. If we acknowledge the "thinghood" of an ecosystem, 

is it not likely that some of the principles yet to be explored will be associated with the efficiencies 

inherent within the natural integrities of ecosystems? A cell biologist is certain to think about cell 

biology differently than an organismic biologist. Ecosystemologists (not a pleasant sounding term) 

seem certain to eventually develop principles for the ecosystem level too. 

What lies before us then is the opportunity to learn about those natural integrities and their 

attendant efficiencies, many of which we have yet to acknowledge. One such efficiency that is 

particularly dramatic was revealed to us at The Land Institute. Illinois bundle flower can suffer from 

a splash-borne bacterium under some conditions. Raindrops bombard the ground, bounce up on 

the underside of the leaf where that waxy cuticle is thin and the plant begins to lose its leaves from 

the bottom up. Those of us who have a "human cleverness" penchant, some geneticist-type like 

myself, might say "I'm going to build in resistance to that pathogen and then I will have a 'release' 

that's resistant to that pathogen." But the ecologist in us, and we all have some of that too, says 

"let's walk over to the native prairie and see what's happening there." On the prairie it's free of the 

disease probably because the grassy mat absorbs the shock of the bombarding rain. Rather than 

pay a plant breeder for seven years to build in resistance to the splash-borne bacterium the strategy 

better employed would be to provide a context to take advantage of the efficiencies inherent within 

the natural integrity. Strategic thinking of an ecosystemologist is certain to be different than that of 

your usual brand of plant breeder. 

Nearly twenty years ago I wrote a paper in which I began to explore what I call the "problem of 

agriculture." I'm going to tell you part of that story to help illustrate how the ecosystem concept 

has informed my thinking in taking on this problem. What I mean by the "problem of agriculture" is 

simply this: Essentially everywhere till agriculture has been practiced over the planet our 

disturbance of the land has caused an erosion of ecological capital, primarily soil. Whether we're 

talking about ancient Babylon, Mesopotamia, or China, the way we humans grow most of our highyielding crops is to tear the ground up, almost every year, and on sloping ground leave it to the 

forces of wind and rain. When I looked at the 1977 study done by the General Accounting Office it 

seemed to me that soil erosion was as bad in 1977 as it was in 1935. How could this be? We've 

had thousands of miles of terraces and grass waterways, billions of dollars spent, and the 

Mississippi Delta continues to receive a high level of nutrients for burial in a 300 foot watery grave 

206 
every year. Looking back into the history of earth abuse through agriculture, I wondered if maybe 

the past lacked people who were eloquent, enlightened, impassioned. Such people are there. 

They're there all the way back to the biblical Job-numerous people. I call that the failure of history 

and prophecy. Second, there's the failure of organizations, the Soil Conservation Service, for 

example. I do hate to think what our country would be without it but soil erosion is still rampant. 

Thirdly, the failure of stewardship. I've even seen soil erosion beyond replacement levels on Amish 

and Mennonite farms. Fourth, the failure of success-200 bushel per acre corn. "We must be 

doing something right," we say. The agricultural-economist would say so. But you all know what 

makes a good economist? Somebody who can narrow the boundaries of consideration to satisfy a 

"rigorous" economists model, a hard-headed realist. As Wendell Berry once said in a phone 

conversation, "A hard-headed realist is somebody who uses a lot less information than is available." 

Looking out at our never-plowed native prairie in Central Kansas, in an area of around 30 

inches of annual precipitation, we see a system running on sunlight, with no soil erosion beyond 

replacement levels, a system sponsoring its own nitrogen fixation and, because of species diversity, 

a system with such a high degree of chemical diversity that it would take a tremendous enzyme 

system on the part of an insect or a pathogen to mow it back down. The questions came: Is it 

possible to build an agriculture based on the prairie as model and still produce an abundance of 

grain. Stated otherwise, can we sufficiently mimic that prairie's workings to work for us even as we 

tweak individual species enough to produce sufficiently high seed yield? Can we feed people 

without having to plow every year? 

Of course, such a question raises more questions, four of them particularly basic. Several of 

my friends, mostly formerly fellow students, said such things as, "well Wes, we always knew you 

were crazy and now you're completely nuts! Everybody knows that perennialism and high seed yield 

don't go together, or if they did, there's such a high trade-off cost it would not be worth it. Their 

comments didn't come out of ignorance, for when we divide a plant up into root, stems, leaves and 

seeds we discover that roots and seeds are resource-rich, stems and leaves resource poor. 

Therefore by selecting for high-seed yield we would be taking it out of the root and driving the plant 

toward annualism. There's a famous rand K selection model which implies an R selected plant will 

allocate its resources to seed while a K selected plant will allocate its resources to "hanging in 

there." It is a teeter-totter idea in that one can not expect to maximize both variables. It is an 

equilibrium model, intellectually satisfying and accommodating rigor. There's an elegance to it. 

We challenged a fundamental assumption when we took on the question as to whether 

herbaceous perennial ism and high seed yield could go together and at no trade-off cost to the 

plant. We needed to know whether it was in the cards for flowering plants to have seed increase at 

a substantial level without experiencing some liability. My daughter Laura's Ph.D. work at Cornell, 

now published in Ecology, destroyed that as an absolute in a elegant experiment. Jon Piper's work 

at The Land Institute with sorghum supports the no trade-off idea. The second question is whether 

a polyculture or a mixture of perennials can out-yield a monoculture of the same? In other words, 

can you put plants together and yield as much? The answer is yes. In fact, more. The third question 

is, can that system adequately manage insects, pathogens and weeds? We have good data and 

publications to support that. The fourth question, can the system sponsor enough of its own 

nitrogen? We don•t know. We have suggestive evidence. 

I hope I have not overly dramatized these results gathered over the past 18 years for our results 

are modest in one sense but we are able to say that weVe had our Kitty Hawk. we•re where the 

Wright Brothers were on December 17, 1903. We don•t have anything that will carry 250 people 

across the Atlantic, but weVe demonstrated the analog of lift and drag. But it is now time for the 

207 
~~wind tunnel phase" and we must ask how do we get an agricultural research culture to lift their 

thinking from the idea that nature is to be subdued or ignored to looking at nature as the standard 

against which one judges our agricultural practices? That requires a shift in world view. How do we 

move toward looking at the way the nature's systems have worked over the millions of years? 

Humans may learn faster than nature but nature•s been at it longer. The highest form of good 

judgment will require knowing when to exercise human cleverness while drawing primarily on 

nature•s wisdom. 

I have a chart which outlines a 25-year research agenda that I submitted to the Department of 

Agriculture. It lists some twenty researchers at the top, all Ph.D. level professionals. Eight plant 

breeders, four ecologists, three biotechnologists, two computer modelers, an environmental 

historian, a data manager, and a director. The ecologists, however, are the ones sitting in the 

dominant seat. What's the cost of this? For one site only at $5 million a year times twenty-five 

years? About $125 million. It may sound like a lot of money but consider that soil erosion is now 

costing the US $44 billion per year! Those numbers are from Dave Pimental and his group at 

Cornell. Let's say that they•re wrong by half. Let's say it's only $22 billion per year. Or let's say only a 

quarter, $11 billion per year. we•re talking about $125 million over 25 years. Peanuts. We should 

have ten of these centers around the country but we would settle for only one in the short run. 

Jack Ewell, from the University of Florida and now in Hawaii, has worked in the tropics in Costa 

Rica in an area of 300 inches of annual precipitation. Jack and his colleagues set out to mimic 

forest succession. He substituted vine for vine, tree for tree, shrub for shrub to follow the 

succession and have an analog to what was going on in nature. The only rule of his team was that 

any substitute could not have arrived on its own. Their conclusion was that where they imitated the 

structure they were almost always granted the function. That•s good news. Why can we not begin to 

get such talk about that at the national level between the likes of Clinton and Dole? This would 

begin the consideration as to how nature's economy could lead the way toward a transformation of 

the human economy. Another part of the good news is that these principles should hold 

everywhere and unite people. Rather than us taking agricultural technologies out of fossil-fuel 

intensive infrastructures and parachuting them into Chad or India or wherever, we would have 

common principles that would unite us. They are predicated upon universal evolutionary/ecological 

precepts. 

What I have just described is not enough. It's no use trying to build a satellite of agricultural 

sustainability and expect it to safely orbit the extractive economy. My friend Professor Charles 

Washburn of California State University in Sacramento said recently that "if we don•t get 

sustainability in agriculture first it will never happen." we•ll just put the blow torch to the planet. 

I believe that we can carry such thinking to human communities and opportunity is there, too, 

for there are thousands of small towns and rural communities that are going down and out as 

people flock to cities. Many of these emptied places provide opportunity to reverse a trend which 

finds families ending up in the likes of Silicon Valley where kids grow up shopping malls and Little 

League. 

I will now describe a project of The Land Institute which addresses this problem. Eighty percent 

of Chase County, Kansas has never been plowed. The area receives 33 inches of annual 

precipitation and supports tall grass prairie. During the grazing season, up to 2.4 pounds of meat 

per day is being added to each critter in this area of 3.5 acres per animal unit. It's very good grazing 

country and yet Chase county is still losing population. Its gone from 8,500 in the late 1800s to 

3,000 now. Matfield Green, population 50, is in that county. I went to a tax sale a few years ago 

and came home with five properties totaling about $2,000. Five of us bought the 10,000 square 

208 
foot school for $5,000. A lot of these schools throughout the region have been bought for a dollar 

where they continue to deteriorate. My nephew bought the bank in Matfield Green for $500. 1 

bought the lumber yard for $1,000. And so it goes. We've picked this as a place where we can 

begin to think about developing a human economy that is isomorphic with the economy of nature. 

This is the kind of thing that's going to require a lot of thought. 

Our first effort at intellectual rigor was to discover and elucidate the environmental history led by 

our Education Director, an environmental historian, Dr. Brian Donahue. He asked such questions 

as, what were the regimes that were here? First the environmental history and then what we call 

"setting up the books" for ecological community accounting. How does one set up the books to 

measure the carrying capacity given various assumptions? This is complicated of course and in a 

certain sense, we don't care what numbers go where the columns and rows intersect. What we 

want to get a sense of is how many people can be supported here at what level of throughput so 

that this can go on for 10,000 years and more. Being attentive to what's going on the surrounding 

native prairie should help inform us. I will leave it at that. 

As I finish, let's review some of the ground we've covered. "There are two kinds of 

conservationists," Aldo Leopold said, "there are those who look primarily at one thing versus those 

who look at the land overall." There is the human community and then the plant and animal 

communities. Those two disciplines have not come together. The self-organizing principles of 

markets are in conflict with the self-organizing principles of ecosystems. Our work must be to bring 

the human economy in line with nature's economy? I see the ecosystem concept to be the primary 

source of thinking how to manage such a transition. The ecologist will need elevated from the 

bottom of the pecking order to the top. Physicists occupy that spot now. If we can begin to invert 

this pecking order and then bring in a different breed of economists, we might begin to put together 

a real economy. 

There are lots of people working on the pieces of all this, but now we need to begin to get the 

synthesizers to start pulling all this together. It won't be easy and it certainly won't be finished in my 

lifetime and probably won't be finished in the lifetime of most of us here. But if we're working on 

something that can be finished in our lifetime, chances are we're not thinking big enough. 

Bacon and Descartes date from 1600. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species dates from 1859. We 

are still more the intellectual descendants of Bacon and Descartes than we are Darwin and his 

ecological world view. It is understandable when we consider that Bacon and Descartes had a 250 

year running start on Darwin. Therein lies the story, I think. Reductionism, the belief that the world 

is like the powerful method, lies so deep within us and carries along with it the legacy of the period 

of its origin the idea that nature is to be dominated. 

But there is hope, for there was a time when the church organized our thinking. Then came the 

Enlightenment and the nation-state organized our thinking. The nation state peaked at W.W.II and 

then economics came to dominate our thinking. We built cathedrals to the glory of the church. We 

built capitols to the glory of the nation state. With economics, we built shopping malls to the gods 

of secular materialism. There's where we go on Sunday now. If ecology can come on after the 

economic era has passed, what will be the symbol? Not a cathedral, not a capitol, not a shopping 

mall, but wilderness that is not made by human hands! That becomes our standard. The 

wilderness, whether it is of the desert or whether it is of the alpine meadow, becomes the standard 

for both the behavior and management of our agriculture as well as our human communities. 

209 
Natural Resources Management in the 

Matape Watershed 

Hector M. Arias, Christopher Watts, David Peiia, 

Gonzalo Luna, Maria L. Fernandez, Martin Reyes1 

ABSTRACT 

The Matape Mission, in the Upper Matape Watershed, has the 

oldest record in ranching in the Arizona Sonora Desert, that covers 

northwestern Mexico and southwestern United States (there are 

historic records from 1670 showing that this area supplied animal 

food to central Mexico). 

The project has four stages: (1) resource inventory, (2) 

information analysis, (3) experimentation of solutions that would 

provide sustainable development, and (4) application of a regional 

program. This paper only includes the first two stages, although the 

third stage is in the preliminary phases. 

The initial stage of the project involves the resource inventory 

using available map information to build databases on Geographic 

Information Systems. As a result, the watershed was divided in two 

parts, the upper part is mainly rangeland, and the lower part is 

mainly agricultural lands combined with rangelands. In the second 

phase of the project, land deRradation phenomena were analyzed, 

and erosion was found· to be one of the main problems in the upper 

Matape Watershed, while salinity and saline intrusion were related to 

low productivity of the lower part. 

Erosion control measures along with techniques to improve the 

range productivity is the challenge for the following stage of the 

project. To do that, communication with farmers is required to 

obtain a sustainable development. 

INTRODUCTION 

The state of Sonora in northwestern Mexico is traditionally considered a cattle raising state. It 

was established as an important economic activity since 1670 when father Daniel Angelo Marras, 

Rector of the Matape Mission, set the basis for this activity in Sonora. According to records from 

1680-1682, the mission sent 5 000 cow~/y.- ~o central Mexico (Atondo et al, 1985). Since then, 

livestock is the largest economic activity, in terms of area. Navarro et al (1986) mentioned that 

about 78.44% of Sonora has cattle on a temporal (6.3%) or continuous basis (71.11), plus areas 

with introduced species (1.04%), mainly buffel and Lehman love grasses. According to a land use 

1 Institute del Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonor~ Reyes y 

Aguascalientes, Esq., Col. San Benito; Hermosillo, Sonora 

210 
map developed by Arias et al (1996) for an ecological planning project (Proyecto de Ordenamiento 

Ecologico del Estado de Sonora), livestock could be practiced in about 57.14%, that includes 

38.07% of Sonora covered by desert shrubs, grasslands in 13.06%, and about 6.01% of desert 

shrubs conditioned on rainfall availability. What seems more interesting is the fact that livestock is 

the most important activity in terms of aerial coverage in Sonora. 

Economic figures from 1985 to 1994 shows that the economic impact of this activity has been 

steadily decreasing from 4.1 to 3.25%. Also, agriculture displaced livestock as the main primary 

activity in the state after the green revolution when large areas of the plains were incorporated to 

agriculture due to reservoir and irrigation structures construction. Less rural population is involved 

in livestock, and although the numbers does not decrease significantly, the percentage of 

population and the percentage of participation in the Internal Revenue Product is decreasing, in 

part due to the grow of the industry and tertiary sectors (Arias et al, 1996a). 

Natural resources mismanagement has been strongly correlated with land degradation processes. 

COTECOCA (Technical Commission for the Estimation of Carrying Capacity), the authority for 

assessing range management, claims that in 1994, the estimated average range occupation was 

10.51 ha/au, while the recommended average carrying capacity for Sonora is 22.2 ha/au 

(unpublished data), and as a result, they consider that erosion is increasing. This is why it is 

important to know what degradation processes are responsible for land degradation; and if it is so, 

at what extent is affecting the land, and where are the areas most affected. It would not only 

provide information of the problem but where to apply corrective measures. 

This project addresses the question: is there a way to reduce land degradation processes, like 

erosion or salinity, to increase the land productivity, which will eventually improve the economic 

condition of ranchers?. Sustainable development claims for the reduction of land degradation 

processes and increase the land productivity in an anthropocentric fashion; that is, improve man's 

socioeconomic conditions. However, it involves natural resource management. Since natural 

resource management is made by land owners, programs focused to induce sustainable 

development must deal directly with the land owners, especially low income farmers who might be 

most affected by land degradation processes and declining land productivity. 

What is described here is a natural resource management program in a watershed level in 

northwestern Mexico. The main objective is sustainable development, as was above presented, by 

increasing land productivity, reduce land deterioration, to improve the land owner's conditions. The 

short term goal is the generation of a HMaster Plan" for the Matape wat.~rshed, which could have 

been the Hcradle" of livestock in northwestern Mexico and southwestern United States. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Watershed description. The Matape watershed is a 7,249.87 km2 drainage area of the Matape 

River, a 200 km ephemeral stream that drains into the Gulf of California, or Sea of Cortez, East of 

Guaymas. There are two cities, Guaymas and Empalme, both in the coastline, representing the two 

municipal heads of the Lower Matape; other communities are La Misa, Ortiz, and San Marcial. In 

the upper watershed there are three municipal heads, La Colorada, Matape (Villa Pesqueira) and 

Mazatan, representing the largest rural communities, along with Cobachi. 

211 
Figure 1. Map of the iVIatape watershed in Sonora, Mexico. Large cities are in capital 

letters. Small letters are for sierras, reservoirs (P.), and towns. 

Resource inventory. 

The resource inventory was performed by digitizing map information of soils (INEGI, 1982), land 

use and vegetation (INEGI, 1984), at a 1:250,000 scale maps using ERDAS version 7.5 and ILWIS 

version 4.0. The topography map was produced using Digital Elevation Models (OEM) available 

from INEGI at 1:250,000 scale. DEM's were also used to generate a slope range map for erosion 

calculations. 

Degradation Processes. 

The degradation processes analyzed were salinity and erosion because they are related to 

agricultural and/or livestock activities. 

The Salinity map was obtained from soil maps (INEGI, 1982), since soil chemical data was included 

in terms of electrical conductivity, EC (dS m·1), and Sodium Adsorption Ratio, SAR (%), based on 

the US Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954) report. This information was updated using maps from the 

National Water Commission (Comision Nacional del Agua, 1992) for the Irrigation District of 

Guaymas. 

The erosion map was obtained using the Universal Soil Loss Equation as described by Arias et 

al (1996b). The equation has six factors: (1) erosivity, obtained from an erosivity map provided by 

212 
Colegio de Postgraduados (1991), (2) soil erodibility, obtained from soil maps according to the 

methodology cited by Colegio de Postgraduados (1991), (3 and 4) slope and length factors, 

estimated from Digital Elevation Models converted to slope gradients and equations provided by 

Wischmeier and Smith (1994), (5) cover management factor, calculated according to Wischmeier 

and Smith (1978) for crop and rangeland, and Dissmeyer and Foster (1980) for forest lands, and 

(6) the mechanical practice factor was set to 1.0, because it was not possible to detect areas with 

erosion control works at the scale we worked. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Since the watershed is very large (7,2 ~9.87 km2), it was divided into Upper (3,141.85 km2

) 

and Lower Matape (4,108.02 km2

) by the Reservoir Punta de Agua (Ignacio Alatorre). 

Climate. 

Climate is hot and dry. There are 4 meteorological stations in the watershed in an elevation 

gradient: Matape (745 m), La Colorada (390m), Punta de Agua (245m), and Empalme (10m). 

There is a rainfall gradient from the coast, since total annual rainfall is 7 42 mm for Matape, 350.9 

mm for La Colorada, 411.3 mm in Punta de Agua, and 166.4 mm in Empalme, related to the 

elevation gradient. Figure 2 shows the monthly rainfall and the marked differences in rainfall along 

the watershed for the two main rainy seasons, summer (Jun-Oct), and winter (Dec-Mar). Although 

the summer rainfall is larger, a substantial amount is provided in the winter, too. 

What is really interesting is the fact that the rainfall regime in the upper part is favorable for 

livestock, and sets the basis for a reclamation program, in terms of cattle raising, once the other 

factors are present; that is, a germ plasm of native vegetation that can increase the carrying 

capacity. 

200.0 -r-------------rl==:=-r---------, 

180.0 

160.0 

'E 14o.o 

.§. 120.0 

::I 100.0 

~ z 80.0 

~ 60.0 

...J C) ::::> ::> ...., <( 

TIME(month) 

{.) 

w 

0 

-a--Matape 

_ -1:r- _ La Colorada 

_ . _ <>- __ A.mta de Agua 

__ x _ _ Errpalrre 

Figure 2. Monthly rainfall in four stations in the Matape Watershed. 

213 
Temperature. 

The temperatures can be considered high and decreasing with elevation. The average monthly 

maximum temperatures ranges from 40's in Empalme to 30's in Matape. The average monthly 

minimum temperatures ranges from 10 to ·15 °C in Em pal me, while in the upper part the minimum 

temperatures ranges from 0 to 15 °C (Figure 3). 

Evaporation. 

~1\fetape 

_ . _ <>- _ _ La Colorada 

0: ~" F\.mta de Agua 

- . x _ . 8rpalrre 

~1\fetape 

_ . _ <>- . . La Colorada 

·" ··h." . F\.mta de Agua 

- . x _ . 8rpalrre 

Figure 3. Maximum and minimum temperature in the 

meteorological stations of the Matape watershed. 

Pan evaporation is very high in La Colorada (2,430.4 mm/yr) and Punta de Agua (2,610. 7 

mm/yr), as can be seen from Figure 4. That is very important in terms of planning for the efficient 

use of water in the area. For instance, water harvesting techniques need to account for this 

disadvantage. 

Hydrology. 

The main stream starts in Sierra Agua Verde, the highest peak (1680 m), filling La Haciendita 

Reservoir, after passing Matape. It travels southwest, passing Cobachi, up to San Jose de Pi mas, where 

it turns south. In San Marcial, the stream turns southwest again and fills Punta de Agua reservoir. 

Although the river continues in the same direction, most of the water is diverted to irrigation channels 

at La Misa. In Ortiz, it is a dry stream, and most of runoff is collected in what is called Bordo de Ortiz, 

a water retention structure used to grow forage crops. This structure has its origin on colonial times, 

but the technique apparently was also used by native Mexicans in pre-Columbian times. From Ortiz, the 

river goes south to Empalme, where it drains in Estero el Rancho. Several other small streams drain 

into San Carlos, Guaymas, and along the coast (Figures 1 and 5). 

214 
400.0 

350.0 

300.0 

0 

i= 250.0 

<- o:: E 200.0 0 E 

a.- 150.0 

~ w 100.0 

50.0 

0.0 

z Ill 

<( w ...., u. 

0:: 0::: 

<( 0.. 

~ <( 

~ ~ 5 C) ~ ...., ...., ~ 

TIME(months) 

0.. 

w 

(J) b 6 

0 z 

(.) 

w 

0 

... o- .. La Colorada 

-o-- A.mta de Agua 

Figure 4. Average monthly pan evaporation in the Upper Matape Watershed. 

···n(servorr 

LiJ'Ha(. Cl.emfp~subwatershed MA T.AJ'E .-........ . La_Hac1ep: . a reservorr 

Figure 5. Stream network and location of streams, major reservoirs, 

ponds and channels. Four meteorological stations: Matape, La Colorada, 

Punta de Agua and Empalme are shown. Punta de Agua is also a gaging station. 

215 
Runoff. 

The only gaging station in the watershed is Punta de Agua, located in San Marcial, and runoff 

data is available from Jun. 1957 until Dec. 1969 when it was changed to the new location nearby, 

named Punta de Agua II in Jul. 76 - Dec. 78, and Jan. 82 - Dec. 85. It is a staff gage, calibrated 

with a flow meter. Annual runoff were 11.99 and 9.01 mm/yr in Punta de Agua I, and Punta de 

Agua II, respectively. Figure 6 shows the runoff season, and again, the summer rains are the ones 

that contribute the most runoff 

7.00 

e 6.00 

g 5.00. :I: 

1-

D.. 4.00 w 

c 3.00 LL 

LL 

0 2.00 

z 

:::::» 1.00 0::: 

0.00 

z c:o 0::: 0::: 

<( w <( a.. ...., LL ~ <( ~ z ..J 

::::> ::::> 

~ ...., ...., 

TIME(Month) 

" ::::> 6 

<( z 

(.) 

w 

0 

-P.Agual 

c::::J P. Agua II 

~Average 

Figure 6. Monthly runoff depth (mm) distribution in Punta de Agua I (Jun. 57 -Dec. 69), and 

Punta de Agua II (Jul. 76 - Dec. 78, Jan. 82 - Dec. 85). Average is shown as a line. 

The highest discharge rate was 636 m3/s. In general, the runoff distribution follows the same 

pattern as the rainfall data, since the most intense runoff events happen in the summer (Jun.-Oct.), 

as can be see from Figure 7. 

700.0 

.!!! 600.0 C"') 

g 

w 500.0 

C) 

0::: 400.0 <( 

:I: 

0 300.0 

rn 

i5 200.0 

X: 

<( 

w 100.0 

D.. 

0.0 

z c:o 0::: 0::: 

...., 

<( LL 

w <( a.. ~ ~ <( ~ 

z ..J " a.. ::::> ::::> ::::> w ...., ...., <( U) 

TIME(Month) 

~ > (.) 0 0 z 

(.) 

w 

0 

g PAgua I 

.P. Agua II 

Figure 7. Maximum peak discharge rates (m3/s) at Punta de Agua I (Jun. 57-Dec. 69), and 

Punta de Agua II (Jul. 76 - Dec. 78, Jan. 82 - Dec. 85). 

216 
Sediments. 

Sediment concentration is related to the intensity of runoff and most of the sediment 

transporting events occur during the summer (Jul.-Sept.), as can be seen in Figure 8. Annual 

sediment yield are 389,700 m3

, and 210,600 m3

, for Punta de Agua I and II, respectively, with an 

average of 322,200 m3

• 

C") 200 

E 180 C") 160 0 

:!:.. 140. 

c 120 ...J 

w 100 

>= 

1- 80 

z 

w 60 

::::E 40 

2i 20 w 

U) 0, 

z fil 0:: 

<( w <( ...., u.. ~ 

0:: 

~ z ...J (!) a.. :::::> :::::> :::::> <( ~ ...., ...., <( 

TIME(month) 

a.. 

w 

1- > (.) 0 (/) 0 z 

(.) 

w 

0 

_P.Agual 

c::::::J P. A gua II 

-+-Average 

Figure 8. Monthly sediment volumes (thousands of m3

) at Punta de Agua I (1961-1969) and 

Punta de Agua II (1982-1985), as well as the average for the two stations. 

Reservoirs. 

In the watershed there are 4 major reservoirs: Punta de Agua with a capacity of27.9 hm3 occupying 

an area of 426 ha, which irrigates 25,467 ha in the Irrigation District 84 Valle de Guaymas. A unique 

feature is "Bordo de Ortiz", which is a runoff detention structure used to grow forages and is considered 

the largest water harvesting structure in the state with a capacity of 2. 75 hm3, in an area of 269 ha. 

La Haciendita has a capacity of 3.4 hm3

, an area of 125 ha, and Homos with a capacity of 1.0 hm3

, 

an area of 100 ha, both of them to grow forage crops in small areas. Figure 5 shows the reservoirs. 

There are many small ponds to supply water for cattle, but they are difficult to identify in the map 

because of the size. 

Soils. 

Most soils of the region are limited by arid conditions (Xerosols and Yermosols), others are very 

shallow soils (Regosol and Leptosol, formerly Litosol). The soils that have possibilities for agriculture are 

Phaeozems (3.25%) and Vertisols (13.28%). Those soils are occupied by agriculture or intensive 

ranching. The desert soils, once water is available either by pumping or surface irrigation, can be used 

for either agriculture or livestock. 

217 
• '..r'"O 

...... , 

• CAHBISOL 

• REHDZIHA 

• FEOZEH 

• LITOSOL 

FLUVISOL 

LUVISOL 

D REGOSOL 

D VERTISOL 

PLAHOSOL 

~EROSOL 

VERHOSOL 

SOLOHCHAH 

Figure 9. Soil map of the Matape watershed according to FAO classification 

SOILS {FAO CLASSIFICATION} AREA {HA} {%} 

Regosol 175282 24.20 

Leptosol 174063 24.03 

Xerosol 145737 20.12 

Vertisol 96212 13.28 

Planosol 29559 4.08 

Fluvisol 28568 3.94 

Yermosol 27095 3.74 

Phaeozem 24481 3.38 

Solonchak 13560 1.87 

Luvisol 4033 0.56 

Rendzina 2404 0.33 

Cambisol 3461 0.48 

218 
Land use and vegetation. 

Most of the vegetation belongs to desert life forms, shrubs and mesquite lands are the most 

important vegetation classes, in terms of area (about 83%). Introduced species are represented by 

irrigated agriculture in the alluvial fans by the coast, and improved grasslands, mainly with buffel 

grass, and they both add to 9. 77%. Transition vegetation are represented by Low jungle, from arid 

zone to the tropical zone, as well as oak vegetation (forest) to the Sierra Madre Occidental 

(temperate zone). It is important to mention that most of the dryland agriculture is practiced in the 

river stream bed for forages (Figure 10). 

Land degradation processes and degradation phenomena, erosion and salinity, were mapped 

using mathematical models, digitized maps, and Geographic Information Systems. Salinity. Most of 

the irrigated croplands in the lower Matape watershed have salinity problems as well as the coastal 

areas (Figure 11). Saline-sadie soils are the most abundant (8.10%), in terms of salinity problems, 

followed by saline soils (4.08%), and strongly saline-sadie soils (3.04%). The irrigated agriculture 

has been practiced pumping groundwater and, as a result, most of the salinity problems in croplands 

are related to saline intrusion. A reclamation program needs to know the type of problem and the 

area to reclaim. The map (Figure 11) helps in establishing a salinity reclamation program by 

overlapping the cropland map and the type of salinity problem. 

Erosion. 

GIS studies showed that erosion is a very important degradation process in the Matape 

watershed (Arias et al, 1996b) by using the Universal Soil Loss Equation to estimate average annual 

soil losses. The average annual soil losses for the entire watershed are 11.76 Mg/ha/yr. The upper 

Matape watershed, with steeper slopes and livestock as the main activity, have average annual soil 

losses of 16.85 Mg/ha/yr, and the lower watershed, with less steep lands and irrigated agriculture 

and some rangeland are the main economic activities, have average annual soil losses of 7.87 

Mg/ha/yr. Field observations and rainfall simulation studies carried along with the USDA-ARS 

allowed us to check two sites and the average soil losses were the same, 4 Mg/ha/yr, as those 

estimated with the USLE (Lane, Nichols, and Arias, 1994) .Tolerable soil losses vary depending on 

the parent material, soil class and depth, as some of the most important factors; however, any rate 

larger than 8 Mglha/yr is above the natural soil-forming rate, an equilibrium condition. 

About 88% of the land has soil losses below 8 Mg/ha/yr; it means that the problem are the 

hillslope areas. Therefore, we can say that the erosion is a major problem in the upper Matape 

watershed lands, since the soil losses are higher than the permissible values. 

219 
- SHRUB iB HESQUITAL 

Ill IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 

l

1iii?'id GRASSLAHDS 

-LOW JUHGLE 

c=J DRVLAHD AGRICULTURE 

- FOREST fiiJ HALOPHVTES 

Ill ABAHDOHED IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 

- RIPARIAH 

- DUHES 

- HAHGROVE 

Figure 10. Land use and vegetation of the Matape watershed. 

LAND USENEGETATION AREA (ha) PERCENT(%) 

Shrub 413548 57.03 

Mezquital 198987 2744 

Irrigated agriculture 36191 499 

Grasslands 35057 4.83 

Low jungle 18659 2.57 

Dryland agriculture 6422 0.89 

Halophytes 5814 0.80 

Forest 5659 0.78 

Abandoned irrigated agriculture 3828 0.53 

Riparian 502 0.07 

Mangrove 163 0.02 

Dunes 267 0.04 

220 
• C1S1 !i79211 

• C2S1 2~!i9 

.ClS1 749£. 

• C1S2 !iO!i!i 

CJ C2S2 !ill:.97 

UClS2 22091 

.C1Sl 1£.9] 

.C2Sl 0 

.ClSJ 20£.2£. 

Figure 11. Salinity map of the Matape Watershed. 

The map was obtained from INEGI soil maps. 

CLASS KEY EC SAR (%) Area PERCENTAGE 

(dS m·1) (ha) (%) 

Normal C1S1 <4 < 15 578922 79.85 

Saline C2S1 4-16 < 15 29559 4.08 

Strongly saline C3S1 >16 < 15 7496 1.03 

Sodie C1S2 <4 15-40 5055 0.70 

Saline-sadie C2S2 4-16 15-40 58710 8.10 

Strongly saline-sadie C3S2 >16 15-40 22046 3.04 

Strongly sodie C1S3 <4 >40 1693 0.23 

Saline- Strongly sodie C2S3 4-16 >40 0 0.00 

Strongly saline- Strongly sodie C3S3 >16 >40 21495 2.96 

221 
CONCLUSIONS 

The climatic conditions of the watershed are not very promising for livestock, especially in the 

lower part because of high temperature, high evaporation rate, and low rainfall regime. The upper 

watershed has better climatic conditions for cattle raising. Since the rainfall amount in the 

watershed varies, runoff and/or groundwater represent possibilities for economic activities in the 

area. Runoff is widely used in the lower Matape watershed by water retention structures, but in the 

upper watershed, with better rainfall regime, programs of water conservation are needed. The two 

reservoirs in the area can be used more efficiently providing infrastructure to irrigate larger areas or 

supply water to other users. Even though there are not many wells in the upper Matape, it is 

possible to pump groundwater, especially in the area of Cobachi-San Jose de Pi mas; however, a 

more detailed study is required in order to avoid problems like that in the coastal areas, where 

seawater intrusion has affected large areas that used to be irrigated. 

Although there are not large areas with good soils, it is very important to consider those areas as 

a priority for agricultural o livestock activities since the natural fertility of those soils can have a more 

rapid impact in the region. It is also important to know that vertisols, although difficult to work, have 

a good potential for crop production. 

222 
• 0.1- 1 

• 1-?, 

• 2-4 

• 4- a 

fZ2] a - 16 

• 16- 32 

• 32- 64 

• 64- 12a 

• 12a- 256 

• 256 - 512 

Figure 12. Actual erosion map of the Matape watershed. 

SOIL LOSS RANGE UPPER MATAPE LOWER MATAPE WATERSHED 

(Mg/ha/yr) AREA (ha) (%) AREA (ha) (%) AREA (ha) (%) 

0.1-1.0 4170 0.58 56312 7.77 60482 

1.0- 2.0 20991 2.90 80045 11.05 101036 

2.0- 4.0 52902 7.30 126641 17.48 179543 

4.0- 8.0 105790 14.60 66184 9.14 171974 

8.0- 16.0 62015 8.56 32038 4.42 94053 

16.0-32.0 28869 3.99 26794 3.70 55663 

32.0-64.0 23122 3.19 18311 2.53 41433 

64.0- 128.0 13558 1.87 3630 0.50 17188 

128.0 - 256.0 2407 0.33 237 0.03 2644 

256.0 - 512.0 408 0.06 4 0.00 412 

314232 43.38 410196 56.62 724428 

223 

8.35 

13.95 

24.78 

23.74 

12.98 

7.68 

5.72 

2.37 

0.36 

0.06 

100.00 
Most of the vegetation in the area is considered as desert vegetation, shrubs and other species; 

however, there are still areas with important biological value. Sierra de Mazatan has been proposed 

as a state reserve, also in Sierra El Carrizo we have observed native grasses not present in the 

lowlands. It is very important to have a more detailed vegetation study to provide other alternatives 

in terms of natural resource management in the area. 

Salinity was clearly located in the lower watershed, different levels of salinity are present, some 

of them are signs of the impact of human activities, but others are due to natural conditions. In the 

vegetation map, 3828 ha are shown as abandoned due to salinity. It is also convenient to analyze 

the risk of reclamation programs for salinity. 

Erosion is a major problem in the upper watershed in general. That is due to steeper slopes 

(mainly) and low vegetation cover. Historic references, and climate information, could lead us to 

think that grasslands have deteriorated, changing to desert scrubs, and a program to restore 

environmental conditions and reduce land degradation is a must for the economic development of 

this region. 

REFERENCES 

Arias, Hector M., Maria L. Fernandez, Gonzalo Luna, and Evangelina Diaz. 1996. Erosion Actual y 

Potencial en Ia Cuenca del Rio Matape. Paper presented at the "Segundo Simposio 

lnternacional de Manejo de Cuencas Hidrograficas". To be published by the University of 

Arizona. Tucson, AZ. Arias, Hector M.; Luis A. Bojorquez, Pablo Wong, Christopher Watts, 

Guillermo Soberon, Eric Mellink, Ivan Parra, David Peria. 1996. Proyecto de Ordenamiento 

Ecologico del Territorio. Estado de Sonora. Proyecto Ejecutivo. IMADES. Hermosillo, Sonora. 

33 pp (In preparation). 

Arias, Hector M., C. Watts, R. Acosta, D. Peria, L.J. Lane, J.R. Simanton, and M.H. Nichols. 1996. 

Water resources inventory for the Upper Matape River, Sonora, Mexico. Submitted to J. Soil and 

Water Conservation. 

Atondo, Ana Maria, Sergio Ortega N., Patricia Escandon, Martha Ortega S., Edgardo Lopez M., 

Ignacio del Rio, Juan D. Vidargas del M. 1985. Historia General de Sonora. II. De Ia Conquista 

al Estado Libre y Soberano de Sonora. Gobierno del Estado de Sonora. Hermosillo, Sonora. pp 

69-70. 

Colegio de Postgraduados. 1991. Manual de Prediccion de Perdidas de Suelo por Erosion. Centro 

Regional para Estudios de Zonas Arid as y Semiaridas. SARH. Mexico, DF 

Comision Nacional del Agua. 1992. Gerencia Estatal en Sonora. Distrito de Riego No. 084-

Guaymas. Plano de Salinidad del suelo. Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico 

Dissmeyer, George E. and George R. Foster. 1980. A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on 

Forest Land. USDA-Forest Service Tech. Pub. SA-TP 11. Washington, DC 

INEGI. 1982. Cartas Edafologicas H12-8, H12-11, G12-2 1:250,000. lnstituto Nacional de 

Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica. Secretaria de Ia Presidencia. Mexico, DF 

INEGI. 1984. Cartas de Uso del Suelo y Vegetacion. H12-8, H12-9, H12-11, H12-12, y G12-2 : 

250,000. lnstituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica. Secretaria de Ia 

Presidencia. Mexico, DF 

Navarro C., Alberto; Rogelio Alcaraz F., Raul F. Bernal L., Donald Johnson G., Rafael Aguirre M. y 

Rene Cuadra G. 1986. Situacion actual de los recursos forrajeros Renovables y su Potencial 

Forrajero. COTECOCA-SARH. Hermosillo, Sonora, Mex. 

224 
Nichols, M.H., H.M. Arias L.J. Lane, and C. Watts. 1994. Comparative modeling of large watershed 

responses between Walnut Gulch, Arizona, USA and Matape, Sonora, Mexico. International 

Symposium on Variability in Stream Erosion and Sediment Transport. Canberra, Australia. Dec. 

1994. IAHS Pub. NO. 224:351-358 

Nichols, M.H., L.J. Lane, J.R. Simanton, and H.M. Arias. 1994. Comparative Research on 

Integrated Watershed Management at Walnut Gulch, Arizona, USA and Rio Matape, Sonora, 

Mexico. Annual Report. March 28, 1994. 

US Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. USDA 

Handbook 60. Washington, DC 

Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses- A Guide to 

Conservation Planning. USDA. Agricultural Handbook 537. Washington, DC 

225 
- . ·. ~ 

The Apacherian Savanna: 

The State and Future of Long-term 

Monitoring 

Peter Warshall1 and Tony Burgess2 

with the generous help and assistance of workshop participants (Table 1) 

ABSTRACT 

This conference has brought together, for the first time, most of 

the groups monitoring the vegetation and biological diversity of the 

Apacherian savanna (Burgess, this volume). Until recently, the 

bioregion has largely gone unnoticed or undefined (McClaran, 

1995). There is only the most elementary understanding of how 

Apacherian savanna ecology differs from adjacent grasslands such 

as the tall and short grass prairies of Midwestern United States, and 

how human economics (largely cattle grazing, subdivisions and 

infrastructure) impact the Apacherian savanna. 

To better assess the state of our knowledge, the authors sent 

out a questionnaire prior to the conference, summarized the 

questionnaire, and then held a two and one-half hour workshop to 

air issues. All attendees agreed that the workshop was just a 

beginning. The questionnaire itself needed revisions to better reflect 

the concerns of ranchers, agencies, scientists, conservation groups, 

and the military personnel that have been and will be monitoring the 

Apacherian savanna. Nevertheless, this paper reflects the first 

coming together of information for long-term monitoring for those 

concerned with forage production, biological diversity, watershed 

stability, driving forces that shape the savanna•s species composition 

and vegetation structure, biogeography, and future conditions. This 

paper includes many additions and clarification by participants and is 

truly a cooperative effort of more than thirty people. 

GROUPS MONITORING VEGETATION IN THE APACHERIAN SAVANNA 

Fifteen groups responded to our search for long term monitors (Table 1). Fourteen were in the 

United States which includes maybe one-third of the bioregion. Only the Centro de Ecologia 

represented Mexico and its focus was on the smaller extent of Apacherian savanna on the western 

side of the Sierra Mad res. Two groups came from military reservations; two from federal wildlife 

1 Editor, The Whole Earth Catalog 

2 Biosphere II, Oracle AZ. 

226 
refuges; one from a Native American reservation (Tohono o•odham); three were non-governmental 

organizations (Nature Conservancy, Audubon, and the Mal pais Group), and two represented research 

areas in the San Simon Valley (James Brown and Robert Chew). Three are funded by federal funds 

(NRCS, Jornada, Forest Service), and one by federal/state funds (Santa Rita Experimental Range). 

The NRCS had two programs: a range trend program and a large scale Natural Resources Inventory 

program. 

Other groups in the Apacherian savanna may have long-term studies. We could not contact 

them or they did not respond to the questionnaire. They include the Walnut Gulch Experimental 

Range, Chiricahua National Monument, Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss (Texas), Chihuahuan Desert Research 

Station, unidentified groups in the Trans-Pecos, Sevilleta Long-term Ecological Research Site (LTER) 

in New Mexico, San Carlos Apache and Hualapai tribal lands (Arizona), the Borderlands Project of 

the Rocky Mt. Experiment Station Uust beginning), and numerous individuals in Mexico. The only 

official LTER site is the Jornada. The oldest range experimental station, the Santa Rita Range (93 

years in existence), has not been designated a LTER. The most obvious gap was the two-thirds of 

the Apacherian savanna in Mexico. 

Buenos Aires Nat. Wild. Ref. BANWR Bill Kuvlesky, Jr. and *Bill Flesh, Ulam 

Portal, AZ (RM Chew) SSRC Robert M. Chew 

Gray Ranch GR Peter Sundt, Peter Warren 

Centro de Ecologia CE Alberto Burquez * 

Muleshoe Ranch, Nature Cons. MNC David Gori, *Peter Warren 

San Bernadino Nat. Wild. Ref. SBNWR Tony Velasco, *Myles Traphagen 

Ft. Huachuca Military Reserv FHM Sheridan Stone, *Miles Tandy 

San Rafael Grassland SRG Bill Wilcox, Sierra Vista Ranger District 

Natural Resources Cons. Serv. NRCS Dan Robinett, NRCS-Tucson 

San Rita Experimental Range SRER Mitch McClaran, University of Arizona 

Jornada Experimental Range * JER Kris Havstad 

Audubon Research Ranch ARR Bill Branan, *Carl Bock and Jane Bock 

San Simon Valley SSJB James H. Brown,*Kevin Rich 

Tohono o•odham Nation TON Kristin Egen, *Tom Davis (BIA) 

White Sands Missile Range WSM t David Lee Anderson 

*Attendee at Conference, if different from person filling out questionnaire. t Not at workshop 

Table 1: 

Contributors to the Monitoring Workshop and Questionnaire 

227 
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 

The response of the long-term monitoring group (Table 2) shows three goals, admirably 

summarized by Kris Havstad of the Jornada: livestock production (9 groups), biological diversity (10 

groups), and soil protection (5 groups). Livestock production includes forage value and shrub 

invasions, impacts of disturbances, and livestock managing methods. Biological diversity includes 

species and plant associations of special concern, foodweb linkages, barriers to dispersal, wildlife 

corridors between sites, wildlife production, competition, exotic plant invasions, and other aspects of 

natural history. Soil maintenance includes soil descriptions, watershed conseNation, soil moisture, 

soil biogeochemistry, seed banks, soil crusts, and definition of landscape units. 

Objective Group 

Improvement of forage for livestock TON, NRCS,JER,SRG,GR,SRER 

Natural history of biotic community TON, SSJB, BANWR, ARR, 

JER, FHM,SSRC,GR,SRER 

Comparison of grazed/disturbed grassland with ARR, JER, SSRC, GR, CE, SRER 

a control 

Understanding mass/energy and SSRC, CE, SRER 

biogeochemistry relationships 

Table 2 

What have been the objectives of monitoring in the Apacherian Savanna? 

The objectives of most permanent plot sampling (Table 3) focused on grass species frequency 

and vegetative cover. In addition, three groups monitored density, three groups monitored forage 

trends, and three groups monitored species composition trends. The Santa Rita and Audubon paid 

special attention to exotic grasses and four groups focused studies on special floral species of 

concern. One study (Robert Chew) has monitored the changes in size of creosote bush. 

In the Apacherian savanna, continuity of permanent plot monitoring programs has been erratic. 

Four groups had less than five years of data (Gray Ranch, Centro de Ecologia, San Bernadino Wildlife 

Refuge, Fort Huachuca). Four groups have been monitoring for five to ten years (Buenos Aires, 

Muleshoe, Tohono 0 1

odham, White Sands). James Brown1s program is 20 years old; the Audubon 

Research Ranch is 28 years old, while Robert CheW1

S monitoring site has been monitored for 38 

years. The Natural Resource Inventory started in 1957. The oldest monitoring sites at Jornada and 

Santa Rita both exceed 50 years. Like most long-term sites, the monitoring has been dependent on 

research interest and funding. The Santa Rita program was revived in 1986 and now, once again, 

appears to lack funding. The Forest SeNice monitored the San Rafael grasslands in 1958 and never 

returned until 1993. Unstable funding and priorities makes the Forest SeNice program inconsistent. 

228 
Sampling Objective 

Frequency 

Cover 

Density 

Exotics 

Species composition 

Special Status Species 

Forage trends 

Other 

Repeat photography 

Aerial images 

Satellite images 

Leaf-Area Index 

Phenology of a single species 

Phenology of a group of species 

Energy provided by grassland 

Nutritional analysis 

Biogeochemical cycling 

Groups 

MNC, GR, TON, NRCS 

MNC,GR,SSJB,TON, NRCS,SRER 

MNC, SRER 

SRER,ARR 

MNC, GR, SBWR 

GR, FHM, BANWR (extensive),ARR 

MNC, GR, SRG 

SSRC (creosote bush size) 

JER, WSM, GR, SSJB, SRER, FHM, ARR. 

SBWR, NRCS, TON, BANWR, MNC , CE 

JER (fixed wing), SSJB, ARR, SRER, FHM, SBWR 

JER, SSJB, ARR, SRER, FHM, SBWR 

JER (special), 

JER, ARR (trees, shrubs), SSJB 

Blooming of forbs (SSRC), select (FHM), JER, SSJB 

JER (BOER grassland), CE 

JER 

JER 

Table 3 

Vegetation Attributes of Longterm Monitoring by Various Groups 

The monitoring techniques varied widely depending on the goals and the date the monitoring 

started. Some methods (e.g., the Parker Three Step method) which had been the current choice of 

range scientists at the time are now are no longer utilized. Frames with transects, line intercepts, 

point-line intercepts, and step point methods were the most common for vegetative studies and 

trends. All groups have repeat photography programs included in their permanent plot monitoring. 

Six groups have less frequent but continuing aerial and satellite monitoring in which the permanent 

plots help in ground-truthing. Unfortunately, the questionnaire was ambiguously worded and more 

precision about the number of transects and quadrants utilized and how they relate to the goals of 

the monitoring program cannot be attained at this time. 

229 
Production and biomass 

Soil loss 

Special studies 

Disturbance regimes: grazing 

Disturbance regimes: fire 

Disturbance regime: extreme weather events, 

drought, air pollution 

Disturbance regimes: mechanical injury to 

watershed 

Disturbance regimes: plant disease 

Disturbance regimes: folivore, faunal, 

pathogen outbreaks 

Remediation manipulation 

Exotic invasion and competition 

SSRC (N = 1), TON (dry weight rank), CE; 

comparative yield (MNC); SRG; NPP 

3 times/year at 3 sites in 5 communities (JER), 

clipping (ARR); SRER 

NRCS (Natural Resource Inventory) 

JER (remediation techniques),GR (fire), MSNC 

(improvement of watershed), ARR 

(biodiversity maintenance); ARR (exotics); 

SRER (mesquite control/herbicides), SRER 

(revege/reseed/fertilization)SRER (watershed); 

ARR,SRER,CE, TON,SSJB,JER,SSRC,GR 

ARR, SRER, CE, TON, SSJB, BANWR, FHM, GR 

ARR, TON, SSJB, BANWR, JER, FHM 

ARR, BANWR, FHM 

GR (notes) 

SSJB (granivore), BANWR (disease outbreak), 

GR (notes) 

SRER, JER 

ARR 

Table 4 

Special Soil/Plant Studies that Accompanied Longterm Vegetation Monitoring 

Faunal, including endangered, threatened, rare 

and faunal species of special concern. 

Soil biota 

SSRC (ants, grasshoppers); JER (avian, small 

mammals, select inverts); ARR1

; BANWR2 ; 

SSJB(harvester ants, granivore rodents); 

SRER (ants, termites, rodents, jackrabbits, 

coyote) 

JER, SRER (ants), SSRC, SSJB, FHM (rare) 

1. Grasshoppers, butterflies, small mammals; coyote, rock squirrel, cassins sparrow, acorn woodpecker, 

botteris sparrow, grassland sparrows, javelina, bunchgrass lizards, montezuma quail 

2. Quail, mule deer, breeding birds, pronghorns, herps. 

Table 5 

Longterm and Special Non-Cattle Faunal Studies 

230 
The return interval for permanent plot vegetation monitoring varied from pure research studies 

such as Jim Brown•s with monthly sampling to trend analysis (especially frequency and cover trends) 

with annual to three year return intervals; and to longer term intervals for groups focused on species 

composition, biodiversity, soil conditions, and shrub/tree growth (five to ten years). The 

return intervals are not cast in stone. For instance, the Gray Ranch increased frequency of sampling 

from once every five years to every year after a wildfire. Similarly, Ft. Huachuca will increase 

frequency of sampling if a monitoring site signals a possible change in trend. The workshop did not 

have time to fully discuss the implications of varied return intervals. Within the context of permanent 

plot sampling, eight or nine of the groups conducted special studies (Table 4). Eight groups have 

specific programs to monitor production and biomass connected to the permanent plot programs. 

The Jornada is unique with studies related to their permanent plots on biogeochemical cycling, 

nutritional analysis, energy flows, autoecology, phenology of single species and leaf-area indices. 

The NRCS monitors for soil loss in its Natural Resource Inventory program. 

The monitoring of groups of plants with similar life-styles (aggregates of life forms) or vegetative 

trophic levels has not occurred. Four groups monitored the phenology of a group of species. 

Context 

Topography (latitude, elevation, slope, aspect, 

physical barriers, etc.) 

Geomorphology (alluvial fan, fossil sand dune~ 

etc.) 

Soil moisture regime (previous rainfall, water 

holding capacity, inter-storm drought, run-on or 

run-off, ET, etc.) 

Soil profiles and erosion conditions 

Soil biogeochemistry 

Ecostructure (canopy, edge effects) 

Land use history (ethnoecology, grazing, feral 

horses/burros) 

Human structures (fences, waterholes, ·salt 

blocks, roads) 

Unknown or no response 

Groups 

ARR, SRER, CE, TON, SSJB, GR, BANWR 

(select), JER, FHM, SSRC. 

SRER, CE, TON, SSJB, JER, FHM, SSRC, GR 

Rainfall only: TON, GR (scattered)Rainfall/temp 

only: ARR Not specified: SSJB, JER, SSRC 

TON, SSJB (?), JER, FHM (rare), GR (select 50cm), 

NRCS 

SSJB, JER 

CE, SSJB, FHM, GR (notes) 

GR 

NRCS, WSM, SBWR 

Table 6 

Context Data Needed for Long-term Trend Analysis 

The baseline data, inventory, or .. context .. information for long-term studies is summarized in 

Table 6. Almost all groups located their permanent plots after considering topography and 

geomorphology (landscape forms). But, less than half the groups studied soil profiles or 

231 
ecostructures before implementing the monitoring program. No group documented the land use 

history of the site from informants, census records, water and homestead filings, and newspapers. 

The questionnaire unintentionally omitted an inquiry about human structures and infrastructure but 

most of the· range trend monitoring programs designed their permanent plots away from fences, 

watering holes, and structures that might skew the overall range trend. Two groups performed soil 

chemistry studies after setting up permanent plots. The completeness of plant surveys that serve as 

a baseline for biological diversity monitoring was not explored in detail. 

Faunal Monitoring and Studies 

Only the two San Simon Valley studies, Audubon and Jornada have long-term monitoring of the 

Apacherian savanna fauna (Table 4). Very little work has been done on foodweb linkages. Buenos 

Aires has begun five studies within the last five years and the Santa Rita has numerous scattered 

studies associated with vegetation change. No one reported work on soil microbiology studies 

associated with these arid grasslands and shrublands. 

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND WORKSHOP 

Changes in the Apacherian savanna have multiple, staggered causes. Major driving forces are 

inter-storm drought, intense (gray ash) fire, exotic invasions, and intensive grazing. Brown would add 

granivore/herbivore consumption. Jornada scientists would add nitrogen and phosphorus distribution 

and concentration. 11Wildcards11 include hard freezes, founder effects, seed banks, and winds 

(exasperating evapotranspiration, pollination, or fire). The timing and sequence of these events drive 

the ecosystem as much as the intensity of the events themselves. The Apacherian savanna is a 

classic npulse-reserven soil moisture ecosystem (Noy-Meir, 1973). In addition, the Apacherian 

savanna harbors many different geomorphological landscape units, soil profiles, erosive conditions, 

and soil chemistries. Within the Apacherian savannas, the periodic or total removal of livestock 

from grazed lands can show ambiguous dynamics. 11Recoveryn of grazed areas may not occur. In 

some locales, a new 11Stable11 equilibrium has been established. In well-studied locales such as 

Audubon Research Ranch, the removal of cattle both increases the number of faunal species and, 

more importantly, skews the species list in a new direction. From this overview, the following 

conclusions can be made: 

• Context or landscape inventory data for soils and landscape units are crucial. 

• Weather pattern recorders near locations of the permanent plots are crucial. 

• Good observational notes that accompany the permanent plot data and describe 

seasonal or annual events such as hard freezes, insect outbreaks, plant 

disease, hot winds are essential. 

• Determining the location of the permanent plot and sampling method is not a trivial 

problem. 

• Remediation or rehabilitation or recovery of grazed landscape units will not 

necessarily be able to accommodate all three purposes of monitoring: animal production, 

biodiversity, and watershed stability. Remediation techniques (e.g., fertilizer applications, 

reseeding, prescribed burns, fencing) must be custom-designed to the future desired 

condition and monitored long-term to see if the technique is actually driving the landscape 

toward the desired goal. 

The questionnaire revealed that soil conditions and the network of weather stations needed the 

most attention in all studies. Some of the NRCS range units (now called ecological units) need to be 

232 
re-surveyed. More important, many of the study plots did not have adequate soil profiles to provide 

credible replicate transects for comparisons. There were very few 11 reference stands11 or controls for 

range trend monitoring. The best situations occurred at locales such as the Audubon Research 

Ranch which is adjacent to a private rancher. Audubon essentially serves as the reference stand for 

the rancher and, by mutual agreement, monitoring occurs on both sides of the fence. The question 

of fire frequency and intensity on the reference stands (what is nnatural 11?) was broached and 

remains unresolved. 

Although some groups such as the Gray Ranch have the flexibility to change the interval of 

sampling, others do not. Follow ups on nnatural experiments11 by increasing sampling frequency after 

droughts, fires, erosive floods or folivore outbreaks can yield more information than rigid monitoring 

with set -in-stone return intervals. 

The questionnaire revealed very few ~~retrospective studies11 such as packrat midden, tree ring, 

and pollen studies that provide a longer temporal context to the monitoring studies. Similarly, there 

were no land use histories that could provide data on the longterm (more than a century) changes in 

soils, grazing intensity, fires and drought which have shaped today's vegetation patterns. 

A revised questionnaire is shown at the end of this paper. This questionnaire results from our 

first iteration within the workshop. It may help others coordinate monitoring studies within their 

bioregion. Gaps that have been corrected include: stating the size of the landscape unit that the 

permanent plot represents; indicating the shape of the quadrants (circle, squares, points, 

rectangles); better defining the vegetation attributes being sampled; adding land use histories and 

special studies; including observational notes; etc. 

DISCUSSION 

Range Trend and Research Differences 

Mitch McClaran and Peter Warren emphasized the differences between the long-term research 

vs. long-term range sampling methods and return intervals. To determine a cause-and-effect 

relationship credible to academic researchers a 95% confidence level may be required. Academic 

standards may also require a shorter-term manipulative study with a treated vs. control plot to more 

precisely define cause and effects. To determine a change in range trend so that a livestock raiser 

can adjust cattle numbers or pasturage time may require an 80% confidence level. 

While research requires an explicit hypothesis and complete consideration of all possible 

variables, range trends analysis is based on 11 indicator'' prescriptions (e.g., 11 lf snakeweed has 

expanded, the range needs fire and/or rest. 11

) or indices (e.g., cover substituting for biomass). It is 

the job of research to determine how accurate the indices and indicators are. 

Mitch McClaran pointed out that serendipity plays an important role in the monitoring and 

research programs of the Apacherian savanna. Monitoring can provide indications of subjects that 

need more intensive research. The influence of acid rain or climate change are, perhaps, two 

examples in which long-term studies provided the background for research topics. 

Technical Issues 

Table 7 is a summary of technical issues. Not all could be dealt with within the workshop. Range 

trend monitoring could profit from the research-oriented autecology studies (i.e., studies on 

individual grass and shrub species to define their resilience to soil water moisture, geochemistry, and 

fire extremes). The Jornada was the only research group providing this information. Long-term 

233 
• What plot size to reflect a larger landscape unit? What is the linkage between plot and landscape 

scale? Do your key areas reflect a larger landscape? Are your reference plots typical of a larger 

scale? How do you choose your plots to represent larger landscape units? 

• What pattern of placement of macroplots, baselines, and transects is the most meaningful for 

response patterns to disturbances or biodiversity? What do you do when the study area has patchy 

soils, rugged topography, run-on and run-off patterns, and varied aspects? How do you handle 

ecotones and other gradients? When do you need a pilot study and when can you rely on subjective 

judgment in placing permanent plots? 

• What parameters should be measured? How to reconcile the spatial scales required for 

resource management vs. biodiversity? 

• What shape should the quadrants be? Circles? Squares? Rectangles? Points? 

Embedded for biodiversity studies? 

• How many transects to provide a credible generalization? 

• How many quadrants or points along transects? How many random sampling hits? 

• How frequently should the monitoring occur for resource management or biodiversity 

management? What is confidence level used when comparing means of plots or transects for 

range trends vs. research? 

After Monitoring Has Started 

• What do you do to accommodate for the unpredictable nature of external disturbances on 

your study? Do you have enough replicates? Do you change reference stand or control? 

• How have you dealt with varying responses of what appeared to be similar plots or transects? 

• How do you cope with unique events or discovery of unique landscape histories that may 

limit abilities to generalize? 

Table 7 

Technical Issues Involved in Longterm Monitoring 

range monitoring would also profit from research that includes short-term experiments to determine 

more precisely cause and effect (before/after impacts); specific functions of plants or fauna; and the 

resilience and resistance of ecological units to multiple stressors. These short-term experiments 

include exclosures, deliberate burns, fertilizing or reseeding pastures. The Jornada, James Browns's 

studies and the Santa Rita have provided some of these short-term experimental studies. 

Mitch McClaran and others brought up the question: How long do we have to monitor to 

understand trends? McClaran showed slides of nearly a century of range "trends" on the Santa Rita 

and felt that observing the past photographically cannot lead to predicting the future condition of the 

arid grasslands. "Trends," in fact, may not become clear during the period of one professional's 

234 
lifespan. The time scale implied by the term 11 trend11 should be made explicit. The term is also used 

by agencies and ranchers for grazing adjustments over very short time scales. Dan Robinett pointed 

out that the soil constraints to potential shrub and tree invasions may be most useful in predicting 

future possibilities (McAuliffe 1985). 

Peter Sundt showed the result of his ~~running mean II data and said that, if the accuracy required 

for percent cover is +/- 2%, then his point-intercept transects gave representative data after eight 

samples. He felt if the area were reliably homogeneous then even seven transects may suffice. The 

lower the number of transects, the greater the cost savings. 

Peter Warren and Peter Sundt recommended the point intercept method for ranchers and range 

trend analysis. Kris Havstad agreed that this was a method that provided reliable data on cover and 

frequency. McClaran and others pointed out that the point intercept method did not pick up 

uncommon or rare species and was not the best method for monitoring concerned with changes in 

biological diversity and species composition. Peter Warren said that Nature Conservancy uses a very 

focused approach for monitoring rare species. The issue of tracking the frequency of uncommon but 

not rare species and the best monitoring method remains unresolved. All agreed that the 11 rare 

species11 emphasis requires a careful and complete inventory of the range or savanna which many 

agencies and ranchers cannot afford. 

Inter-site Comparisons 

At the moment, comparisons between sites within the Apacherian savanna are difficult because 

of varying methodologies, contexts, and goals. It appears that the NRCS has the best over-arching 

framework for inter-site studies because its land units closely match soils. The Natural Resource 

Inventory could also be modified to provide a bioregional overview. How to coordinate monitoring 

programs and provide NRCS the funding to become the organizational structure for the region 

remains unresolved. Similarly, how to include Mexico and parts of Texas into the bioregional 

monitoring program was not resolved. Finally, the NRI program occurs on state, Indian, and private 

lands. The NRI sites on public lands are supposed to be monitored by the public land agency. This 

has not occurred. 

The questionnaire revealed a need to define plant associations in a more biologically meaningful 

manner (i.e., in a way that better revealed to other monitors the differences between sites). Gloss 

categories such as arid grasslands, savannas, desert or semi-desert grasslands, Chihuahuan desert 

or shrub-steppe were too broad. The Gray Ranch (1994), Fort Huachuca and Robert Chew used the 

formation/series/association levels of Brown and Lowe (19XX). For instance, Ft. Huachuca had nine 

plots in the Eragrostis lehmanniana Association but none in the Shrub-scrub Disclimax series. At 

least as a first iteration, the Brown/Lowe system would help monitors in comparing sites and 

responses of sites to disturbance. 

THE FUTURE 

The future of meaningful monitoring is constrained by funding, organizational stability and 

interest, methodologies, trained monitors, archiving, and public/private information flows and their 

credibility (Table 8). Although funding gets the most attention, all the other constraints can be 

equally important. Dan Robinett pointed out that NRCS, for instance, plays a delicate role as an 

235 
A. Funding (start-up costs, long-term cashflow, archiving) 

B. Organizational structure and stability (including policy changes) 

C. Absence of baseline information and replicates 

D. Reid sampling needs (equipment, methods, trained skills) 

E. Methods (e.g., pseudoreplication and sampling procedures) 

F. Archiving (data and identification vouchers) 

G. Public/private information flows and the issues of credibility 

Table 8 

Constraints on Longterm Monitoring and 

Biological and Resource Management Meaningfulness 

extension agent on private lands. The information collected cannot be made public without 

landowner permission. The long-term monitoring program can be terminated be a simple refusal of 

the landowner. This privacy can provoke skepticism among other interest groups who assume, 

rightly or wrongly, that something is being hidden. There are those who believe that monitoring just 

creates more data and rarely changes policy. So why spend the money? In many instances, the 

connection between monitoring, the interchange of public and private information and policy needs 

trust and clarification. 

Similarly, organizational interest and continuity should not be minimized. Besides the overriding 

need for funding, many participants were concerned that long-term data tend to get lost and, with 

the data, the prime usefulness of the monitoring program. Except at the Jornada, there is no 

mandate to maintain archives. McClaran is working on an electronic archive for the Santa Rita with 

the Forest Service, University of Arizona, and others. 

Dreams and Suggestions 

Havstad, Sundt, Warren, Bill Willcox, Robinett and others discussed rancher-based or 

NGO-based (non-government organization) monitoring. Havstad set out the following criteria: rapid, 

simple, repeatable, quantitative, inexpensive and interpretable. Citizen-based monitoring requires 

funding for educating both citizens and extension agents. The difficulties of grass and insect 

identification, and how to certify a monitor could both be addressed with a 11Apacherian savanna 

monitor certification program.~~ Citizen-based monitoring programs have become more pressing with 

budget cuts to the Forest Service, NRCS, and Bureau of Land Management. 

Peter Warshall suggested that the ultimate goal would be a yearly network in which various 

monitors could report and hear about the responses of local plant associations to the specific year 

timing and intensity of storm patterns. The information, as indicated by Sundt, could best be 

reported using NRCS 11ecological unitS. 11 

236 
Tony Burgess suggested an atlas of major grasses and shrubs of the Apacherian savanna similar 

to the atlas recently completed for the Sonoran desert (Turner, et al.19955). There is little 

information available on the biogeography of Apacherian savanna species. An atlas could bring the 

understanding of range and ecosystem management to a more detailed level and bring Mexico and 

Texas into the discussion. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Almost everyone agreed that we are all neophytes. With all the work done, the publications 

printed, and the data recorded, we still need a lot more understanding on how to graze, how to 

prescribe fire, how to manage both exotics and shrubs, and how different sites respond to similar 

stresses. 

Ranchers, extension agents and scientists all love living and working on the Apacherian 

savannas. Although their goals and methods may differ, they are the .. seed stocks .. whose combined 

efforts will provide both local knowledge and natural history information to public policy and private 

management decisions. Given the erratic nature of the weather, the patchy framework of the hills 

and soils, and the increasing land conversions to housing and exotic grasses, local citizens, 

extension agents, and committed scientists involved with long-term monitoring are the ideal forum to 

provide perspective and advice on the future direction of livestock production, biological diversity and 

watershed health. 

237 
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR APACHERIAN SAVANNA MONITORS 

Name of site: 

Contact name: 

Best address: 

Best phone: Best e-mail and/or fax number: 

Monitoring Techniques for Vegetation Attributes Only 

Permanent Plots (details requested below): 

Repeat ground-based photography (with dates) 

Aerial images (kind/ dates) 

Satellite imagery (kind, dates): 

Other: 

Permanent Plot Description 

Using the Brown, Lowe and Pase (1979) system provide the Formation, Series and Association for each site 

with a permanent plot. 

Using the NRCS ecological site classification, list all the sites with permanent plots. 

Context or Background lnventorv (indicate if background data was used in 

choosing plot locations by underlining item) 

Topography (latitude, longitude, slope, aspect) 

Geomorphology (alluvial fan, fossil sand dune) 

Soil profile (texture, structure, depth, classification, crusts, hardpans) 

Soil characteristics (water holding capacity, infiltration, percolation) 

Weather station (nearest location, rainfall, evapotranspiration, wind, temperature, humidity) 

Soil geochemistry (pH, nutrients, metals) 

Ecostructure (hard surfaces for run-on or run-off, tree shade, landscape shade) 

Human structures (watering holes, roads, fencelines, buildings) 

Water tables (seasonal, height, permanent) 

Basic Info 

When did the study start? 

Is the study continuing? 

Do you have a reference stand which serves as a control with minimal human influence? 

Did you perform a pilot study to determine either the location or methods or sampling procedures for 

the permanent plots? 

What kind of judgments went into determining the location of the plots? 

What kind of judgments went into determining the method or intensity of sampling? Was the sample 

stratified or random? 

Has an inventory for the flora been completed? 

What would you say that your overall goals have been? 

Improvement of forage for livestock 

Natural history of the biotic community 

Comparison of disturbed grassland with a control 

Understanding energy/mass relationships 

Special status species and their ecology 

Soil and watershed processes 

Other 

What monitoring method do you employ? 

238 
(If more than one. indicate which method for which sampling goal) 

Frequency 

Line Intercept 

Step point 

Point intercept 

Density 

Double-weight sampling 

Dry-weight ranking 

Harvest 

Comparative yield 

Other(s): 

Spatial Scale Considerations: 

Size of 11macroplots11 (bounded area of permanent plots): 

The size of landscape unit that the macroplot represents: 

Length of monitoring baselines: 

Number of transects per baseline: 

Length of transects off baseline: 

Width of transects off baseline (if applicable): 

Temporal Scale Monitoring 

What is the return interval for each permanent plot? 

What do you sample for? 

Frequency 

Cover 

Density 

Production 

Biomass 

Forage trends 

Species composition 

How intensive was sampling? Did you include: 

Forage species only 

All grass species 

Subshrub species 

Forbs 

Succulent species 

Woody species (shrubs and trees) 

Exotic flora 

Others (special taxonomic groups?): 

Special Vegetation Attributes 

Leaf-area index: 

Phenology of single species (name): 

Phenology of groups of species: 

Energy turnover in permanent plot or experimental plot: 

Biomass or productivity (described) in plot or experimental plot: 

Plant nutritional analysis: 

Biogeochemical cycling and soil nutrients: 

Other: 

239 
Vegetation Attribute Analysis 

Were data grouped by a particular compartment or trophic level (describe)? 

Were data grouped by growth form category? 

Savanna Fauna and Soil Biota 

Terrestrial species monitored: 

For each species: 

Life cycle 

Seasonal demography (pop size, density) 

Yearly demography (inter-annual trends) 

Foodweb (predators, prey, pathogens, competitors) 

Habitat requirements 

Soil macrobiota sampling: 

Soil microbiota sampling: 

Special Studies That Related to Permanent Plot Monitoring 

For each study, list start and end of study; general scale and return interval for sampling. 

Special status (plant or animal) species: 

Purpose of monitoring (pop size and trend, habitat area and trend, reproductive effective pop, 

extinction probability, carrying capacity, dispersal ability, dispersal corridors, pollinators, other) 

Disturbance studies (deliberate .. treatment" vs ... control .. studies): 

Grazing 

Fire 

Drought 

Mechanical injury 

Plant disease 

Folivore or other faunal outbreaks 

Autecology studies (list species): 

Post -Startup Considerations 

Have you altered the plots or return intervals or methods after startup? Why? 

How do you accommodate unpredictable events and disturbances to the permanent monitoring plots? 

Did you increase replicates? 

How have you dealt with the varied responses of permanent plots that you, at first, thought were similar? 

How have you changed methods or sampling after discovering unique landscape histories that might 

limit generalizations? Or after increasing your information about the plot's context (e.g., soil 

profile or water table location)? 

Reporting Monitoring Results 

Do you report results as averages (means)? What confidence interval do you use? 

Do you use a regression analysis? 

What computer simulation models do you use? 

Summary of Knowledge and Information 

What have you learned about management of the biotic community? 

What do you consider the most important driving forces on your permanent plots? 

Please attach publications related to your monitoring project. 

THANKS AGAIN! 

240 
:., . ' ·~ 

Building an Electronic Knowledge 

Center for Rangeland Management: 

The Arizona AgNIC Project1 

Mitchell P. McCiaran2

; Michael Haseltine and Barbara Hutchinson3

; 

and Jeanne Pfander4 

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) is sponsoring an interdisciplinary team at the 

University of Arizona to develop a prototype Rangeland Management World Wide Web (WWW) 

site. This site will be a component of the national Agricultural Network Information Center 

(AgNIC). 

The Arizona AgNIC team is made up of members from The University of Arizona Library and 

three divisions of the College of Agriculture (Administrative Computer Support, Arid Lands 

Information Center, and School of Renewable Natural Resources). This project team has created 

the framework for a responsive, adaptive electronic reference tool on rangeland management - a 

topic with application not only for Arizona, but for the entire western U.S. and similar regions 

throughout the world. 

The Rangeland Management web site (http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/agnic/home.html) will 

supply fundamental educational information on the principles of the discipline and methods for 

measuring resources and impacts. Users will find glossaries of terms, answers to frequently 

asked questions (FAQs), directories of research projects, full-text documents, primary data, 

hypertext links to other related resources, and search engine options. The web site will also 

provide a forum for discussion of issues relevant to rangeland policies via an associated listserv. 

1 Abstract of a poster presented at the conference. 

2 School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

3 Arid Lands Information Center, Office of Arid Lands Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

4 University of Arizona Library, Tucson AZ. 

241 
Distribution of Chihuahuan Desert and 

Colorado Shortgrass Prairie Species 

Controlled by Soil Moisture 

Heterogeneity 

In a Desert/grassland Ecotone at 

Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge 1 

Charles A. Z. Buxbaum2 

Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama), B. eriopoda (black grama), and Larrea tridentata (creosote) 

are the dominant plants of the McKenzie Flats area of the Sevilleta NWR in Central N.M. Much 

recent research of the Sevilleta LTER has focused on discerning processes that regulate the 

distribution of these species within a deserVgrassland ecotone. In this study, I examine the 

hypothesis that landscape heterogeneity of soil depth and fine-textured fraction controls the 

relative dominance of the three major species. The area is relatively flat, grading at a 2-3% 

slope to the edge of a fault scarp. However, even the within the flattest parts of the landscape 

there are abrupt and dramatic soil changes. These correspond to the presence of buried 

channels that cut through a petrocalcic horizon that formed in a 500-100 ky old buried soil. 

Cluster analysis of soil-moisture-related characteristics and Spearman rank correlation 

analysis of soil data and dominance or codominance of the three species of interest shows the 

following: B. gracilis, a Colorado Shortgrass Prairie species, dominates the buried 

paleochannels, where the soil profile is deepest and clay accumulation is highest; B. eriopoda, a 

Chihuahuan Desert grass, is most abundant where the buried petrocalcic horizon is within 40 to 

60 em of the surface; and L. tridentata is the dominant species where the petrocalcic horizon is 

exposed or near the surface. Understanding edaphic patterns in arid grasslands can help pr-edict 

rates of desert expansion or retreat; and is a critical factor in grassland restoration. 

This study illustrates the strong relationship between geomorphology, soils, and vegetation 

patterns in arid environments. While grassland soils may appear homogeneous at the surface, 

the climatic history of alternating wet and dry periods has caused alternating periods of soil 

deposition and erosion. The vegetation patterns on the recent deposition AI soils of the Sevilleta 

NWR grasslands follow the dissected pattern of a buried past landscape. 

1 Abstract of a poster presented at the conference. 

2 Dept. of Biology University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM. 

242 
A Landscape Approach to 

Monitoring and Assessing Ecological 

Condition - San Pedro Case Study1 

William G. Kepner2

, Kurt H. Ritters3

, Christopher Watts4, 

David C. Goodrich5, Russell Scott5, and Ghani Chehbouni4 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a national approach to assess 

ecological risk relative to exposure to environmental stressors. A key component of this 

framework enlists landscape ecology as a theoretical basis from which to assess cumulative 

exposure to stress at multiple spatial and temporal scales. This project has focused its research 

into developing a system of landscape composition and pattern indicators which can be used to 

estimate current status, trend, and changes in ecological and hydrological condition. Specifically, 

it is designed to determine ecosystem vulnerability relative to large-scale natural or man-induced 

disturbances (e.g. climatic change and livestock grazing, respectively) using a system of 

landscape pattern metrics derived from remote sensing, spatial statistics, and geographic 

information systems technology. The program has proposed a strategy of utilizing triplicate 

Landsat Multi-spectral Scanner imagery from the early 1970s, mid-1980s, and early 1990s, in 

addition to finer resolution imagery (i.e. Landsat-TM, SPOT, and aerial photography) to generate 

land cover data and establish 20-year trends in condition for selected geographic areas. This 

process has been tested in a small community-based watershed in southeast Arizona and 

northern Sonora and has been particularly related to land degradation and habitat modeling for 

selected wildlife species in the Upper San Pedro Watershed. 

Very little quantitative information on a regional or watershed scale is available on status of 

land degradation for rangelands. Rangelands, such as those that occur in the San Pedro 

Watershed, are the most extensive land use of the world dry lands. Nearly 85 of the North 

American rangelands are estimated to be in degraded condition; more than any other continent 

in the world. Landscape composition, connectivity, and patch sizes and number were used to 

evaluate ecosystem resilience and changes in land cover extent and wildlife habitat suitability 

over a 13-year period in the San Pedro River basin. The evaluation determined that extensive 

grassland areas with high connectivity were the most vulnerable ecosystem to fragmentation due 

to encroachment of woody shrubs and cacti. For example, the number of grassland patches 

increased 61% and the average grassland patch size decreased 60% between 197 4 and 1987. 

The preliminary results of this project are presented to 1) illustrate both the indicator and change 

detection strategy; 2) demonstrate the value of the approach to ecosystem and watershed 

management; and 3) demonstrate the potential application of the approach for developing a 

1 Abstract of a poster presented at the conference. 

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas NV. 

3 Tennessee Valley Authority, Environmental Research Center, Norris TN. 

4 Centro de lnvestigacion y Desarrollo de los Recursos Naturales de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora. 

5 USDA Agricultural Research Service, Southwest Watershed Research Center, Tucson AZ. 

243 
national, regional, and watershed program for systematic assessment of ecological condition, 

especially in regard to land degradation in arid and semi-arid regions of the world. 

This research is one component of a multinational long-term monitoring and modeling 

proposal entitled the Semi-Arid Land Surface-Atmosphere (SALSA) Program. Results of the 

landscape analysis listed above will be integrated with other related projects within SALSA to 

determine the consequences of natural and human-induced change on the water balance and 

ecological diversity of the Upper San Pedro Watershed at multiple temporal and spatial scales. 

(Also see http://www.hwr.arizona. edu/salsa/salsa_l.html and http://www/epa.gov/crdlvweb). 

244 
Climatic Causes and Biotic 

Consequences of Recent Shrub Increase 

in the San Simon Valley1 

Thomas J. Valone2

, James H. Brown, and Charles C. Curtain3 

Using chronosequences of aerial photographs, we document a nearly three-fold increase in 

woody shrubs at three sites in the San Simon valley since 1980. At the one site containing a 

long-term cattle exclosure fence, woody shrub increase was identical inside and outside the 

exclosure. The increases in woody shrubs coincided with a climate shift in southeastern Arizona; 

since 1977, this region has experienced significantly higher than average cool-season 

precipitation. Regional warm-season precipitation has not deviated consistently from long-term 

averages. These changes in vegetation and precipitation have coincided with major changes in 

many animal populations at out long-term study site near Portal, Arizona. Populations of 

banner-tailed kangaroo rats, silky pocket mice, burrowing owls, horned lizards and 

seed-harvesting ants have all declined dramatically over the past twenty years. 

1 Abstract of a poster presented at the conference. 

2 Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge CA 

3 Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM. 

245 
The Role of Nonprofit Organizations 

in Grassland Management: 

a Panel Discussion 

Peter Warren, Session Moderator1 

INTRODUCTION 

There are some qualities and conditions of southwestern grassland ecosystems, ecological 

qualities and current social and political conditions, that make grasslands extremely difficult to 

manage in a sustainable way. Some of those conditions are related to the ecology of 

grasslands. To be ecologically functional, grasslands must be large enough to support processes 

like fire. Fire must be able to burn through a pretty large area to have the effect of creating a 

mosaic of patchwork conditions that characterize healthy grasslands. Grasslands need to be 

large to sustain migratory ungulates and they must be open across large areas to function as the 

corridors between mountain ranges for animals like bears, deer, bighorn sheep that travel from 

one mountain range to another. Grasslands require large areas to sustain them ecologically 

and to sustain them economically, from the point of view of ranching. Here in the southwest, to 

be sustainable livestock operation needs large areas in which to move the stock around and 

make the most effective use of variation in rainfall, and productivity, across the landscape. 

On top of the pattern of ecological need for large size, these grasslands are located in valley 

bottoms where we have a complex mosaic of land ownership with state land, many private 

owners, and often some federal ownership. So to consider managing these grassland 

landscapes in a large, ecologically meaningful scale, you have to deal with a lot of the land 

owners, many of whom have different ideas about what they want to do with their land. This 

creates combined problems of maintaining ecological function and being organized socially as a 

community to keep sustainable management activities going on a suitable scale. 

We are faced with multiple challenges in grassland landscapes and we don't really 

understand how to solve the problems of ecological sustainability or long-term economic 

sustainability. We have tremendous need for good information, and better distribution of 

information, about ecological and economic aspects of grassland management. We don't really 

understand how to apply fire in the most cost effective and ecologically effective way. There are 

some information needs, and some research needs, to help us understand how to use fire. 

Typically if you're a commercial ranching operation you do not have the spare pastures and the 

spare time to do fire research. Generally the open valley-bottom grasslands do not have very 

much research going on to help understand how to improve grassland management, so there 

could be a role for non-profits in improving our understanding of ecological management of 

grasslands. 

In most southwestern grasslands with complex ownership patterns, the history has been of 

landowners operating very independently from one another. We don't have a history of working 

together as a community to manage these landscapes on a large scale. In many cases existing 

1 Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson AZ. 

246 
ranches are too small to be managed sustainably for the long term· due to the great 

unpredictability of rainfall in time and space. If neighboring ranches could be managed together 

in a way that allows utilization of the patchy pattern of productivity this could contribute to the 

economic sustainability of grasslands. Non-profits can have a role in encouraging this kind of 

cooperation. 

The combination of ecological and social factors make grasslands extremely difficult to 

manage. The session today will deal with organizing ourselves into community groups and nonprofit organizations that may be able to solve some of these questions. The main point that I 

would like to get across in the session today is that non-profit organizations can take many 

forms and they can serve many functions. 

We have speakers here today who can talk about the tremendous variety of activities that 

non-profit organizations are doing in grasslands of the southwest, ranging from Ben Brown 

talking about the Animas Foundation what they're doing and how their activities in community 

cooperation contribute to grassland management, to Tom Collazo who will be talking about what 

The Nature Conservancy is doing, with a focus on the research end of things in many cases. 

Dennis Moroney from Prescott will talk about the Santa Maria Mountains group, maybe a little 

bit about the Central Arizona Land Trust. Bill Branan will talk about what the Audubon Society is 

doing with their research ranch and what they see their role is. And finally Bill McDonald will talk 

about what Malpai Borderlands Group is doing. 

That's all I want to say for now, that non-profit organizations can play many roles both on 

the ecological/scientific side, and on the community organization side to help find solutions for 

some of these very difficult issues concerning grassland management. 

247 
Grassland Management 

by the Animas Foundation 

Ben Brown1 

My name is Ben Brown and I am the Program Director for the Animas Foundation. The 

Animas Foundation is a private operating foundation created by Drum Hadley and his family in 

1993. The primary purpose of this foundation when it was created was to acquire the Gray 

Ranch from The Nature Conservancy and to manage it in an ecologically responsible manner 

within the context of a working livestock operation. A private operating foundation is a little bit of 

a hybrid. You have probably heard of private foundations and public foundations. A private 

operating foundation is a private foundation that serves a public purpose. The Internal Revenue 

Service treats them as though they are a public foundation in some important ways. 

The Nature Conservancy was seeking a private solution to the long-term problem of 

managing the Gray Ranch and protecting and preserving its significant ecological features. The 

Gray Ranch is a 502-sq mi ranch in southwestern New Mexico. The Animas Mountains run 

through the center of the ranch, and its eastern boundary lies in the Playas Valley and the 

western boundary in the Animas Valley. It contains a large expanse of diverse, high-quality 

grasslands as well as some fairly unique woodland and riparian communities. The Nature 

Conservancy met Drum Hadley when he was given the New Mexico Chapter's Aldo Leopold 

Stewardship Award for his work in restoring the riparian communities in his Guadalupe Canyon 

Ranch. the Conservancy talked with Drum and his family about the peculiar problems of finding 

a satisfactory solution to ensure the integrity of the Gray Ranch over the long term. The 

culmination of these conversations was the creation of the Animas Foundation and its purchase 

of the ranch from the Conservancy in 1994. 

The Animas Foundation has a seven-member board of directors, consisting of Drum Hadley, 

his wife Teresa, his son Seth, Mike Hadley, Leo MacDonald, Sr. (who is also our legal advisor), 

Bill McDonald (a neighboring rancher) and Dr. Ray Turner (a plant ecologist). Our board meets 

four times each year and it is very active in setting the overall management agenda for the 

foundation and the Gray Ranch. 

Our operating programs on the ranch fall into four areas. The first is called Land 

Management and Conservation. Under this program we take care of the unique natural features 

of the Gray Ranch. We have been working steadily at grassland restoration, primarily through 

the restoration fire as a natural process on the landscape. We employ both natural prescribed 

fire and management-ignited prescribed fire to alter and restore the natural structure of the 

grassland communities. We have implemented some mechanical treatments, as well, to 

compare the relative costs and effectiveness of both methods of altering vegetation structure. 

We have some other research that we will touch upon in other program areas, but most of the 

activities under our Land Management and Conservation Program consist monitoring and 

managing the unique natural features entrusted to us. 

The second program area is Science and Education. We operate our own monitoring 

program to document the effects of our management on the natural communities and their 

1 The Animas Foundation, Animas NM. 

248 
constituent plants and animals. When the foundation acquired the ranch, we established a 

network of 114 monitoring plots and established an ecological baseline through quantitative 

sampling. The monitoring regime is designed to be repeated at five-year intervals, but some of 

our plots have burned in natural and prescribed fires, and we have revisited those plots annually 

to track changes in species composition and abundance following these fires. It has been 

interesting to look at these results because most of the effects that we have seen following our 

extensive fires in 1993 and 1994 seem to be more associated with the effects of summer 

drought than the effects of the fires themselves. We also have a number of outside 

collaborators that we work with. Tom Valone, from California State University-Northridge (who is 

speaking at this conference) is researching the effects of fire, looking not only at the changes in 

species composition and structure of the vegetative communities, but documenting the effects 

on vertebrate and invertebrate populations, as well. 

The Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station is researching the effects of fire 

and mechanical treatments, both alone and in combination, on the structure of older, more 

established woodlands and shrub lands. One of their experimental plots is on the Gray Ranch. 

We also have cooperative programs with agencies such as the New Mexico Game and Fish 

Department, various universities, and private cooperators to monitor species which we would like 

to track on an annual basis. There has been a significant amount of work on the fire history of 

the Animas Mountains and how that affects the structure of the vegetation, both in the 

woodlands and the adjacent grasslands. Ray Turner and a panel of scientists are actively 

involved in reviewing proposals from potential cooperators who want to establish research 

programs. We have a formal Science Advisory Panel which assists us in evaluating and making 

recommendations on proposed research projects. If we get a proposal from a potential 

cooperator and it looks like something that fits with the mission of the foundation, we will usually 

try and find a way to get it done. 

The third program area is called Domestic Grazing. We are committed to carrying out all of 

our programs within the context of a working, responsible livestock management program which 

preserves the ranching culture of the Boot Heel as well as the biological diversity of the area. 

Right now, there are two kinds of grazing management programs. The first is called "grass 

banking", and some of you may have heard Bill McDonald talk about his earlier in the 

conference. Some of the pastures on the Gray Ranch have been made available to cooperating 

ranchers who have conveyed a land use easement over the deeded land on their own ranches to 

the Malpai Borderlands Group. The value of these easements is determined by an appraisal 

process and the Malpai Borderlands Group enters into an agreement with the Animas 

Foundation to provide a number of animal unit months of grazing that is determined by the value 

of the easement and the value of an AUM. The "home ranches" are rested, usually for a term of 

approximately three years, permitting them to benefit from rest and natural reseeding. Most of 

these ranchers are engaged in conservation planning in conjunction with an Natural Resources 

Conservation Service range conservationist, planning for better management, prescribed fire and 

other conservation practices. The grassbank ranchers manage their own livestock while they are 

on the Gray, with the foundation assigning them pastures and a desired rest-rotation grazing 

schedule. The foundation has also begun to purchase cattle to build its own cow/calf herd and 

will begin producing calves for sale sometime next year. These cattle will be used both for 

demonstration grazing and for research into the effects of grazing as an experimental treatment 

in conjunction with other management activities. 

249 
The fourth program area is called "Culture and Neighbor Outreach". In this program, the 

foundation works with our local community to support cultural and community activities. We 

also work with the ranchers who are actively involved with the Malpai Borderlands Group, and 

were instrumental in starting this sister non-profit, providing funds for start-up activities. We 

support local community service groups like the volunteer fire departments and the emergency 

medical service. We have helped the Cochise County Historical and Archeological Society with 

by hosting a fundraiser and we work with the Bootheel Oldtimers Association, too. The purpose 

of this program is to help preserve the culture and the lifestyle which make this part of the 

United States and adjacent Mexico unique. 

Our fifth program area deals with the administration of the everyday affairs of the foundation: 

personnel matters, budgeting, and other administrative tasks. However, within the umbrella of 

the first four programs that I have described, we concentrate our efforts primarily on the 

management of the Gray Ranch. As I mentioned earlier, our current emphasis is on grassland 

management and grassland restoration, mainly through the use of fire and grazing. We have 

been very fortunate so far in that we have had to use hardly any management-ignited burns. In 

the years in which we have had fine fuels and wanted to burn, we have been blessed with a lot 

of natural ignition. We haven't had to light many fires ourselves, so far. 

We have also had a lot of cooperation from the agencies that have the responsibility for fire 

suppression: New Mexico State Forestry Department, the Bureau of Land Management and the 

U.S. Forest Service. These are the agencies that deal with wildfires in our part of New Mexico 

and they have cooperated in establishing containment lines at natural fire breaks, backfiring off 

of these and letting fires burn as they will until they reach the containment lines. In 1993, we 

burned about 38,000 acres on the Gray Ranch and in 1994 we were able to burn about 78,000 

acres. With a total of approximately 322,000 acres in the ranch and a preferred fire return 

interval of five years, we are looking at having to burn acreages of these magnitudes in the good 

years to achieve our management goals. We hope to do some more research on the effects of 

fire, particularly on the effects of fire frequency in the grasslands. 

We feel like we know when natural fires occurred in the presettlement grasslands, because 

Mother Nature lights the fires herself at the proper time. In 1993, we had approximately 214 

natural starts on the Gray that we know about, all from lightning storms. In 1994, we probably 

had similar numbers. We rarely have natural starts before the middle of April nor after the 

middle of July. Those fires that do start outside of this April-July window usually don't burn very 

long nor do the burn very extensively. 

I'll quit here and let someone else have the floor, but I'll be around for a bit if anyone wants 

to ask questions about the programs of Animas Foundation and the Gray Ranch. I'll be happy to 

talk with you about them. I do want to brag a bit on the Animas Foundation before I sit down. 

Our foundation was one of the key ingredients in starting up the Malpai Borderlands Group and 

this whole landscape/ecosystem planning effort. This was largely due to the vision of Drum 

Hadley, who thought that this magnificent piece of country that we call the Gray Ranch had the 

ability to leverage conservation action outside of the boundaries of what he and his foundation 

could afford to buy. I think that the results so far have proven that his hopes were true. I think 

that Bill McDonald will tell you that the Malpai Borderlands Group is finding that they have a 

similar (and probably more extensive) ability to leverage grassland conservation and grassland 

restoration efforts beyond the 900,000 or so acres that we call the primary planning area. Good 

ideas are contagious. 

250 
Private Ranchers 

Cooperating on Public Lands1 

Dennis Moroney2 

My name is Dennis Moroney and I'm, I think in some ways, kind of an odd duck in this 

situation because I ranch mostly on public land. Our ranch is 30 miles northwest of Prescott, 

approximately 76 square miles, 98% of which is Prescott National Forest land. We bought the 

ranch just under 5 years ago. We came into a situation in which the community was very much 

caught up in kind of a polar opposition on issues related to land management, and in particular 

grazing on public lands. My background teaching agriculture in public schools and working in the 

public school system, has kind of prepared me for dealing with conflict and inter-personal 

relationships inherent in dealing with public trust. What has developed in our area is a group 

that we call the Santa Maria Mountains Group. 

The land itself is extremely diverse. We sit at the top of two water sheds. The ranch 

basically straddles the Santa Maria Mountains, the east side of the ranch is at the top of the 

Verde River Watershed, the west side is the Bill Williams Watershed. We sit, in many respects, 

on the urban-wilderness fringe. The country to the northwest of us, you can go from our ranch 

to the Grand Canyon and encounter virtually nothing. There's the small town of Ash Fork and a 

few small subdivisions out in the grasslands, but it's a really wild piece of country beyond us. 

Looking the other way toward Prescott, there's an incredible development taking place at a very 

rapid rate. Two ranches that are neighbors of ours have been purchased and are undergoing 

subdivision right now. One of those ranches has been in the same family for over 100 years and 

they actually wrote into the deed restrictions for prohibition of commercial agriculture of any 

kind. We feel that that makes for neighbors that are probably going to be pre-selected to be not 

particularly be favorable to the kind of work we're involved in, so we are kind of alarmed at the 

trend. 

BACKGROUND 

What we found is that in talking with different people, everybody h3s certain expectations of 

the land, and because it is public land, there already is a constituency who see it as a 

recreational asset or as a place to find solitude or a wilderness experience: two designated 

wilderness areas are within a horseback ride or a long hike from our home. I will describe some 

of the polar positions that have helped define the middle ground where we were. On one hand 

we had very strong "Earth First" contingent folks who were absolutely dedicated to the removal 

of all cattle grazing from public lands, and for whatever reason Prescott is home to a lot of those 

folks. They have been very actively involved in the permit removal process with the Forest 

Service, and even on our ranch prior to the time that we had bought it, there has been incidents 

where there was a direct confrontation between the Forest Service and Earth First folks. On the 

other hand the neighboring ranchers essentially are pretty traditional, pretty set in their ways, 

1 Transcribed by Nova Suenaga and Diana lmig, Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson AZ. 

2 The Santa Maria Mountains Group, Prescott, AZ. 

251 
extremely dedicated. I'll use these descriptors hoping not to offend anybody, but they were kind 

of in the anti-government movement, the property rights coalition, standing firm, holding solid, 

"fighting for all that's ours." 

FORMATION OF THE SANTA MARIA MOUNTAINS GROUP 

I guess in some respects being kind of a generalist I share some of the sympathies of both 

ends of the spectrum. I felt that if there's any future in ranching on public land in this particular 

area, we're going to have to bring these two sides together and we're going to do some talking 

and have some discussion. We became involved in establishing what we call a "Collaborative 

Management Team." We invited folks that fell across that spectrum from one end to the other. 

We invited the people that wrote letters to the editor, asked them to give us lists of names and 

address of people that they felt should be involved in the discussion We invited neighboring 

ranchers, we contacted folks at Prescott College, Yavapai College, agency people, sportsmen's 

groups, anyone and everyone that we could conceive could possibly be interested in the land. 

We met people out on the ranch and asked them if they had any concerns about the future of 

this piece of land and would they be interested in participating in the process. 

We made some ground-rules. We said, first of all, that you come to the meeting 

representing only yourself and your personal values. You can't come and say you're a 

representative of a constituency, that you're with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, or Earth 

First, the Audubon Society or whatever. It doesn't matter what groups you belong to you come 

representing only yourself and you own values. Secondly, we would sit in a circle, and go around 

the room initially, and every single person introduced themselves, shared a little bit about their 

expectations for the process or what they expected from the land, and by that process we 

began to develop some trust, we put a human face with the enemy. Instead of grouping and 

boxing people like, "He's damn environmentalist, he's a selfish land-raping rancher," we viewed 

each person as a human being. Thirdly, we said everything was a potluck. We're going to sit 

down and eat together, and share the process· or whatever happens in the bonding when people 

share a meal. And lastly after every meeting, we have an ending time for the business portion of 

the meeting, but the social aspect can go on for hours. 

Next, we went through a process to set goals for the land trying to be absolutely as inclusive 

as possible within a framework that would lead us to some actions on the land. We followed in 

a very loose, I'll say even liberal interpretation of holistic resource management, and came up 

with a three part goal. I'm going to go ahead and bore you with sharing the goal mostly in the 

hope that you can understand where we were coming from. I will tell you that in arriving at the 

goal it took a long time and it was very frustrating in many respects because some people were 

intransigent in their positions on certain things. We agreed to work on those areas of agreement 

first and go outward from there toward the polar positions because we build from that a core of 

things that all agreed upon. That helped in terms of a conflict resolution. 

There are three parts of our goal. First of all is a portion related to the quality of life, to 

spend time working and playing in a natural setting that provides opportunities for solitude and 

creativity, enjoy a rural lifestyle characterized by environmental, economic, and social 

responsibility, diversity of plants and animals, and enough leisure to spend enjoy family 

activities, cultivate relationships with family and friends of all ages and diverse points of view, 

experience good health, clean air and water, nutritious food, and enough life energy to deal with 

strife. You can picture different people's values being apart of this just like a quilt. Pursue life252 
long learning, personal and spiritual growth, meaningful work, and contribute to our community 

and environment, share a community characterized by cooperation with, understanding of, and 

respect for our unique differences whether they be lifestyles, politics, spiritual or cultural values. 

This is pretty important to some folks. 

The forms of production, or the outputs, or the things that the land must provide to support 

this quality of life are the second part of the goal. We call it management for a healthy and 

sustainable ecosystem characterized by biodiversity for present and future generations, 

producing profit from solar energy both directly and indirectly through domestic livestock, 

cultivated crops, native wildlife and plants, and providing educational, recreational and aesthetic 

opportunities, and producing abundant clean water and high quality habitat for the benefit of the 

community. What does the land have to look like in order to support that kind of production? 

We tried to describe a future landscape which would create and maintain a full range of natural 

diversity within the grassland, chaparral, pinon-juniper, and ponderosa pine communities, to 

reduce the amount of bare ground, to reduce the amount of run-off from uplands, and increase 

the amount of moisture so it can get into the ground. We want to see perennial streams, and a 

mosaic of mixed grasses, shrubs, and trees. We want to create movement corridors which 

enhance watershed values, utilize natural materials for buildings and improvements, and 

maintain large areas of open space. Once we have formulated a goal and agreed that it is 

something we could all support then looking at what were those areas most in need of attention 

that would bring us toward fulfillment of the goal. 

We identified three areas in particular that would essentially begin the process. I really can't 

go into a lot of detail about the conditions on the ranch, but the ranch prior to our ownership 

had very little maintenance. We had a lot of problems that needed adjustment right away. We 

looked at three areas that jumped out at us right away, feed, water and predation. The feed 

situation on the ranch is such that the grassland community was in a pretty serious decline, with 

quite a bit of juniper invasion into areas of the ranch that had been initially grassland, a number 

of treatments that had been done in the 50s and 60s, chaining and pushing and crushing 

juniper and chaparral, burning juniper and chaparral. There was evidence where some things 

had worked, some things hadn't worked, but in many cases the energy cycle, or nutrient cycle 

on the ranch was bound up in woody material, a lot of bare ground, a lot of active erosion, and 

relatively poor performance from the cow herd, and even wildlife. We began to look at what we 

could do from the ranch from the private side of it. There's only a certain amount that we're 

going to be able to do on our own. We need to reach out and take advantage of some of the 

other resources that are available. The Santa Maria Mountains Group, which numbers loosely 

about 150 people, gets about 40 to 50 people at a good meeting. There is a wealth of 

tremendous creativity that has enabled us to really pull some things together. 

ONGOING PROJECTS 

Right now we have three major projects that are ongoing on the ranch which address three 

weaknesses. We have a grant proposal that will address the chaparral component and a 

problem that we have with shrub live oak on the ranch and its nutrient tie-up. We looked at a 

number of ways to deal with that problem. The old paradigm was to destroy the scrub oak; we 

need to remove that and create grassland. Most of those earlier projects failed. Burning, 

crushing, pushing, and chaining resulted in a return of chaparral after 25 or 30 or 40 years. So 

we said, well, it may be that in those areas that were grasslands that were invaded we can 

253 
sustain grassland, but in those areas that are chaparral we're over our heads with it, so what are 

we going to do. 

The University of Arizona, Utah State University, the Forest Service, and the Santa Maria 

Mountains Group, have collectively written a grant proposal that looks at expanding on some 

research done in Israel and at Utah State University supplementing cattle or supplementing 

livestock on high tannin diets with something called polyethylene glycol. Now, I don't know a lot 

about polyethylene glycol, but I've been told that it lies similar between an alcohol and sugar, it's 

a carbon chain. It's used in a full range of food products. It's approved by USDA and the Food 

and Drug Administration. They have what they call food-grade polyethylene glycol. I was 

fascinated with work done in Israel where they had been feeding sheep and goats and found 

that with a very tiny amount of this stuff, it was breaking the bond that holds energy and protein, 

and they got a tremendous amount of livestock response and apparently the polyethylene glycol 

goes through the animal with no particular effects. That's a little bit skeptical because we're 

kind of into organic food and clean and natural things, but at the same time I saw this dilemma 

with oak brush as a serious problem. So we got a full blown project where they're gonna have a 

research student on the ranch all summer, and they'll be doing this with a small group of cattle 

and will replicate a similar program that Utah State in a fine situation. And if indeed it works and 

if indeed it meets the criteria of our goal to be ecologically and environmentally sustainable and 

responsible, it could be a real breakthrough for people ranching in this chaparral community and 

we're kind of excited about it. 

The second project deals with juniper in grassland, predation and nutrition, because all of 

these things are linked, but there is another entity in our community called the Juniper Institute. 

Its members are also members of the Santa Maria Mountains Group and it's goal is to look at 

the Juniper not as a weed, or as the enemy, but as a resource in something that we can use to 

create sustainable communities and economies within these communities, so we have a grant 

proposal and a project put together with the Juniper Institute, we've already had a Ph.D. from 

Germany who came and has not published a paper looking at the economic uses for juniper in a 

world market view. Looking at everything from chemical sources, pharmaceuticals, various wood 

and paper by-products, just every possibility. And that paper is now being edited for publication 

by the Juniper Institute, the Highland Center which is a nature education program in the Prescott 

area, the Forest Service, the Santa Maria Mountains Group, the Phoenix Zoo whose animal 

observation team has begun quarterly monitoring the mountain lion population on the ranch, 

the Environmental Protection Agency is concerned about some watershed aspects of Juniper 

woodlands and the fact that we have very active erosion in juniper monocultures and especially 

in areas where juniper has invaded the grassland, and Arizona Game and Fish is concerned 

about the habitat implications. 

Initially we wanted to do a large burn and open up an area that was adjacent to some open 

grassland where we have not experienced live predation. It seems as though the politics of 

getting the burn accomplished are just unbelievable. When we burn we are putting a lot of 

carbon into the atmosphere rather than into the soil horizon, and so we asked what could we do 

that would mimic a burn or mimic some benefits of a burn that would not lose this carbon from 

the energy cycle. So what we proposed was to do a green fuelwood cut of juniper, or a green 

juniper product cut where we could remove firewood, fence posts, stays, the larger scale usable 

products and leave the slash on the ground. Then we're going to some seeding and leave some 

areas not seeded as an experiment, but bring in mulch in the form of cheap, poor quality hay, 

bring cattle in concentrate them on this cut area by using hay as bait. They will then tramp down 

254 
the juniper slash, plant the grass seed, prepare the seed bed by pressing mulch into the area, 

and we've got a couple of small experiments with this on our private land, and we're very 

pleased with the results. Over about three years, when it rains, we get grass established pretty 

readily and the first wave includes annuals and weedy types of pioneer species, followed by the 

establishment of the perennial warm season grasses. We're hoping to see the cool season 

grasses come in as time goes on. 

Our final project is one to establish waters, or re-develop some waters in some areas of the 

ranch that were being very much under-used because of lack of water, and again, pulling in 

cooperation from a variety of agencies and entities that, in this case, included the Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation and the Prescott Area Wildlife Habitat Community, and so on, and I 

guess that the essence of my message is that there is a lot to be done on the land to bring out 

what we all want from it, and many of the people that are stakeholders but not ranchers can 

play an active role in bringing about a sustainable situation in our grasslands and in our public 

lands by working together, cooperating, and by doing what each of us can do individually and 

collectively. 

255 
Grassland Management by the 

Nature Conservancy 

Tom Collazo1 

The Nature Conservancy, for those of you who don't know, is a national and international 

non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to preserve plants, animals, and natural 

communities that represent the diversity of life on earth, by protecting the lands and waters they 

need to survive. We accomplish this mission in a variety of ways, including land acquisition, 

cooperative partnerships with public and private land owners, and activities to strengthen the 

ability of local communities to manage and conserve natural elements. Just as we've heard 

about ranchers evolving in their perception of what their role is, or their relationship to natural 

systems, TNC has evolved over the years, initially as an organization that went out and bought 

lands and set them aside as nature preserves, and I think that as we learn our business, we take 

a broader ecosystem approach and we realize that we can't, nor should we, own all of the 

lands necessary to maintain naturally functioning systems such as grasslands. 

Our programs in Arizona can be characterized as both intensive and extensive. I think an 

example of the extensive type of work we do in the field is the sort of thing that Peter Warren, as 

a Field Representative of TNC, does such as consulting with different groups such as Malpai 

Borderlands Group or with Forest Service, or with other public and private land owners. This kind 

of activity could include commenting on land use plans, making nominations for special 

management area designations, gathering data and providing input to the data management 

systems that are maintained by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and others as the basis 

for decision making and ecological management and research projects, again both with public 

and private land owners around the state. 

On the intensive side is the management of areas where we have a direct land ownership 

interest and a direct management responsibility. We manage a system of nature preserves 

around the state. We have 12 preserves that include two areas which are primary grassland 

management areas: Aravaipa Canyon and the Muleshoe Ranch Cooperative Management Area 

where the Conservancy has played a role by acquiring base property that has been associated 

with BLM and USFS grazing leases. These are areas which have significant biological resources, 

where the highest quality biological assets are native fish communities. Aravaipa is distinct in 

having seven native fish endemic to the southwest. Muleshoe streams support 5 native fish as 

well as riparian habitats and breeding areas for zone tailed and black hawks and several other 

riparian dependant species. 

We feel that protecting these rare aquatic elements includes the grasslands and watersheds 

that are an integral part of the systems that maintain the riparian areas. This got us into the 

grassland management business. I think that what these areas represent in demonstrating the 

role a non-profit like the Conservancy can play in grassland management is that we are able to 

work cooperatively with our public land management partners and, as I think you are going to 

hear later this morning in the case of the planning process we've just wrapped up at Muleshoe 

Ranch, also involving neighboring land owners and ranchers. We took an approach where the 

1 Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson Al. 

256 
highest value part of the natural system can be incorporated into a planning process and where, 

because the Conservancy does not have the imperative to turn a profit from livestock grazing 

operations, we can bring other resources in to improve ecosystem conditions. 

Once the ecological conditions and functions are restored and functioning properly, we can 

then make available forage accessible to other land managers and livestock operators in the 

larger ecosystems of which these are a part, to leverage protection of the larger ecosystem or 

the larger watershed by cooperative involvement. This is essentially the grass banking concept 

pioneered at the Gray Ranch by the Animas Foundation and the Malpai Group. We took a look 

at it and thought it was a pretty good model. Interestingly enough, while these areas had very 

high biological values, they also had some pretty heavily impacted rangelands where shrub 

encroachment was a serious concern. 

What we brought to the planning process was our approach which is to try to find ways for 

the natural ecological process to be used to restore natural grassland community structure. We 

developed ecological models which try to predict how the different processes of grazing and fire 

can move the grassland communities from the current condition with a lot of shrub 

encroachment into the desired future condition where amount and species composition of 

perennial grasses would be improved and shrub canopy would be reduced. The benefit would be 

in terms of returning the land to more productive use as well as creating a functioning watershed 

that would benefit, in the long run, the restoration and long-term maintenance of the riparian 

communities. 

I think our time is getting kind of short, so a couple of other things that I would like to 

mention, on the extensive side we have a number of voluntary private conservation programs 

going with different land owners around the state where through conservation easements we can 

help ranchers achieve their goals of staying on the land, ensuring that grassland landscapes are 

not subdivided in the future and in some cases providing some necessary cash flow to get 

rangeland improvement programs going. We also do a lot of work in the area of education and 

outreach. We work cooperatively with the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum to produce the Desert 

Speaks television program where we are able to communicate what's going on -- all the exciting 

projects you have been hearing about in terms of partnerships and working together to restore 

fire landscapes. Communicating stories about the need for, and achievements of , a 

cooperative approach to ecosystem conservation out to a much broader audience around the 

country so people can understand the issues is another role that we play. 

257 
Use of Volunteers 

In Land Management 

Bill Branan1 

Volunteers can be an important part of a land management strategy. Following is a single 

example, but there are many I could mention for The Research Ranch and no doubt there are 

countless other examples on other areas. 

The Research Ranch was criss-crossed by about twenty-five miles of fencing just three years 

ago. In addition, its seventeen-mile perimeter fence was not wildlife friendly -- a fact that 

became clear one day as my wife and I watched a herd of thirty pronghorns attempt to enter the 

Research Ranch. Unfortunately, back then our perimeter fence•s lowest strand was about six 

inches above the ground and strung so that the pronghorn had great difficulty getting under or 

through -- pronghorn are very poor jumpers, thus going over the fence is not really an option for 

them. Anyway, four antelope got through onto the Research Ranch. The other twenty-six 

couldn•t make it. Then the four couldn•t get back out to rejoin the herd. Ultimately the herd split 

up for the night. We realized that something had to be done. 

We contacted the Arizona Antelope Foundation for advice. To make a long story short, we 

enlisted volunteers to remove most of our interior fences and to upgrade most of our perimeter 

fences to wildlife standards -- removing the bottom two strands of barbed wire and then adding 

a new, barbless lower strand twenty inches above the ground. We had ranchers, retirees, 

attorneys, and the whole spectrum of folks working together to remove and upgrade fences. In 

fact, volunteers donated over ten miles of the barb less wire. The budget savings has been 

enormous -- probably more than $20,000. The good will we earned was enormous for the 

Research Ranch, but also for grasslands in general as so many from so many backgrounds 

worked together. Currently, we are replacing any wooden perimeter posts with steel posts 

recycled from interior fences, which will also provide us the ability to institute a burn plan on the 

Ranch-- burning can be problematic with wooden fence posts. Incidentally, nothing has gone to 

waste -- the steel interior posts are being moved to the perimeter. The wooden posts are 

heating several of our buildings -- we measure firewood in miles, not in cords. The old wire was 

given to a small company that fashions it into decorations, including cowboy hats, boots, pistols, 

cacti, etc. -- to date the Research Ranch•s old wire has been exported to over 30 countries, 

which makes us about the most international ranch on earth. 

Volunteers assist in research -- probably 25 people will participate in our upcoming sparrow 

round-up, but there are many other opportunities to learn by working with some very 

knowledgeable and patient scientists. Volunteers also maintain our buildings by creating 

straw-bale exterior insulation, rewiring, replumbing, repainting, and on and on. 

We recruit volunteers mostly by providing guided tours of the Research Ranch, in fact, it's 

difficult to get onto the Ranch and not receive a tour from my wife. We've learned that the 

Research Ranch sells itself once folks discover what s happening there. 

1 National Audubon Society, Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Elgin, AZ. 

258 
Cascabel Management Committee: 

A Report to the Grasslands Conference 

Dave Harris1 

BACKGROUND 

The Nature Conservancy and the Bureau of Land Management purchased approximately 750 acres of 

riparian lands along the San Pedro River near the unincorporated community of Cascabel during the years 

1991 to 1993. Since 1993 Conservation Easements have been purchased on other tracts bringing the total 

of protected lands to about 900 acres within the riparian corridor. 

Concerns about future uses of the property and the need for a management plan have been raised by 

TNC, members of the community and cooperators of the Redington Natural Resource Conservation District 

since at least 1994. In 1995 the Redington NRCD board agreed to convene a committee of interested 

parties to work with the BLM and TNC to develop a management plan that addresses the needs of the BLM 

and incorporates the thinking and concerns of the community. 

The committee held its first meeting sans BLM in July 1995 to discuss who should be involved, explore 

the issues of significance to the community and to make decisions about how the planning process should 

oroceed. The participants in this meeting agreed: 

Process should be open to those residents of the river corridor, TNC, BLM and other agencies with 

1ecific management responsibilities. Issues of particular concern included fire management, flood hazards, 

fence maintenance, public access, preservation of streamflow, security of BLM lands, and exotic species. 

The process should take place over a six month time frame, the plan should be concise and try to address 

the major issues of the community, BLM and TNC. 

Since that initial meeting there have been 10 formal meetings and several field trips which involved a 

variet'J of community members, NRCD cooperators and TNC representatives. The meetings have been for the 

most part facilitated by BLM personnel. Costs and the work of carrying out the process have been shared by 

BLM, TNC and Redington NRCD. Information regarding the process and specific outcomes have been 

communicated through direct mailings of minutes to participants and to the overall community by publication 

of minutes in the Redington NRCD newsletter. The BLM was tasked to draft the plan and handle other 

mandated public involvement processes. 

At present the Cascabel Management Committee has completed the planning process and is reviewing 

and revising the draft plan. The participants view this plan as a working document that will reviewed on an 

annual basis and revised if necessary. The life of the plan is five years. There is an understanding that 

funding and implementation of all components of the plan will likely require the involvement of the 

community, Redington NRCD, TNC, BLM and other agencies. 

1 Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson Arizona 

259 
ISSUES AND OUTCOMES: 

Hydrology 

All parties agree that preservation of stream flow and water quality are the number one priority within the 

planning area. All land use decisions will consider impacts to the hydrological and biological integrity of the 

San Pedro River. 

Fire 

• This is an issue of great concern within the community and a great many recommendations were 

developed in the course of the planning process .. There is a recognition that the areas of high fuel 

buildup and high fire risk occur mainly on private lands within the community. The Nature Conservancy 

and BLM have offered to provide expertise and recommendations regarding fire management issues but 

the community is divided on how best to resolve fire threats to private lands. The BLM fire policy for its 

own property is immediate and complete suppression of all wildfires. 

Access And Recreation 

• Access will be by non-motorized means only through two access points that have been specified by the 

community. Parking at access points will be developed to accommodate a few ears and will include 

gates so that the access areas can be closed as needed. Foot trails may be developed to guide visitors 

to the river. Overnight camping is not allowed. Hunting will be allowed but information will be made 

available to hunters that describe the locations of dwellings and property lines. Signage related to 

hunting will be provided under programs of Arizona Game and Fish Department. Plinking or target 

practice is not allowed. 

Sanitation 

• Litter control will be addressed on a site-specific basis but trash cans will not be provided to discourage 

trash accumulation and wildcat dumping at access points. 

• Sanitary facilities will be provided at parking areas to avoid sanitation risks. 

Boundary Fencing 

• Old internal fencing within the BLM properties will be removed. 

• Perimeter fencing will be repaired or replaced as necessary and signage installed to delineate private and 

public lands boundaries. Fencing materials will supplied to adjacent private land owners for maintenance 

of fences. 

Land Management And Stewardship 

• The formation of a voluntary "friends" group is desirable and will be encouraged to assist the BLM in the 

management of the public lands. 

Vegetation And Wildlife 

• Vegetative and wildlife biological diversity are important ecological values and should be considered in all 

land management planning issues and resolutions. 

• Exotic vegetative species are a concern to all parties and their control will be sought through a variety of 

methods as this plan is implemented. 

260 
Livestock Grazing 

• The public lands within the riparian floodplain will not be grazed to allow riparian regeneration to occur at 

the most rapid rate. The Cascabel community is exploring the possibility of developing a 11Cascabel 

Commons11 grazing plan on private property to lessen fuel loading and achieve economic benefit to 

livestock operators. The community is divided over the place of this concept within this public lands 

management plan. 

Process Considerations 

Many of the participants were veterans of the San Pedro River Coordinated Resource Management 

Planning Process and this experience has played a role in the acceptability of certain concepts. A strict 

consensus process was rejected by the group in favor of a limited consensus process that relies on the BLM 

to play the role of referee in contested issues. Likewise there was some concern that the process be 110pen, 

but not too openll to prevent uninvested parties from unduly influencing the process or outcomes strongly 

· · .' supported by the community. 

Certain issues that transcended the purely public lands management charge such as fire management 

and grazing have become controversial and their inclusion is not favored by all members of the community. 

While no decisions have been finalized it is likely these issues will not be addressed in the final plan but will 

be transferred to some other arena for further discussion and resolution by appropriate sectors of the 

community. 

In general the basic issues of concern to the community, TNC, and BLM surrounding the public lands 

have been discussed and addressed in a reasonable fashion that can be accepted by all the participants. 

261 
Grasslands Management on Public Lands: 

Panel Discussion 

Jeanne Wade2

, Moderator3 

1•m Jeanne Wade and 1•m a District Ranger at Sierra Vista Ranger District on the Coronado. Someone 

said something that was very noteworthy in light of today•s session as well as our life-long journeys: We need 

to celebrate our successes. What I find is that we don't do enough of that. Today•s an effort to do a little bit 

of that. We need to feel good about things we accomplish and share that with others. I find that we•re 

generally timid about that. In fact, when I heard Bill McDonald speak this morning about just scratching the 

surface of successes that related to the Malpais effort, which some people would deem as highly successful, 

I found that really interesting. What we tend to do as far as success goes is to measure it in the long-term, 

the final outcome, and we fail to acknowledge that there are incremental steps that go on that are in effect 

successful and we sometimes even fail to acknowledge that to ourselves and others. Today we want to 

acknowledge some of those incremental steps and successes on the way to successful grassland 

management strategies. 

The University of Michigan just recently conducted a study on ecosystem management, which is sort of a 

broad term-management as it relates to resource management. It's an assessment of the current 

experience and it describes successes of projects all over the country. There are over 104 examples, 

including the borderland Mal pais effort. They describe success in the participants• own terms. Successes 

were outlined as specific positive outcomes. There were twelve of them and 1•11 talk about the top five that 

were articulated in this research that was conducted by Steven Yaffey as well as many graduate students, 

including Paul Hardy who•s with the TNC now in the San Pedro area. The first one, of which 7 4 of the 

respondents commented that it was a positive outcome, was improved communication and cooperation as a 

success measure. That involved federal agencies, local and state government, nonprofit, private land owners, 

the business community, and within agencies and organizations within themselves. Development of 

management plans was something that would articulate mutual goals and strategies for multiple 

stakeholders. 62% felt that that was a huge measure of success. Development of decision-making 

structures. 56% felt the creation of partnerships, committees, some sort of task force, that was collaborative 

in nature and transcended agencies and businesses was an important measure of success. Sometimes they 

could be very loosely formed, but some sort of structure that was coordinating the efforts that were going on. 

For 50% of the people a change in the approach to land management is really an important measure of 

success. People felt that that change was a shift in emphasis from a singular focus to something more 

broad, more multiple. It could be multiple species instead of single species or multiple issues. The fifth one 

was on-going restoration activities, such as restoration of the bioregime or re-introduction of native plants 

and animals. What's interesting to me is that much of the early success has been measured in process, not 

necessarily outcomes. I thought this was worth mentioning at the start of this panel because I think there is 

a lot of success in the process and I think it's been demonstrated nationally as well as locally. The examples 

that you•re going to hear about today exemplifY that. 

The time we have will be split between two examples of that kind of success: the Muleshoe Ecosystem 

Management Plan and the Empire-Cienega Conservation Area. 

2 Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista AZ. 

3 Summarized by Jennifer Ruyle, Coronado National Forest, Tucson AZ. 

262 
The Muleshoe 

Cooperative Management Area 

Grant Drennen1 and Ed Brunson2 

BACKGROUND 

The Muleshoe Cooperative Management Area (CMA) is located in the Galiuro Mountains in southeastern 

Arizona within northern Cochise County and southern Graham County. The CMA is jointly managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest SeNice (FS), and The Nature ConseNancy (TNC). The 57,500 

acres comprise major portions of the Redfield, Hot Springs, and Cherry Springs watersheds. Included within 

the CMA are the Redfield Canyon Wilderness and Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC), administered by the BLM, and a portion of the Galiuro Wilderness, administered by the FS. 

In 1982, TNC purchased the Muleshoe Ranch and its grazing leases to protect and manage its riparian 

areas and associated aquatic, plant, and animal communities. A land exchange in 1986 allowed the BLM to 

acquire the state lands of the Muleshoe. The Muleshoe CMA was established through the signing of a 

Cooperative Management Agreement by the BLM, FS and TNC in 1988. The FS Galiuro Wilderness was 

originally designated by Congress in 1964 and was enlarged in 1984. The Redfield Canyon Wilderness was 

designated by Congress in November 1990. The Hot Springs Watershed ACEC was designated through the 

Safford Resource Management Plan in 1994 in order to provide special management for the significant 

riparian resources in the Hot Springs watershed. 

Historically, the ecological sites on the Muleshoe were producing near their natural potential. The aspect 

of the rangeland was an open grassland dominated by perennial grasses such as plains lovegrass, cane 

beardgrass, black grama, slender grama, sprucetop grama, bush muhly, curly mesquite, vine mesquite and 

several threeawn species intermixed with leaf succulents including beargrass and amole (NRCS range site 

guides). However, partial or extensive invasion of mesquite, juniper, whitethorn, Mormon tea, mimosa, 

snakeweed, and burroweed has occurred over much of the area. Intense grazing pressure and wildfire 

suppression over the past century have resulted in the transition of much of the area from grassland to a 

desert shrub vegetative state. Continuous yearlong livestock grazing prior to The Nature ConseNancy's 

acquisition of the ranch resulted in a reduction of some of the desirable perennial grasses (such as plains 

lovegrass and cane beardgrass) and an increase of invasive shrubs (such as mesquite and whitethorn) and 

succulents such as amole. 

ECOSYSTEM PLANNING 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) brought together an interdisciplinary team of resources 

specialists from the BLM, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), FS, TNC, Soza Mesa Ranch, SaguaroJuniper Association, and Bayless and Bucketed Company to prepare a plan for the Muleshoe Ecosystem. The 

team members owned or managed land or resources within or adjacent to the Muleshoe Ecosystem and 

shared the common goal of restoring and enhancing the resources and ecological processes of the 

Muleshoe Ecosystem through cooperative effort. A draft plan was released in October 1996. 

1 Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Reid Office, Tucson AZ. 2 Aravaipa/Muleshoe Preserves, The Nature Conservancy, Arizona Chapter, Aravaipa AZ. 

263 
The planning process included scoping for issues; analyzing resource information to develop specific, 

measurable objectives; pre~cribing management actions to meet objectives and solve issues; designing 

monitoring to measure success in achieving objectives; and evaluations which provide for the plan to be 

updated and improved on as new data or issues are brought up. 

The major goal of the Muleshoe Ecosystem Management Plan is to restore natural processes. There are 

six primary objectives for upland vegetation, riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, 

wilderness management, and social environment. Prescribed fire and rest from grazing are the primary 

actions to restore grasslands and riparian areas; Restoration of grasslands will benefit watershed condition 

and function which will in turn benefit riparian condition and function and the fish and wildlife species that 

live in these habitats. 

PRESCRIBED FIRE PROGRAM 

Inventories conducted by TNC and BLM showed that fire suppression and over-grazing had left the land 

with undesirable vegetation conditions. The vegetation communities, including riparian, shrubland and 

grassland were all below potential. Since 1990, TNC has conducted one or more prescribed burns each 

year with the exception of 1994 and has been monitoring their effects; these burns ranged from 20 to 300 

acres in size. Monitoring results indicate that fire has been effective in reducing shrubs and in promoting 

new growth of grasses. In 1995, the first large scale burn was conducted on the Muleshoe in the watershed 

for Wildcat Canyon. The 2300 acre burn was a cooperative effort with TNC and BLM. The Muleshoe 

Ecosystem Management Plan proposes an expanded prescribed fire program. The plan designates 15 fire 

units which would each be burned on a 5-10 year cycle until the desired ecological state is reached. Three 

to six units on average would be burned annually. For the first five years, no more than 20% of the total 

acreage within all burn blocks will be treated with prescribed fire. After desired ecological states are 

achieved, the plan proposes to have less-frequent burns, preferably through prescribed natural fire, to 

maintain the desired states. The ultimate goal of the prescribed fire program is to restore fire as a natural 

process within the ecosystem. 

CONCLUSION 

A major purpose of acquisition and management of the Muleshoe is the protection and restoration of 

native grasslands and riparian systems. The key to successes so far has been the help of dedicated people 

who want to protect and restore the area. Focusing on commqn ground has helped to reduce conflicts and 

keep plans and projects going. The Muleshoe Ecosystem Plan is a product of such a partnership approach. 

264 
The Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation 

Area 

Karen M.Simms3

, Mac Donaldson4

, and Joe Sacco5 

INTRODUCTION 

The Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area (RCA) is located approximately 50 miles southeast of 

Tucson and just north of Sonoita, in southern Pima and northern Santa Cruz counties, Arizona. The RCA is 

situated in a basin between the Santa Rita and the Whetstone mountains at elevations ranging from 3300 to 

4900 feet. Annual rainfall is quite variable but averages 15 inches. Temperatures may vary from highs near 

100 degrees F in summer to lows below 29 degrees F. The vegetation is predominately Chihuahuan 

semidesert grassland. These semidesert grasslands are perennial grass-shrub dominated rangelands 

positioned between the Chihuahuan Desertscrub type below and the Madrean Evergreen Woodlands above. 

Just over 36,000 acres of public land within the RCA were acquired by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) in 1988 through a private land exchange with Anamax Mining Company. BLM traded scattered urban 

parcels near Phoenix for these high resource value lands. Grazing leases on an additional 37,000 acres of 

State Land came with the private lands. Additional exchanges have brought the public lands within the RCA 

to just over 45,000 acres. There were several driving forces behind the land exchange. A major one was the 

threat of development. In the 1960's, a master plan was developed for the Empire-Cienega by Gulf America 

Corporation. If implemented, over 40,000 homes would have been built on the properties. Associated with 

this threat were Pima County's concerns about the potential loss of urban space near a growing metropolitan 

area, with aquifer recharge, and with the potential of flooding into Tucson if the area was developed. 

Another major factor was the high resource values of the Empire-Cienega. 

RESOURCES 

The Bureau of Land Managements purpose in acquiring the ranches was to preserve and enhance the 

high resource values. These values include a critical watershed which is important to Tucson for flood control 

and aquifer recharge, a Federal Register historic site, endangered species, extensive riparian areas, broad 

expanses of native grasslands, outstanding wildlife habitat, scenic open space and high potential for 

dispersed recreation. 

The Empire-Cienega has a long and colorful history. The Cienega Valley has been inhabited by humans 

for approximately 5000 years. Evidence has been found for the Archaic, Ceramic, Protohistoric, and Historic 

periods of occupation along portions of Cienega Creek and its tributaries. The more recent history of the 

Empire Ranch dates to the early 1870's when Walter Vail acquired a small ranch which he added to over 

several decades until it encompassed over 1000 square miles. Vail added on to the original 4 room adobe 

house to eventually build a sprawling 23 room ranch house. The house is now on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

3 Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office 

4 Empire-Cienega Ranch Allotment 

5 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region 5 

265 
... ··:. 

Cienega Creek dissects the broad alluvial valley between the Santa Rita and Whetstone mountains as it 

flows north. Cienega Creek and its tributaries support over 20 miles of riparian area including cottonwoodwillow and rare cienega (marsh) plant communities (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). The riparian zones are 

of great importance to many wildlife species which are obligate or show a strong preference for riparian 

vegetation and surface water. Three native fish inhabit Cienega Creek including the endangered Gila 

topminnow. Several other special status wildlife species including the Chiricahua leopard frog also depend 

on the riparian areas in Cienega Creek. Riparian areas create havens and provide food and water sources for 

migrating birds and other animals making seasonal or daily movements. 

The Chihuahuan semidesert grassland is the most prevalent plant community in the area and generally 

occurs between 3600 and 4600 feet. Characteristic perennial grass species include black grama, sideoats 

grama, plains lovegrass, cane beardgrass, three-awns, curly mesquite, and big sacaton. These grasses are 

intermixed with various succulents such as yuccas, agaves, beargrass and sotols. Shrubs such as burroweed, 

whitethorn acacia, mormon tea, and wolfberry occur in varying densities. In some areas along Cienega 

Creek mesquite has invaded into the grassland type. Almost pure stands of big sacaton occur on the level 

floodplains, low stream terraces, and first and second order tributaries of Cienega Creek. These sacaton 

stands have also become a rare plant community (Humphrey 1958, Bahre 1991). 

These diverse, native grasslands support a variety of wildlife including a reintroduced herd of pronghorn 

antelope and several other big game species. The endangered lesser long-nosed bat feeds on agave in the 

grasslands. A variety of bird species including northern harrier, Mearn1

S quail, Baird1S, Botteri's and 

grasshopper sparrows also depend on the grasslands. 

The grasslands provide forage for a successful livestock operation and support a variety of dispersed 

recreation activities such as camping, hunting, horse-back riding, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, and even 

hang-gliding. Competitive recreation events have included bird-dog field trials, mountain bike races, and 

mountain man rendezvous. Several research projects are on-going. Commercial uses include filming of 

movies and leasing of utility rights-of-ways. 

Livestock Management 

The Donaldson1s management philosophy for livestock grazing on the Empire-Cienega is based on one 

herd of mother cows, moving through a series of flexible pasture rotations as the seasons progress. The one 

herd concept is used to maximize rest in all other non-grazed units and to better utilize the different species 

of grasses. Multiple selection of species is possible and regrazing of specific species is kept to a minimum. 

The husbandry of the cattle becomes more efficient due to their concentration. The ranch is divided into 11Units of Useability11 , which are variable size units of rangeland that will support the base herd for a certain 

period of time during a certain time of the year. The units are tied to 11primaryn water sources. The units are 

determined and affected by location and quality of water sources, topography, fencing, rainfall patterns and 

amounts, vegetative composition , salt and mineral use, and wildfire. The key to this management approach 

is to have a variety of options available for any planned grazing rotations, and to be able to quickly change 

from the plan when range conditions or livestock needs are different than anticipated (Empire-Cienega Ranch 

Interim Livestock Management Plan, 1995, BLM, Tucson Field Office files). 

A 11Biological Planningn process is being used to determine planned livestock management actions. This 

planning is conducted in February (prior to the spring growing season) and September (following the 

monsoon rains). The Units of Useability are evaluated for their suitability for livestock use during the 

upcoming pasture rotations. A proposed rotation strategy is developed based on the animals physiological 

needs and the condition of the vegetative resource. The proposed rotation is charted on graphs. This 

strategy is then presented to the biological planning team to identify and resolve any conflicts with other 

resource uses or objectives. This team is composed of a diverse mix of resource specialists, agency 

266 
representatives, wildlife managers, University of Arizona professors, neighboring land users, 

environmentalists, and other interested publics. 

The team discusses the biological plan, visits both grazed and proposed grazing units, assesses the 

condition of the resource, and makes any necessary changes to the proposed plan. If consensus cannot be 

reached the BLM Field Manager makes final decisions. Once the biological planning has been completed 

and the upcoming grazing rotations scheduled, the livestock graze the particular unit of useability selected 

until monitoring of forage utilization levels and animal performance indicate the need to proceed to the next 

unit in the rotation. Desired levels of utilization may vary based on the 11 key .. forage species selected, plant 

phenology, time of the year, current condition of the unit, and intensity of past grazing use of the unit. 

Generally utilization of key forage species will not be allowed to exceed an average of 40% of the current 

years production. 

Land Use Planning 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has initiated long-term land use planning to guide management 

of the 45,000 acres of public land within the Empire-Cienega RCA. The BLM is striving to increase and 

improve public involvement in planning and management activities on public lands through community 

outreach, education, and the formation of partnerships with various organizations to balance the needs of 

people and resources. These concepts are reflected in the new approach that BLM is taking for planning on 

the Empire-Cienega. The approach involves greater public participation in all aspects of planning as well as 

improved communication and coordination with surrounding landowners both private and public. A 

~ommunity partnership has been initiated to chart the future management of these lands. The partnership is 

completely open and includes all individuals, organizations, groups, and government entities interested in 

1 ••. ~lrticipating in development of the future of this area. Working groups have raised a variety of issues related 

to public lands in the Sonoita Valley. They are generating goals and specific, measurable resource objectives 

and will be developing management recommendations to achieve the objectives and solve the issues. They 

will provide input on monitoring design and on an evaluation process which provides for the plan to be 

updated and improved on as new data or issues are brought up. 

There are many potential conflicts between the variety of uses of these grasslands including livestock, 

wildlife, and recreation. Increasingly, the area around the Empire-Cienega is becoming popular for 

ranchettes and Sonoita is growing. This interface between public and private property also creates the 

potential for conflicts such as fire management of grasslands. Our panel today presents perspectives on 

some of the strategies we•re using for maintaining the grasslands and managing them for a variety of uses. 

Karen Simms, Ecosystem Planner and Wildlife Biologist, BLM: 

Ongoing planning and management activities on the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area 

illustrate several successful public land management strategies: 

1). Land Exchanges: The BLM has completed several land exchanges where parcels with low resource 

values and relatively high development value have been exchanged for high resource value lands in more 

rural areas. Through this process, the BLM has been able to block up public lands in manageable units and 

large areas of open space, such as grasslands on the Empire-Cienega, and associated resources have been 

protected from development. At the same time, scattered tracts near urban areas which are difficult to 

manage effectively and have low resource values have been disposed of. 

2). An endangered species success story: On the Empire-Cienega, we have grassland and riparian habitats 

which support 3 endangered species (a fish, bat, and plant). We also have a successful grazing operation. 

Many of the conflicts that we read about in the newspaper have been avoided by working together, sharing 

diverse views, and recognizing that having a healthy resource base benefits everyone. An example: 

267 
Biological planning meetings are held twice a year on the Empire-Cienega as part of the grazing plan. 

These allow diverse interests to have input into the upcoming pasture rotation and other aspects of the 

grazing operation and provide an opportunity to look at resource conditions on the ground. This open 

communication builds trust and reduces conflicts. As an example, it has allowed the grazing operation to be 

adjusted to provide fawning cover for antelope at the appropriate time and to protect habitat for the 

endangered fish. 

3). The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP). The SVPP is a volunteer gathering of agencies (federal, 

state, and local), organized groups and interested public who share a common interest in the future of public 

land resources in the Sonoita Valley. It developed from the need of the BLM to prepare a management plan 

for the Empire-Cienega. Two working groups (natural resources and people) meet monthly. The groups have 

raised issues and helped develop goals and objectives for the public lands. They have provided input into 

several BLM and USFS proposals and will be working on recommendations for management actions. 

There are several factors which have contributed to the success of these strategies. The first is increased 

communication on a variety of levels. Communication has included education on scientific and technical 

topics, sharing diverse views, and finding common ground. The second is the opportunity to have a greater 

level of participation in planning for and managing public lands by being directly involved in preparing a plan 

and implementing projects. The third is the emphasis on partnerships which allows the agency to 

accomplish a great deal even with limited resources. These partnerships, although implemented at the local 

level, result in a blending of national and local level issues and priorities. 

Mac Donaldson, Rancher, Empire-Cienega Allotment: 

Management of grazing and problems with resources, land, and grass: 

• Rest is vital to restore/maintain land. 

• 30% fluctuation in livestock numbers is used as dictated by resource conditions. 

• Success of grazing strategies under management by Donaldsons for past 20 years and combined with 

BLM management for past 8 years measured by: 

• expanding springs and increased length of perennial water in streams 

• increases in native grasses, e.g. Plains lovegrass 

• erosion control with grass, grass filling in gullies. 

• T& E species--have seen increase of quality of habitat (grass and streams) and species 

Coordination 

• Twice each year, the BLM, ranchers, biologists from Arizona Game and Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and other interested agency representatives and public get together out on the ground. They 

review the grazing plan for the next 6 months, identify potential conflicts and resolve them, and visit 

areas of concern on the ranch. Biological planning team involvement is instrumental for improvement of 

resources and success of grazing operation. Communication has helped create trust with outside groups 

and reduced conflicts with natural resource groups. 

• Sonoita Valley Planning--vision is to protect values of rural lifestyles and open space associated with 

grasslands, forest and wildlife. Groups are vocal-maybe not educated in natural resources but we can 

educate people to use and care for this region. 

• From a rancher's point of view to work 11With11 agencies and interested public is much more productive 

than being in conflict. 

• Bottom line: Healthy resources mean healthy cattle and business. 

268 
Joe Sacco, Wildlife Manager, Arizona Game and Fish Department: 

Several positive results from both biological planning and Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership 

approaches: 

• Decrease of conflict with natural resource groups. Biological planning working with diverse interests to 

implement ideas and management, Sonoita planning--generating community support in what is to 

occur; 

• People recognizing how they effect wildlife. 

• Good to see different perspectives of diverse groups and users. 

• Educating the public to work together to accomplish success. 

REFERENCES 

Bahre, C.J., 1991. A legacy of change. Univ. of AZ Press. 

Hendrickson, D.A. and Minckley, W.L., 1984. Cienegas-Vanishing climax communities of the American 

Southwest. Desert Plants 6(3). 

Humphrey, R.R. 1958. The Desert Grassland. Bot. Review 24:193-253. 

269 
Grassland Management on 

Tribal Lands: a Panel Discussion1 

Gary Nabhan2

, Moderator 

Gary Nabhan opened the session with comments on the importance of having two-way conversations 

among tribal people and others and pointing out that it used to be just "white men" telling people how to do 

it the white man's way. Therefore, he invited information from representatives present from the Tohono 

O'odham Nation, Navajo Nation, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON THE TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION 

Homer Marks and Erwin Juan spoke about management of grasslands on the 2.8 million acre Tohono 

O'odham Nation. The area is divided into eleven districts, each with its own management style and 

problems. Governing Councils make many decisions in a democratic fashion and in most areas activities 

such as round-ups are handled collectively. While some areas are fenced, many areas are not. The 

presence of highways, where lands are usually fenced may complicate management. The association owns 

the cattle and all have one association brand, but individuals run their own herds and have a second 

individual brand. The association rounds up cattle, taking 10% of the proceeds for upkeep of the area. They 

also round up wild horses. Homer Marks described management in the 293,000 acre district where he 

lives. There is no association and most decisions are made by consensus. The process is quite democratic 

and everyone has a voice. Although he is a "small owner" he is the President of his district for a two year 

term. The "big owner" is "just one of the guys." His district is working toward better management and trying 

the H RM method, but more fences are needed. 

There are real management differences between the "old days" and the present, especially response to 

drought, which occurs about once each decade. In the old days, people kept cattle and let them die of 

starvation. Now they prepare for drought and reduce cattle numbers where appropriate. Problems arise 

when many cattle are placed on the market at once and the prices plummet. The association attempts to 

save money for drought periods. 

Erwin Juan spoke about his 9,000 acre district which is divided into fenced off areas. Highway 86 cuts 

the district in half and is a conduit for the exotic lovegrass. His district is a little higher than the one Marks 

described and gets a little more rainfall, so conditions are different. Herefords used to be the main breed, 

but now they are cross-breeding for leaner meat for today's market. 

In some areas the mesquite and acacia are so thick you can't ride a horse through, although cattle can 

get through. They have tried to eliminate mesquite by chaining to stimulate grass production, but found that 

sometimes it just stimulated tree growth. They have tried to break areas down into smaller pastures, but 

found that sometimes that just made it possible for more catclaw acacia to grow. They are also trying 

prescribed burns, but that is not allowed near Kitt Peak. 

1 Summarized by Barbara Tellman, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, 

Tucson AZ. 

2 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson AZ. 

270 
•. \ ~· 

The association is trying to educate people on better management of the land, especially young people 

who are more responsive to new ideas than the older people are. Two or three families own most of the 

cattle and there is a need to work together. 

MANAGEMENT ON THE NAVAJO NATION 

Elsie Nez described conditions and problems on the Navajo-Hopi partitioned lands area where she works 

for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Hopi lands are surrounded by Navajo lands, divided into three districts. 

She manages one of 468,000 acres. When the lands were partitioned, an inventory was done of people, 

sheep, cattle, goats, horses, etc. Most of the Navajo area is open range with no regulations. The Hopi 

lands are fenced off and have regulations. Throughout the Navajo Nation each district is different and one 

chapter may have several different associations dealing with grazing matters. Bureau of Indian Affairs pretty 

much operates in a "hands-off" manner, with the associations and chapters being independent. 

It is very difficult to manage grazing and most of the area is in really poor condition. Some of the worst 

depletion has been in the past ten years. They are trying to get people to reduce their livestock numbers 

voluntarily, but without great success. Regulations are being held up by politics and BIA has little money for 

management. BIA maintains windmills and fences, but is mostly into education and persuasion. There are 

many project in the planning stage, such as earth dams and erosion control measures, but everyone is just 

waiting for regulations to be accepted by the Navajo Nation and the federal government. 

MANAGEMENT ON SAN CARLOS LANDS 

Teresa Goseyon talked about problems on the San Carlos Apache lands, which are very different from 

either the first two areas discussed. The lands range from desert to high mountain alpine conditions and are 

divided by mountain ranges. There are seven major cattle ranches, all with Herefords. Five associations 

govern the areas with elected boards. Each ranch has its own brand. Cattle can't be moved from desert to 

mountains during drought periods because of ranch boundaries. Politics plays a big role in decision making. 

The "big owners" have a great deal of power and the "little guys" have little say. 

Traditionally, all the cattle have been Herefords, genetically bred for that environment. Some recent 

attempts at cross-breeding have not been too successful because the biggest ranch owners don't want 

change. San Carlos Apaches have been very successful in rodeos, training on the local cattle in the 

mesquite-juniper lands. 

The recent drought hit the area pretty badly and there were few backup resources. One major problem 

was in transporting water from San Carlos Lake to the cattle. The water is owned by the San Carlos Irrigation 

Project (Anglo, not the tribe). Only the top 1811 of water in the lake belong to the tribe. Laws to protect fish 

may help the tribe since the Project may have to close the dam gates to protect the fish. This was one of 

the few times that the tribe appreciated environmental laws. 

SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATER DISTRICTS 

Kristin Egen, representing the Natural Resources Conservation Service, described the role of Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts which occur on all Indian lands except the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The 

Southwestern Indian Association is attempting to coordinate dialogues among tribes to discuss farming, 

grazing and other issues, so that tribes can learn from each other and improve their methods. 

271 
Tohono O'odham Tribal Herd Ranch 

Erwin Juan1 

The Tohono O'odham Tribal Herd Ranch is located about 40 miles west of Tucson, Arizona in the Upper 

Sonoran Desert Shrub resource area. The ranch is approximately 20,000 acres with 21 paddocks for the 

grazing rotation. The ranch is a cow/calf operation with Barzona/Hereford crosses. 

The Tribal Herd was established in 1933-34 by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Then it was known as 

the Papago Tribal Herd. Primarily it was started as a demonstration project to show the accepted methods 

of proper animal husbandry, geared to the O'odham stockmen. The Herd Ranch also had a bull rental 

program available for ranchers wishing to upgrade their herds through breeding bulls or replacement heifers. 

The bull rental program was phased out in 1985, but the replacement heifer program is still in place today. 

The only difference is that now the stockbulls are sold to the individuals to be used at their discretion and 

then disposed of at no loss to the tribe. 

The Tribal Herd Ranch still utilized the services that are offered by the Branch of Natural Resources 

formerly the Land Operations of the BIA. Technical assistance is provided by the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service with monitoring transects to measure forage use and species changes over time. 

Grasses and Livestock on 

Native American Lands 

Homer Marks1 

The Tohono 0 1odham-Nation is the second largest reservation in Arizona, with 2.8 million acres plus 

divided into 11 districts. The problems encountered within the boundaries of the Nation, in reference to the 

livestock business are many, but to me the one main thing is ... management. Without proper management 

of our land and its resources our livestock, wildlife, and all other things dependent on these resources will 

suffer. The type of management needed at this point is different to the 0 1odham and therefore resistance 

will be encountered. Traditional management of livestock is still being applied on our Nation1S lands, but 

times have changed and the 01

odham ranchers need to change also. A change in the type of management 

being applied on the Nationls lands is needed. With the decline in numbers of cowboys, we as livestock 

owners need to re-evaluate our mental outlook as far as the livestock business is concerned. As time goes 

on the older generation of cowboys is dwindling and new breed of livestock owners is coming in with a 

different outlook on life. 

The time is right to try new approaches and methods of range management. Different areas of our 

Nation1S lands have applied newer forms of management such as Holistic Resource Management or 

Rotational Grazing and it has improved their land as well as their resources. Even now, other ranchers are 

trying new methods and approaches to proper range management and the upcoming years will see a positive 

direction for the livestock owners on the Tohono 0 1

odham Nation. 

1 Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells AZ. 

272 
Chapter IV 

Seeking Solutions to Grassland Problems 

A wide range of possible ways of dealing with the threats to grasslands was presented in a 

series of panels. New techniques in grazing management were discussed by Karl Hess and three 

ranchers from New Mexico and Arizona, in a session chaired by Diana Hadley. Ron Tiller chaired 

two panels on grassland restoration. Papers from these sessions and summaries of some of the 

talks are supplemented by poster presentations. Nontraditional uses of grasslands were the 

subject of a panel led by Nathan Sayre from which summaries are presented. A session moderated 

by Thea Uhlen included a paper by Bonnie Colby on the economic benefits of preserving open 

space and open space issues in Cochise County, Arizona. A panel on planning and zoning led by 

David Yetman looked at land use planning as a management tool, and panels led by Doug 

Koppinger and Luther Propst looked at alternatives available to private landowners for preserving 

their land - including conservation easements and land trusts. Cooperative partnerships were 

discussed in a panel led by Ann Moote with case studies of successful partnerships offered by a 

private rancher, a non-profit group representative, and a Bureau of Land Management 

representative. The technique of conflict resolution was presented in the form of a simulation in 

which people played roles in dealing with a fictional grassland conflict. This session was run by Kirk 

Emerson and the Udall Center for Public Policy. 

Innovations in Grazing Management 

Breaking the Mold: A New Approach to Range Reform 

Karl Hess, Jr. ............................................................ 275 

Restorative Grazing 

Jim Winder ............................................................. 283 

Grazing Management In Arid Grasslands Using Principles of Holistic Management 

Kirk Gadzia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 

The Malpai Borderlands Group: Ecosystem Management in Action 

Bill MacDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 

Grassland Restoration 

Use of Native Species in Revegetation of Disturbed Sites (Arizona) 

Richard D. James ......................................................... 297 

Natural Site Conditions and their Effects on Establishment in Grassland Restoration 

Margaret Livingston ....................................................... 304 

Considering Genetic Diversity in Grassland Restoration 

Steven Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 

Revegetation of Abandoned Agricultural Fields in the Sonoran Desert 

Jerry R. Cox and Gary Thacker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 

Holistic Reclamation: A Natural Remediation Process Using Cattle and Other Natural Tools 

Terence 0. Wheeler ....................................................... 312 

Planting Giant Sacaton: Initial Results at Cienega Creek Natural Preserve 

Julia E. Fonseca and Ronald L. Tiller ..................................... , ..... 316 

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, a Possible Tool for Restoration of Giant Sacaton Grasslands 

Linda Kennedy Elliott, Jean C. Stutz, 

Ronald L. Tiller and Juliet C. Stromberg ......... , ................................ 319 

273 
Mineland Reclamation in Arid Environments 

Stu Bengson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 

Revegetation of Native Grasses at a Mojave Desert Gold Mine 

Raymond Franson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 

Land Imprinting for Restoring Vegetation in the Desert Southwest 

Robert M Dixon and Ann B. Carr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 

Non-Traditional Uses of Grasslands Panel 

Introduction to the Panel 

Nathan Sayre, Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 

Use of Grasslands for Movie-Making 

Tom Hildebrand .......................................................... 331 

Using Grasslands for Environmental Education 

Roseanne Hanson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 

Using Grasslands for Birding Tours 

Chris Benish ............................................................ 333 

Rural-Urban Grassland Connections 

Tom Orum .............................................................. 334 

Methods for Preserving Open Space 

Economic Benefits of Preserving Natural Areas 

Bonnie G. Colby .......................................................... 337 

The Future of Grasslands in Cochise County, Arizona: Identifying the Issues 

Judy Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 

The Use of Zoning to Protect Grasslands Panel Discussion 

David Yetman, Moderator ................................................... 346 

Planning and Zoning as a Land Management Tool 

Arlan Colton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7 

Land Use in Santa Cruz County 

Brian Friedman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 

Being a Sticker 

Dan Dagget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 

The Value of Your Land Today and into the Future - Choices Landowners Face 

Lane Coulston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 

Estate Planning for Ranchers 

Gregory V. Gadarian, J.D .................................................... 356 

Land Management Partnerships Panel Discussion 

Introduction to the Panel 

Ann Moote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 

Strategies for Creating Successful Partnerships 

Luther Propst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 

Empowering Land Management Partnerships 

Eric Schwennesen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 

The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership 

Karen Simms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 

Conflict Resolution 

Trouble In Tortuga! A Rangeland Conflict Simulation Exercise: 

Simulation Materials and Evaluation Report 

Kirk Emerson, Hal Movius, and Garri Dryden ..................................... 369 

274 
Breaking the Mold: 

A New Approach to Range Reform 

Karl Hess, Jr.1 

ABSTRACT 

Public rangeland policy is failing for fiscal, ecological and equity 

reasons. Federal agency grazing programs are plagued by deep 

deficits, range conditions are unsatisfactory in many areas, and 

range resources are not equitably distributed. A new policy approach 

is needed-a market-driven one that shifts costs to range users, 

protects range resources, and ensures equal opportunity to all. 

Under such an approach, existing grazing permits would be 

grandfathered-in as 30-year (or more) public land leases and would 

be fully marketable for uses and users that include but are not 

limited to ranching and ranchers. Prescriptive management of public 

rangelands would be replaced by outcome-based management. 

Lease holders would enjoy broad managerial discretion within the 

bounds set by localized standards. Elected resource councils would 

give policy direction to land agencies and set local standards. 

Bio-Diversity Trust Funds, financed from public land revenues and 

distributed by resource councils, would be used to protect 

non-market amenities. 

RANGELAND POLICY: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

Since the turn of the century, three issues have set the theme, pace and direction of debate for 

public rangeland policy. Those issues are: 

1) the fiscal state of public rangelands; 

2) the ecological condition of public rangelands; and 

3) the degree of equity in the allocation of public rangeland costs and benefits. 

Fiscal State of Public Rangelands2 

Grazing fees were first assessed on public lands in 1906 by the U.S. Forest Service for the 

purpose of covering the administrative costs of livestock grazing. Over the years, controversy has 

arisen regarding 1) the comparability of public land grazing fees to private land lease rates and 2) 

1 Karl Hess, Thoreau Institute (Portland OR), rangeland ecologist and environmental writer 

Las Cruces, NM. 2 As applied in this paper, the terms 11public rangelands~~ and 11public lands11 refer to both BLM 

and Forest Service lands. 

275 
the extent to which fee revenues do or do not cover government administrative costs. 

The GAO concluded in 1991 that the current fee formula signifjcantly understates 

the market value of grazing on public lands.3 In contrast, economists at several western universities 

believe that the same formula .. capture[s] the market value of the [public] forage if the ranchers 

investment in the grazing permit is recognized. 114 

Both arguments are true. The GAO is correct: the current grazing fee does not return revenues 

to the U.S. Treasury commensurate with private land lease rates. Also, fees have not kept pace with 

inflation. The 1980 fee, when inflation adjusted, is 300% greater than the 1996 fee. Economists, 

too, are correct: below-market grazing fees are capitalized into the value of grazing permits. The real 

fee paid by ranchers is the formula fee plus the cost of interest on capital invested in the permit. 

Taxpayers, of course, collect only the portion of the value of public land grazing that is set by 

the formula fee (minus the 50 percent of fee revenues returned, by law, to ranchers in the form of 

range improvements). The greater residual value, the capitalized 11SUbsidy .. so to speak, goes 

elsewhere. It is traded among ranchers, sold initially as windfall profit and then paid for as a routine 

cost of ranch operations. 

The grazing fee problem entails more than a public shortfall in revenue, though. Even if 

taxpayers captured the full market value of public land forage, the grazing programs of the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service would still be selling grass at below 

taxpayer cost. Official agency figures put the combined public land grazing deficit at almost $100 

million per year.5 That figure, however, likely understates the true deficit and the true cost of the 

federal grazing programs. Data from the Office of Policy Analysis in the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, for example, place the actual BLM grazing deficit at or above $200 million annually.6 

Assuming the Forest Service deficit is similarly understated, the real taxpayer tab for public land 

grazing may be as much as $400 million each year. 

Higher grazing fees, even if elevated to full market value, will not substantially reduce the 

current public land grazing deficit. Instead, federal costs must be reduced. 

Ecological Condition of Public Rangelands 

Questions of rangeland health cast the darkest cloud over the public land grazing programs of 

the BLM and the Forest Service. Data collected since 1935 show only moderate improvement in 

rangeland ecological condition. Moreover, most of that improvement comes from ending the 

pre-1935 open range, not from intensive federal management and vast, taxpayer-financed range 

reclamation and restoration projects. If anything, a long history of prescriptive management by the 

federal land agencies in conjunction with disincentive-laden public policies and federally-subsidized 

rangeland projects have fostered and deepened degradation of arid public lands. 

Regulatory factors, such as the federal grazing permit system, its formalization of overstocking, 

its politicization of grazing management, and its institutionalization of market failure, have made 

3 General Accounting Office, .. Rangeland Management: Current Formula Keeps Grazing Fees Low, .. 

June 1991. 4 E.T. Bartlett d al., 'The Market Value of Public Land Grazing: Implications for Grazing Fee Policy, .. 

in Current Issues in Rangeland Economics (Moscow: University of Idaho, 1994), p. 91. 5 .. Reforming the Western Range, .. Different Drummer 1:2 (Spring 1994) P 39. 6 Robert Nelson, 11An Analysis of Revenues and Costs of Public Land Management by the Interior 

Department in 13 Western States Update, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. D. I, September 1982. 

Nelson later revised and updated the report•s finding to 1995. 

276 
poor grazing practices a predictable outcome on public rangelands. The stewardship disincentives 

inherent in small and community grazing allotments and the managerial disincentives implicit in 

regulatory prohibitions on grazing non use add to the problem. Further, a long history of intensive 

federal range improvement projects, rising permit tee indebtedness, emergency feed allocations, 

range betterment funds, subsidized experimental stewardship programs, government technical 

support services, and taxpayer-supported animal, insect, and brush control have perpetuated and 

rewarded non sustainable livestock use of public lands. 7 

Environmental groups have added to the controversy over ecological condition by expressing 

dissatisfaction with the slow improvement in public grazing lands. Studies by the General 

Accounting Office, for example, indicate that two-thirds of public rangelands remain in less than 

good condition and that the majority of western riparian areas and streams continue to be 

overgrazed and degraded. 8 

Despite an abundance of data, there is no national consensus on whether rangeland health 

and the rate of its improvement are satisfactory or not. What is satisfactory to ranchers or to the 

federal agencies is often unsatisfactory to hunter groups, recreationists, wildlife enthusiasts and 

wilderness devotees. Yet, the absence of an absolute standard against which to gauge the health of 

public rangelands does not alter the fact that increasing numbers of Americans are dissatisfied. 

Their public land expectations are not being met. 

Science aside, the conflict over public land health is ultimately a clash of land-use values made 

inevitable by the politicization of rangeland resources. For this reason alone, a tightening of federal 

control and regulation over public land use is unlikely to attain the varied landscape outcomes 

sought by a highly complex and expanding universe of public rangeland users. 

Equity in Allocation of Public Rangeland Costs and Benefits 

Public rangeland policy was formulated during an era when 1) the rural West was dependent on 

natural resource extractive industries; 2) federal subsidization of agriculture, including livestock 

production, was deemed appropriate by society; and 3) demand for alternative uses of public 

rangelands, such as recreation, wilderness, clean streams, and abundant wildlife, was minimal. 

Today, those conditions have changed. The economy of the public land West is no longer 

dependent on extractive industries. Agricultural subsidization is now frowned upon in public policy. 

And demand for non-livestock uses of public rangelands is ascendent. 

These trends clash with the reality of current public policy. Federal rangeland permits, for 

example, can only be acquired and traded by and between bona tide livestock operators. Americans 

who want to participate on an equal footing with public land ranchers but who have no desire to 

harvest federal grass with cattle and sheep are virtually locked-out of the system of allotment 

privileges accorded to grazing permit tees. Except for costly and time-consuming changes in 

land-use plans, non-ranchers cannot as a rule acquire a grazing permit, retire the permit, and 

dedicate forage resources to non-tractive ends. Nonetheless, all taxpayers--even those who oppose 

7 Carl Hess, Jr., Visions upon the Land: Man and Nature on the Western Range (Covelo, CA Island 

Press, 1992), Carl Hess Jr. and Jerry L. Holechek, .. Policy Roots of Land Degradation in the Arid Region of, 

the United States" Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 37(1995), pp.123-141 and .. Beyond the 

Grazing Fee: An Agenda for Rangeland Reform,UCato Institute Policy Analysis No. 234, 13 July 1995. 8 General Accounting Office, .. Rangeland Management: More Emphasis Needed on Declining and 

Over stocked Allotments, .. June 1988 and .. Public Rangelands: Some Riparian Areas Restored but 

Widespread Improvement Will Be Slow, .. June 1988. 

277 
livestock use of public rangelands--must pay for the deficit-ridden grazing programs of the BLM and 

the Forest Service and bear the ecological costs of bad public policies. 

Inequity on the public range is often user-blind. Ranchers who wish to allocate forage to 

nonconventional uses-whether for conservation or economic gain-are frequently stymied by non 

use proscriptions. Moreover, federal regulations do not discriminate between better and worse land 

stewards. All ranchers, irrespective of their grazing records, face the same regulatory hurdles, costs 

and disincentives. If anything, federal subsidies have rewarded ranchers with the least management 

acumen and put more skilled ranchers at a competitive disadvantage. 

Strict federal regulations, in turn, have made it increasingly difficult for caring and innovative 

ranchers to profit from successful management. There is no certainty in federal law that ranchers 

will reap any or all of the benefits that come with healthier rangelands. At the same time, ranchers 

are unable to engage in alternative economic uses of rangelands in response to changing public 

demands. They are stuck with raising cattle, even if that contravenes the public•s will and the 

economic demands of rangeland visitors. Federal law--not private intransigence--limits the 

economic uses of riparian and upland areas to fodder and water for livestock. Ranchers cannot stop 

grazing livestock and start growing wildlife, fish and vegetation, even if doing so makes economic, 

social and ecologic sense. 

Public rangeland reform, if it is to succeed, must correct the glaring inequities in the current 

distribution of public land amenities and associated costs and benefits. 

MARKET-BASED REFORM OF PUBLIC RANGELAND POLICVS 

Rangeland reform to date has been misdirected and sidetracked, focusing on failed or largely 

inappropriate strategies. Higher grazing fees will not balance the grazing deficit, foster better grazing 

practices, or necessarily improve public land conditions. Regulatory management and gratuitous 

federal subsidies are not the panaceas that land agencies once envisioned them to be. Indeed, 

they have encouraged bad land practices to the same or greater degree than they have resolved 

them. Further, the distribution of federal rangeland resources remains riddled with inequity. Too 

many Americans are excluded from equal participation in rangeland use, and too many ranchers are 

needlessly constrained from, or penalized for, stewardship innovation. 

Privatization is advanced as one solution. History, though, argues against it. In the 1870s when 

western settlement began in earnest, the arid range was seen as .. vacant" and primed for 

settlement (occupancy by native Americans was ignored). Today, public lands-despite their federal 

ownership-are fully claimed by ranchers, farmers, miners, loggers, hunters, water districts, 

recreationists, all shades of environmentalists, and rural and urban communities. For privatization 

to occur and to be equitable, it would have to account for all pre-existing claims on public ranges--a 

politically improbable, economically costly, socially divisive, and ecologically questionable feat. 

A different policy strategy for western public lands is needed, one that can set right the fiscal ills 

of the past, correct the ecological deficiencies of the present, and offer equal opportunity to all 

rangeland users in the future. The essence of that strategy is marketization. Its elements are: 

1) fully marketable public land leases; 

2) outcome based management in lieu of traditional prescriptive management; 

9 Range reform discussion is drawn from .. Reforming the Western Range .. , "Beyond the Grazing Fee," 

and Karl Hess, Jr., .. Political Rights and Policy Wrong: The Ecology of Conflict on American Western Public 

Lands, .. forthcoming in Human Ecology Review. Spring 1997. 

278 
3) democratically elected and self-governing resource councils; and 

4) locally-administered Biodiversity Trust Funds. 

Marketable Public Land Leases 

Existing grazing permits, and the rights and privileges attached to them, should be fully marketized. 

To attain this goal, the following steps must be taken: 

• Transform grazing permits into secure, long-term (30 years or more) public land 

leases, grandfathering-in current permit holders; 

• Remove statutory and regulatory proscriptions that constrain public land lessees and 

their allotments to domestic livestock production; 

• Remand decisions on the degree of proper forage use--or non use--to lessees; 

• Eliminate barriers (like base property requirements, sub-leasing prohibitions, and 

non use rules) to the trading of leases between willing buyers and sellers; 

• Terminate all public land subsidies and entitlements to lease holders; 

• Shift costs of management and monitoring to public land lessees; 

[Lessees assume responsibility for land protection, restoration and monitoring.] 

• Assess a minimal universal public land lease fee that covers reasonable agency 

oversight expenses and that is indexed to the national rate of inflation of goods and 

services; [Because of other cost savings, lease rates would not have to be 

significantly greater than current fees to balance the grazing deficit.] 

• Broaden the range of allowed economic uses on puhlic rangelands to foster and 

encourage diverse and sustainable land practices; [Lessees who use public grass to 

profit from livestock should be able to use that grass to profit from growing more 

wildlife, improving fisheries, and enhancing recreation.] 

• Remove all barriers to lease holders for non-economic uses of public lands. 

The advantages of marketable public land leases are apparent. Fiscally, they offer the prospect 

of shifting land-use costs from taxpayers to land users and erasing the deficits that plague agency 

grazing programs. Ecologically, they will enable new and more appropriate land uses on federal 

rangelands, facilitate shifts in land uses toward those demanded by the general public, and 

eliminate subsidies and other policy disincentives that foster non sustainable land practices. 

Marketable leases will also enlarge the pool of lessees, diversifying the management strategies 

needed to protect and restore America•s public lands. In equity terms, they will democratize federal 

ranges by expanding public input and opening public lands in substantive ways to all citizens. 

Marketable leases will effectively level the public land playing field for everyone and provide the 

incentive environment to encourage and reward good land management and to dissuade and 

penalize bad land practices. 

Outcome-Based Management 

For market reform to be effective and workable, outcome-based management should replace 

prescriptive management. To do this, two policy conditions must be met: 1) lessees should have 

flexibility in the disposition and use of their public land leases and 2) the side-bars or conditions 

within which private land use on federal lands takes place must be clearly defined and consistently 

enforced. 

279 
.. ·;._, .. · 

De-Regulation 

Prescriptive management on public lands has not worked. It has not prevented poor land 

practices and it has not led to better resource stewardship. It has proven costly, adding to agency 

deficits .. It has formalized and enforced management that is more detrimental than beneficial to the 

nation•s public rangelands. It has, by virtue of its historic inflexibility, mounted barriers to change 

and innovation in rangeland uses. 

Outcome-based management, a vital ingredient of market-based reform, is strikingly different. 

For ranchers, it would mean deep de-regulation of the day-by-day activities of livestock production 

by removing all federal targets for livestock numbers, approved grazing systems, and times and 

seasons of livestock use. For other lessees, including ranchers who choose to experiment with 

non-livestock forage activities, it would be equally de-regulatory. It would expand management 

latitude by facilitating new land practices and by freeing lessees from the regulatory burdens of the 

past. 

Locally-Appropriate Standards 

Outcome-based management entails more than de-regulation. Historically, federal land policy 

has operated on the assumption that appropriate scientific management leads invariably to 

desirable outcomes. This has not happened on federal rangelands. A de-regulatory approach can 

partly, but not entirely, rectify this failure. Markets and incentives, for example, can effectively 

protect and optimize the specific resources and uses that come with public land leases. They 

cannot, however, always conserve the non leased amenities retained by the public--the intangibles 

of ecosystem process and the structural elements of biological diversity. 

Standards, when site-specific and vigorously enforced, can, in part, help safeguard non-leased, 

public amenities. In a market-based reform regime, the attention of federal agencies would shift 

from mandating land practices and management details to monitoring the ecological effects of 

multiple land activities and enforcing compliance with locally-appropriate yet democratically-set 

standards. Such standards would establish the bounds within which private lease-holders could 

exercise their forage use claims without impairing ecological processes integral to habitat potential 

and associated rangeland life. 

Standards would be the means to separate private lease claims to federal rangelands from 

general public claims to access to and enjoyment of those lands. They would give lease holders and 

the public predictability in the allocation of ecological costs and benefits (by identifying the rights 

and obligations of each), offer to both the consistency and predictability of enforcement, and 

provide effective judicial redress for mitigation of either resource damage or infringement of 

leasehold privileges. 

Outcome-based management built on the twin pillars of de-regulation and locally appropriate 

standards would enable implementation of market-based reform, enhance environmental 

protection, and safeguard the interests of all rangeland users. 

Popularly-Elected Resource Councils 

Market and outcome-based rangeland reform are predicated on establishing governing policies 

and standards that reflect local conditions and respond to the values and resource demands of 

both resident and non-resident rangeland users. Under such a reform paradigm, ultimate 

responsibility for establishing management policy and setting appropriate standards would be 

transferred, to the extent possible, to self-governing and popularly elected resource councils. 

280 
Resource councils would be set-up on a watershed basis or rely on traditional administrative 

boundaries, such as BLM districts and resource areas or Forest Service districts and national 

forests. Voting membership in each resource council (as distinguished from universal rangeland 

access enjoyed by all citizens) would be allocated to 1) resident lease holders and 2) other users, 

irrespective of residence, who select a specific council area to exercise their participatory rights and 

who meet minimal membership qualifications. Such qualifications could range from none (open 

voting membership) to an annual membership fee and/or a voluntary contribution of time to local 

resource management. 

Regardless of how the resource councils are internally structured, their roles would be 

substantial and clearly delineated. Federal agencies would continue to monitor the state of the land 

and to enforce standards and applicable federal laws. They would, however, devolve policy making 

duties and responsibility for formulating standards to individual resource councils (or, as situations 

might dictate, to federations of councils within common ecological landscape units, such as 

watersheds). Resource councils would enjoy a degree of independence and discretion comparable 

to that exercised by public land lease holders, but they would wield it over a wider array of public 

resources and across a more expansive public landscape. 

Bio-Diversity Trust Funds 

Markets are powerful conservation tools. They offer people incentives to steward and protect range 

resources having economic value--such as grass for cattle, elk for paid-hunting, and trout for 

fee-fishing. They also create opportunities for people to combine and pursue common goals that are 

not just economic. Land conservation by private groups like The Nature Conservancy exemplifies this 

creative use of markets. However, many public land amenities stubbornly elude market solutions 

because they lack economic value (like endangered species), because they have a value that cannot 

be fully captured in the market place (like open vistas and watershed health), or because the funds 

needed to acquire and protect them exceed private means. 

As a compliment to markets, locally-controlled Bio-Diversity Trust Funds should be established 

within each council jurisdiction (or among alliances of adjacent councils) and financed from a 

percentage of local, across-the-board public land fees (including fees charged for general recreation). 

Trust dollars would be administered by resource councils within their respective jurisdictions and would 

be awarded on a merit basis to citizens, citizen groups, or agencies submitting the best proposals for 

restoration and protection of non-market public resources and amenities. 

CONCLUSION 

Support for market-based range reform is on the ascendancy in the United States. 10 If 

implemented, it would comprehensively address the fiscal, ecological and equity concerns that have 

plagued and undermined public rangeland policy in the past. Marketable leases would transform 

public rangelands from an exclu~ve sanctuary for livestock production and public land ranchers to 

10 Environmentalists voiced strong support for market approaches in lieu of rangeland legislation 

proposed by the Senate and the House during the 104th Congress. Currently, leaders from the major 

national environmental and ranching organizations are meeting to discuss elements of market-based reform 

of public land policy. 

281 
an open and democratic landscape where all Americans could find a place and a home for their 

landscape visions. Deregulation and locally-appropriate standards would set the parameters within 

which market forces and private management would function and flourish. Self-governing resource 

councils and Bio-Diversity Trust Funds would round-out rangeland reform by both complimenting 

and supplementing market mechanisms and private action. Together, these several elements of 

range reform would forge a durable and workable alternative to past policy and land management 

on America1

s western range. 

282 
Restorative Grazing 

Jim Winder1 

Due to past and present abuses, many people question the logic of grazing rangelands in the 

western United States. Although some lands are certainly unsuited for grazing, it seems foolish to 

eliminate a renewable food source when the human population continues to spiral upward. Fuzzy 

statistics are often quoted in an attempt to minimalize the significance of western beef production. 

It is important to realize that I am able to produce enough beef from 30 sections of land to feed 

2000 people for an entire year. The question then is how to manage our rangelands to produce 

healthy food while restoring biodiversity. 

The single, most important aspect of rangeland management is the attitude of the manager. A 

little humility goes a long way. In the past, ranchers tried to mold nature to meet their needs. Today 

we must fit our operations within natural systems and manage for biological diversity. 

With this increased management scope, it is necessary to go beyond being a rancher and 

become a true resource manager. Although we have many excellent people working in the 

universities and government agencies, there are very few people who are able to take the science 

and apply it effectively to the land. At this level, with thousands of species and billions of 

interactions, the complexity pushes us beyond the capabilities of science and into the realm of the 

artist. A resource manager must blend theory with an intuitive feel for the land to perfect the art 

form. 

The first step in active management, is to remove the negative E)ffects of ranching. Much of the 

damage caused by livestock grazing is secondary in nature. We must look beyond the cows and 

grass and recognize the interdependencies inherent in our ecosystems. I avoid grazing my riparian 

areas in the growing season, preferring to graze during dormancy. This has had far reaching and 

unplanned beneficial effects. The riparian vegetation has flourished, and wildlife has a reliable 

source of food and shelter even in drought years. The effect on my operation was to give me ten 

times more forage from the same pasture. A win/win situation. 

Perhaps the easiest negative effect to alleviate is the extirpation of predators. I quit killing 

coyotes about ten years ago and noticed a sharp decline in calf death loss although the number of 

coyotes has risen significantly. Steps taken to decrease susceptibility to depredation have actually 

increased my profitability. Another win/win solution. 

The next step is to take livestock and turn them into powerful tools for restoration. To do this we 

need control of the livestock, where they are and what they are doing. The co-evolution of grasses 

and herbivores developed many other interactions besides the removal of leaf tissue. Soil 

disturbance, predator-prey relationships, herding behavior, natural cycles and even man have 

influenced the behavioral and physical characteristics of plants and animals. A good resource 

manager strives to understand these interactions and to use livestock to trigger responses that the 

ecosystem remembers from the time of free herding ungulates. 

Multiple species of livestock grouped in a herd with the concomitant predators impact the 

ecosystem much the same as wild ungulates. Among other things, I use cattle to disturb the soil 

surface to alter micro climates, plant seeds, and to disturb fungal hyphae. At times the results have 

been dramatic. 

1 Rancher, Deming NM. 

283 
When the negative effects of grazing are eliminated and livestock are viewed as tools changes 

will begin to occur on the land. Because of the complex interactions between species many of the 

results are unpredictable. Considerable monitoring is necessary to correct errors and to recognize 

opportunities. Although I have many long term transects in place I rely most heavily on near daily 

observation of three measures: seedling establishment, rate of organic decomposition, and erosion. 

In my opinion the most important measure of rangeland health is seedling establishment of key 

species. I have been on many ranches that are said to be in great shape because they had all the 

grass species present. However, under close examination no seedlings could be found. A 

population that is not reproducing is not sustainable. However, a population that is actively 

reproducing can be sustainable even under adverse conditions. 

Whether measured by their effect on the community or by sheer mass, decomposers are more 

important to ecosystem health than any other species group. Therefore a measurement of their well 

being is essential. I measure decomposition rates very unscientifically by observing termite activity 

and the breakdown of fresh and dry manure. Erosion is monitored in reverse by watching how well 

grass is colonizing arroyos and rills. 

Although these methods may produce marked improvement in the land, the solution is not total 

until the human aspect is addressed. Public lands resource managers face an additional challenge 

of working with an absentee landlord with multiple personalities. To be effective these managers 

must be able to build consensus with public lands agencies, environmentalists, hunters, and a 

variety of other interests. 

My approach to this task has been to become active in a number of environmental organizations 

and to invite anyone and everyone to the ranch to see things first hand. The key is to constantly add 

to one•s knowledge and to remain open to discussion and change. This has brought about 

acceptance of my management from key groups and, most importantly, it has given me a 

tremendous education. 

If ranching is to remain a viable industry on public lands we must transform ourselves into true 

resource managers. This requires an appreciation for species who•s worth cannot be readily 

measured on a balance sheet. We have a responsibility to our landlords to protect and improve the 

land for future generations, not claim it as our own. 

284 
Grazing Management In Arid Grasslands 

Using Principles of Holistic Management 

Kirk Gadzia1 

The majority of grass species that dominate arid grassland communities around the world are 

adapted both physiologically and morphologically to periodic removal of the above ground portion of 

the plant. For countless centuries these plants have supported occasional and even frequent fires 

that swept across the prairies and plains. Their primary production has also supported vast herds of 

wildlife and livestock, and in turn, the people who depended on them for their survival. 

A closer look at a typical arid land bunchgrass plant reveals that the growth points are near the 

ground level in the crown of the plant. When the top portion of the plant is removed, the plant 

regrows from the base. Removal of the actively growing portion of the plant results in below ground 

responses in the root zone that range from complete cessation of root growth, to almost no change 

in growth, depending on the severity of the removal of photosynthetic material. Even almost total 

removal of above ground growing leaves and stems will normally not permanently damage the grass 

plant. Recovery is dependant upon enough time, temperature, and moisture to replace the 

photosynthetic material and regrow roots. No calendar date will substitute for on the ground 

observation of such recovery. 

One of the key points to managing arid grasslands is controlling the time frame of actively 

growing plant removal and providing adequate recovery periods following disturbance such as 

grazing or fire. 

Another consideration of arid grasses is their tendency to stagnate or greatly reduce growth if 

they are not subjected to periodic disturbance. The above ground material builds up and causes a 

reduction in the rate of nutrient cycling as material is oxidized chemically by the sun and not cycled 

biologically. The physical evidence of this reaction is that a large proportion of the old stems and 

leaves turn progressively darker grey in coloration. Underground, root growth also stagnates and 

roots become weak. 

Actively growing portions of such plants are normally a light shade of green or even a chlorotic 

yellow in response to the buildup of old material. The nutritional value of such plants to wildlife and 

other grazers is very low. Once such a buildup of oxidizing material occurs, these plants will be 

continually avoided by grazing animals unless the old material is removed or the animals have 

nothing else to eat. 

Another key point to managing arid grasslands is to understand that most grass plants in the 

community will benefit from periodic removal of old material. This material will benefit the 

community most if it is cycled biologically as soil cover, animal manure or otherwise incorporated 

into the nutrient cycle more rapidly than standing vegetation that is chemically oxidizing. 

If these two points were all that mattered, our management systems for arid grasslands 

would be simple. Just burn, mow or graze the areas periodically and everything will be fine. 

Indeed, we search for such simplicity in management solutions to the problems on our arid 

grasslands in nearly every country where these environments exist. Unfortunately, nowhere 

1 Resource Management Services, Bernalillo, NM 

285 
are simple stocking rate reductions or burning prescriptions working to reverse the trend 

toward desertification on a global scale. 

Community stability within arid grasslands depends not only on the health of the adult 

populations of plants and animals, but also the recruitment of young. Seeds of grasses that 

dominate arid grassland communities must therefore be able to germinate and establish for 

the communities to remain healthy. Seeds must be incorporated into soils and have seed 

to soil contact in a firm seedbed to successfully establish. While this concept is simple and 

well known to every farmer or gardener, it seems missing from our conception of arid 

grassland health. The crusting or sealing of soil surfaces in bare arid soils occurs in 

response to rainfall events. Such crusting inhibits the penetration of seeds and their 

subsequent establishment. The seeds of some species exhibit mechanisms to penetrate 

such crusting, yet many other species which are an essential component of a diverse and 

healthy community do not have such advantages. 

While fire plays an important role in cycling nutrients, invigorating some species, and 

removing old vegetation in arid grasslands; it cannot break crusted soil surfaces. In fact, 

fire exposes large areas of soil surfaces to raindrop sealing action which tends to negatively 

affect the cycling of water. However, another role of fire is to attract grazing animals to the 

nutritious forage available in areas that have burned. These grazers in turn can break the 

soil crusts and provide necessary seed to soil contact for improved germination and 

establishment of new plants. 

Periodic droughts and high rainfall years also played a role in the vast wheel of life rolling 

on the arid grasslands. Years of above average precipitation produced an excess of plant 

material, and afterwards a buildup in the game populations. Fuel buildups in turn 

encouraged fire that were eventually followed by drought years. High utilization levels 

occurred as forage resources became inadequate to support the game populations. 

Locusts, and other major influences also played their roles. In short, such a dynamic 

population and production situation could hardly be described as static. 

It is clear from considering this large view that it is not enough to weigh only the needs 

of the grass plant as a component of the arid grassland environment. We must consider the 

community as a whole. Such consideration will involve the interacting roles of plants, 

animals, soils, people and the changing rules and regulations we create to manage these 

interactions. Management of such complexity must be responsive to the needs of this 

overall community. 

When we shift our view from managing arid grasslands to the larger whole of recreation, 

agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other interactions between humans and their environment 

we see few success stories in sustainability. Where we do see successful management, in 

nearly every case it is because the principles used to manage are based on natural laws or 

the simulation of natural processes. Such sustainable management systems rely on 

building biodiversity to retain stability. In addition, people are viewed as an essential 

component of the process, and not considered .. foreign .. to the ecosystem. 

The natural principles that governed arid grassland development, biodiversity, and 

stability in nearly all areas of the world have been periodic disturbance by grazing animals, 

drought, floods, and fire. Migrating herds and their predators including humans responded 

286 
to regional climatic variations and natural and human induced fires to create an incredibly 

complex whole. Such community development is not easily duplicated by management 

prescriptions of stocking rates, season of use, fire management regimes, and other 

regulations governing the current management of many arid grasslands. 

In Jordan, ancient Byzantine mosaics and hunting lodges in the desert attest to the once 

abundant wildlife of the area in times past. The arid oak savannah grassland and nomadic 

people that lived in these areas with their livestock are also depicted. Today these areas are 

treeless except for the monocultures of pine planted by the government and protected by 

armed guards. Perennial grasses still exist, hanging on in the shelter of rocky cracks, but 

are largely absent from the community. The majority of the surrounding countryside is 

being nibbled to death by settled nomads and their small resident herds of sheep and 

goats. Yet, where large herds and planned seasonal recovery has been used, rapid 

improvement has been documented. 

While far from perfect, the nomadic livestock grazing that existed and sustained 

populations for many centuries in these areas was an approximation of natural grazing 

patterns by wildlife. Populations of both humans and livestock grew and starved in response 

to prevailing weather. In the last instant of time we have settled nomads in foreign 

countries, built fences, firebreaks and other developments in our own countries~ arid 

grasslands, and done our best to impose a static management regime upon a completely 

dynamic situation. 

The change from relative productivity and stability towards instability and lowered 

productivity of arid grasslands in this country is well documented in some areas. In the 

desert southwest a shift from grassland to shrub dominated communities is often 

considered irreversible without major human and technological intervention. The long term 

rest or non-disturbance that is often recommended in such areas has produced few positive 

changes in overall ecosystem functioning. Without the vital component of large animals 

interacting within the system, rest alone seems insufficient to create much change. 

There is no single simple prescription to manage arid grasslands and their myriad of 

values and functions. The changes wrought by human population buildup in our arid 

grasslands preclude the ~~return to naturell approach favored by some. This is because the 

human infrastructure of pipelines, roads, towns, etc .. , will not disappear even if livestock 

grazing is halted. Management models such as holistic management that recognize and 

attempt to mimic the pulses of energy that were an integral part of these environments 

show great potential. The concept of using life to make more life is a simple way of 

expressing this interaction. Arid grasslands did not develop as plant communities. They 

developed as communities of soil organisms, plants, herbivores, predators and human 

intervention. 

Improvement of grazed arid grasslands in terms of biodiversity, soil cover, and other 

monitoring criteria is documented in many areas of this country and others around the 

world. There is abundant evidence that livestock can be utilized as a major component in 

the improvement process. Their role in providing periodic disturbance to soil surfaces, 

removal and cycling of plant materials must be emphasized and concentrated to be 

effective. These impacts must be incorporated with adequate time periods for soils, plants, 

287 
and animals to recover and utilize the energy provided by large animal in the system. If 

time and impacts are not controlled, the results will be negative as evidenced by the state 

of many arid grasslands around the world. 

A biological planning process must be used to coordinate and incorporate the needs of 

people, plants, animals, and other factors. The typical prescription of lowering stocking 

rates, changing season of use, and other such commonly used criteria for livestock grazing 

management have met with little success. It is crucial to understand and work with the 

natural process that governed the development of arid grasslands. This will require a 

philosophy that is flexible in terms of stocking rates, delineations of grazing areas, season of 

use, and the ability of managers to change plans easily and frequently in response to 

monitoring data and weather patterns. 

288 
.. .. :- .. , .. 

The Malpai Borderlands Group: 

Ecosystem Management in Action 

Bill McDonald1 

BACKGROUND 

The Malpai Borderlands Group, a grassroots, landowner-driven organization, is attempting to 

implement ecosystem management on nearly one million acres of virtually unfragmented 

open-space landscape in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. The area involved is 

roughly pyramid-shaped, with the base of the pyramid running just east of Douglas, Arizona into 

New Mexico to the far eastern boundary of the 500-square mile Gray Ranch. The apex is just south 

of Rodeo, New Mexico, on the Arizona-New Mexico state line, and runs go the Mexican border . 

The elevation for this area ranges from 4,500 feet, which is characterized by desert scrub and 

tobosa grasslands, up to 8,500 feet which features Arizona Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir. 

Within this diverse area of mountains, canyons, and valleys are numerous riparian corridors with 

Sycamores, Cottonwoods, Oaks and Black Walnuts. 

Several rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species are found here. In addition, 

it is the only area in the United States where Gould•s turkey and white-sided jackrabbits occur 

naturally. It is also home to such popular big-game species as Coues deer, mule deer, pronghorn 

and Desert Bighorn sheep. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this huge landscape is that 

fewer than 100 human families reside on it. Except for two small wildlife preserves, this is cattle 

ranching country. 

The diversity of the land ownership is nearly as great as the country itself. The patchwork of 

ownership includes 53 percent private and 4 7 percent made up of state trust land in New Mexico 

and Arizona or public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

CONCERN FOR THE OPEN-SPACE FUTURE 

On the surface, little has changed since the homestead days of the turn of the century when 

many of our families established ranches in the area. It was a time when a regime of survival of the 

fittest set the carrying capacity of the land for people and their livestock, although not without cost 

to the land. •Today, however, change is in the works. 

In 1990, several area ranchers met at the Malpai Ranch in the San Bernardino Valley. The 

ranch is so named after the volcanic malpai rock prevalent in the area. We met to discuss what we 

saw (Is a deteriorating situation. Cattle ranching in the West, especially grazing on public lands, is 

under attack and on the defensive. Also, we were concerned about the future of the resource we 

depend upon for our livelihoods. The grassland with some shrubs were moving inexorably to 

shrublands with some grass--for many reasons, a principal one of which is the absence of a crucial 

natural element: fire. 

Living on our remote ranches, we felt ill-equipped to deal with all this. It seemed as though the 

1 The Malpai Group, Douglas, AZ 

289 
11dig in your heels11 approach was doomed to failure, so we decided to embark on a different 

approach -- to reach out to our critics and find common ground. 

For two years, a small group of ranchers and environmentalists, together with scientist Ray 

Turner, met to discuss our mutual concern for the health and the open-space future of our land. 

We called ourselves the Malpai Group. Eventually, we drafted a Malpai Agenda, which addressed 

two major concerns: first, the threat of fragmentation of the landscape. Already, some of the 

ranches on the fringe of our area had been subdivided. Fragmentation would permanently limit 

future options for a desired sustainable condition for the land. Second, we were concerned about 

the declining productivity and loss of biological diversity accompanying the encroachment of woody 

species on grasslands. We felt that more government regulation was not going to help. At best, it 

would replace one set of problems with another. The inevitable result of the free market would 

seem to be 20-acre ranchettes. This was not the future we wanted to see for this land. 

We were not sure what we needed, but we knew that whatever it was should be driven by good 

science, contain a strong conseNation ethic, be economically feasible, and be initiated and led by 

the private sector, with the public agencies coming in as our partners rather than with us as their 

clients. 

Two subsequent events took us to the next step. One was the suppression of a small brush fire 

just inside our area. The fire was suppressed, at great expense, by the land management agency in 

authority over the objection of the private landowner whose land intermingled with that managed by 

the agency. The fire was burning in some three-awn grass interspersed with creosote brush. The 

fire was bounded on one side by a road and on all other sides by bare ground and creosote brush. 

It wasn•t going anywhere. 

The ranchers felt strongly that this fire should not have been put out. Fire suppression was 

believed to a be a major factor in the encroachment of brush which has accelerated in this century, 

and many ranchers, as well as others, felt it was time for fire to regain at least some of its naturally 

occurring role in the ecosystem. 

Another, larger meeting was held at the Malpai Ranch. Out of that meeting came a request for 

the land management agencies to work with the ranchers on a comprehensive fire management 

plan for the area. Before long, ranchers and agencies -- the Coronado National Forest, the Bureau 

of Land Management in Safford, Arizona and Las Cruces, New Mexico, and the State Land 

Departments of New Mexico and Arizona--committed to work toward coordinated ecosystem 

management for the whole area. After all -- fire crosses land ownership boundaries, and is just 

one tool in managing landscapes. Clearly, it was time to figure out how to work across political 

boundaries to improve the land. 

The second event that transformed our group was the purchase of the Gray Ranch by the 

Animas Foundation from the Nature ConseNancy. The ConseNancy had purchased the ranch in 

1993 from a Mexican national to protect its outstanding biological diversity. Following the 

purchase, the ConseNancy began to look for a buyer. The community, fearful that the buyer might 

be the federal government, went to the Hadley family, which has owned the Guadalupe Canyon 

Ranch for 20 years, and asked them if they would be willing to purchase the Gray. 

The Hadleys, who have substantial resources beyond their cattle operation, were able to create 

a private organization, the Animas Foundation, with which to purchase and manage the Gray. It 

was important to the ConseNancy that the Gray be sold to a party which would keep its open-space 

character and preseNe and maintain it's natural beauty. The ranch was purchased, therefore, with 

conseNation easements on the private land guaranteeing that it would never be subdivided and 

with conditions establishing monitoring procedures to record the health of the range land habitats. 

290 
To help manage the Gray, the Animas Foundation has invested in a Geographic Information 

System and has offered to extend its use to ranches involved with the Malpai Group. The 

foundation has also provided some seed money to the group to help start up its operations. The 

Conservancy became interested in our group and its goals and assigned the senior vice president, 

who had negotiated the Gray Ranch purchase with the Animas Foundation, to work with our group 

and the Foundation at the request of the ranchers. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MALPAI BORDERLANDS GROUP 

The upshot of these events was the establishment, in 1994, of the Malpai Borderlands Group 

as a 501-C3 nonprofit organization. Our nine member board includes local ranchers, a scientist, 

and a businessman. Our cooperators include ranchers in our planning area in Cochise and Hidalgo 

counties, the State Land Departments of Arizona and New Mexico, the Coronado National Forest, 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service in 

two states, the Bureau of Land Management in two states, the Hidalgo Soil and Water Conservation 

District, the Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District, the Game and Fish 

Departments in two states, The Desert Laboratory of the University of Arizona, The Nature 

Conservancy, and the Animas Foundation. 

The goal statement of our group reads as follows: .. Our goal is to restore and maintain the 

natural processes that create and protect a healthy, unfragmented landscape to support a diverse, 

flourishing, community of human, plant and animal life in our borderlands region. Together, we will 

accomplish this by working to encourage profitable ranching and other traditional livelihoods which 

will sustain the open space nature of our land for generations to come ... 

The following is a checklist of our progress to date in specific program areas and an assessment 

of the challenges which remain: 

Land Protection 

We have moved aggressively in this area using grassbanks and land use easements. To date, 

four different ranchers have completed agreements with the Malpai Group and the Animas 

Foundation, owners of the Gray Ranch, to convey land use easements to the Malpai Group which 

will preclude sub-division development on private land of their ranches i.1 the future. In return for 

the easements, the Malpai Group is paying for forage on the Gray Ranch which is being made 

available to the ranchers livestock. The amount of forage made available to each rancher, 

measured in animal unit months, will be equal to the development value given by each ranch. 

The challenges which have arisen to this approach are many. First, the cost of the forage is great. 

It will require large amounts of capital to be raised by the Malpai Group in the future in order to 

continue grassbanking for easements, even at this level of participation. Clearly, this model has 

limited application for the long term. Variations on the theme are being explored, but are still in the 

talking stage to date. Additional uses for grassbanking, focusing solely on its benefit as a range 

restoration tool, are being discussed. Two grass bankers have combined their herds for a time and 

this suggests some interesting possibilities. The Malpai Group also stands ready to consider 

holding donated land use easements, or even purchasing the land itself, in the case of an 

emergency (for instance, pending sale to subdivision within our working area). Hopefully, this will 

not be necessary, as these monies would be difficult, if not impossible to replace. They must be 

used with extreme care. 

291 
Science and Research 

This arm of the Malpai program is moving forward on several fronts. The research that is being 

done as a result of the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Station grant has graduated from a 

research literature review to the establishment of experimental plots on different sites within the 

working area. All sites are chosen with the full consent and cooperation of the landowner, or in the 

case of state and public land the lessee or permittee. Most of this research will center on different 

approaches to addressing woody species encroachment. A vegetative survey is being conducted in 

coordination with this research. 

The Malpai Group has also contracted to have baseline monitoring conducted on the ranches 

which are being rested as a result of use of the grassbank. Again -- this is done with the full 

consent and cooperation of the landowners. 

In addition to these efforts, several independent survey and research projects are being 

conducted in the planning area. The group has contracted a position to track and coordinate these 

efforts so that useful information can be made available to landowners and managers. This 

position reports to the Malpai Group•s Science Advisory Committee and ultimately to our Board of 

Directors. 

The Malpai Group will continue to try to find ways to get the best scientific information available 

to landowners and managers while, at the same time, zealously guarding private property rights and 

aggressively addressing any risks (perceived or real) which landowners may encounter by allowing 

research efforts on their property. 

Fire Management 

This group came together around the issue of fire management and it continues as a major 

focus of the Malpai Group. The regional fire map, put together by private landowners after our first 

meeting, has been updated on a Geographic Information System. The government agencies with 

which the group works, are becoming more familiar with how to use the map. 

Communication, rancher to rancher and rancher to agency, has increased on fire-related 

issues. As a result, thousands of acres have benefitted from a more thoughtful response to fire 

starts, a thousands of dollars in suppression costs have been saved. Meanwhile, the Coronado 

Forest has taken the lead on a programmatic approach to prescribed burning in the area. The 

success of the Baker Burn, both in overcoming the complexities of jurisdictions and regulations 

involved in the approval process and in the execution of the initial positive results of the burn itself, 

has increased the confidence of all. Planning on the next burn, the Maverick Burn, which will 

involve the Coronado Forest and three private landowners, has been initiated. The Malpai Group 

feels confident that opportunities for the use of fire as a positive land management tool will 

increase as a result of our efforts so far. 

Conservation Action 

This is as a catch-all for what are traditional on-the-ground land management projects. Already 

completed is as a 310-acre brush removal and reseeding project. The success of this native 

reseeding has, so far, exceeded everyone•s expectations. This project will be monitored closely; we 

continue to grapple with what can or cannot be done successfully and economically in range 

restoration. 

The group is currently engaged in gathering support for an effort to replace 13 miles of 

deteriorated boundary fence which borders one of the ranches being rested from grazing. This will 

prevent trespassing by cattle from a neighboring ranch onto the rested land. The Malpai Group is 

292 
working with the landowners involved, the lead agency (Bureau of Land Management) and other 

groups and agencies which might be able to contribute support to this project. 

The Malpai Group is intent on initiating a watershed restoration project involving multiple 

ownerships in the near future. The willingness of the landowners and agencies is there and only the 

commitments of time and resources to other projects has delayed the start of this particular effort. 

Endangered Species 

The Malpai Group has helped a local ranch family establish permanent water at a site on their 

ranch which is home to the threatened Chiricahua Leopard Frog. This action will also enhance the 

rancher's grazing management by establishing a more dependable water for livestock Another site 

where the frogs reside is still in need of a more secure water source. The group is working with the 

rancher, nationally renowned herpetologists, and the Arizona Game & Fish Department, using funds 

from their Stewardship Program to establish this second permanent water. We are hopeful that this 

may set a precedent for more cooperative private landowner-public agency endeavors to benefit 

wildlife species and improve land management for the future. 

The riparian restoration efforts taking place on several ranches will help decrease soil erosion, 

improve herbaceous cover and forage conditions, and increase ground water infiltration as well as 

benefit songbirds migrating through our ranches We are also working to make research biologists 

available to any interested ranchers who would like more information on the rare, threatened or 

endangered plants and animals of the region 

We believe that putting ranchers and biologists together can yield tremendous results. For 

example, one ranch in our group has, for the past eight years, allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to monitor the tiny Cochise Pincushion cactus found on their property. This is an extremely rare 

cactus, coveted by cactus poachers throughout the world. It lives in a highly specialized habitat on 

an extremely small range. The result of this lengthy monitoring, close to a record in Arizona, has 

shown that grazing does not appear to have a negative effect on the plants and the population is 

stable. It's likely that the constant presence of the ranchers on the land will continue to deter 

cactus collectors from harming it. Another survey by a scientist working with our group showed 

that burning areas with agaves ( a flowering, desert plant) in the summer did not affect that plant's 

ability to meet the need or endangered, nectar-feeding bats which use it as a food source. 

Agency Participation 

The enthusiastic participation of agency personnel in the Malpai Group•s efforts continues to be 

a hallmark of our progress. Turnover in key agency positions results in much of the Malpai Group•s 

private landowner's time being occupied with bringing in new personnel 11UP to speed .. o our effort. 

A familiarity with our project grows within the agencies we are hopeful that this aspect of our 

partnership will become less burdensome. 

Economic Development 

The future of an unfragmented open space landscape depends upon the existence of a stable 

economic underpinning. In our area, livestock grazing remains the principal livelihood capable of 

sustaining such an environment. The Malpai Group is exploring ways in which cooperative ventures 

by area ranchers might be able to yield higher returns for their product than are now obtained 

through traditional market routes. 

This is obviously a very challenging area. It is nothing new for cattle producers to attempt 

.. niche marketing ... There are a few success stories, but many more failed attempts. The group is 

293 
currently having market research conducted on different possible approaches. We intend to 

proceed cautiously. 

In addition, we are investigating possibly marketing low impact recreational opportunities as a 

supplemental source of income for private landowners. Low impact recreation brings with it the risk 

of overexposure of the area and the resulting unwanted impacts associated with large numbers of 

people. We remain in an investigating and planning mode here, on the theory that having a plan in 

place is better than simply reacting to changing circumstances. 

Operations 

Probably the biggest challenge of all is simply to keep this effort moving ahead and in control of 

its destiny. Our quick success has brought us attention and support beyond expectations as well as 

opposition from a small, but very vocal segment of our community. Individually, we are 

experiencing the exhilaration of finding .. something that works .. , and the anxiety and frustration of 

trying to keep up with the effort required to make it work. The correspondence, bookkeeping and 

reporting requirements of a non-profit group, receiving the support we have received, have become 

quite a load for people already engaged in full-time enterprises. Our isolated location and the 

distance of the participants, one from another, puts a heavy reliance on electronic technology to 

keep up with communication needs. This, in an area which had no electric lines coming in 5 years 

ago, no telephone or television 10 years ago. 

We continue to spend a considerable amount of effort on outreach beyond the boundaries of 

our working area. We think this is important, not only because it helps others, but the exposure to 

other efforts and ideas contributes to our own growth. However, hosting a seemingly endless 

stream of folks from outside the community who can help and trying to filter out those who wish 

only to use our name, time and resources for their own agendas can be taxing. 'Traveling to talk 

about what we are doing, to touch base with supporters or potential supporters, and to keep key 

political players informed can also be wearying. 

In order to keep the wheels on the road in the years to come, the group must come to grips 

with the issues of how to avoid burnout of those who handle the bulk of the workload, and how to 

keep enthusiasm and interest high for the rest. Turnover of positions, compensation for time and 

personal expenses expansion of the board, contracting work out, formation of committees and 

advisory positions, holding regular meetings of different size and purpose these are some of the 

things the Malpai Group is trying to tackle. At our last board meeting, the group agreed to put more 

money into permanent positions to solidify our work. We now have a paid Director, a paid 

Financial Coordinator and Communications Coordinator to help us build long-term stability into our 

operations. We hope we can find and build the right balance. We are proud to say that we have 

completed a three year plan of work. This process was initiated by a brainstorming meeting of 

what we call the ngreater board .. , which takes in most of our active participants. Coming out of the 

meeting, committees were formed and issued draft plans for their assigned categories (i.e., land 

management, community outreach, etc.). This approach to planning was very fruitful for both 

getting good community involvement and for getting out a good product. If offers a lot of promise 

for the future. 

294 
CONCLUSION 

The group feels good about where we are at this time, but we are realistic about the enormous 

challenges ahead. Our initial trepidation at drawing attention to ourselves and the area, has 

partially given way to the job of trying to handle all the consequences of that attention while 

simultaneously moving ahead on the task we have set for ourselves. We remain very optimistic. 

One of our principals calls what we are doing 11God•s work. 11 If by definition that is work that brings 

good people together for a noble cause, then 11God•s work11 it truly is. 

In conclusion, the success of this effort so far has resulted from the local community, the 

landowners, being the drivers. The enthusiasm, support, and participation at this point exceeds our 

expectations. In a political climate where the traditional position on this issue of land use is usually 

to be at one end of the spectrum or the other, we find ourselves in the nradical center.~~ We invite 

you to join us right there. 

295 
296 
Use of Native Species in 

Revegetation of Disturbed Sites (Arizona) 

Richard D. James1 

ABSTRACT 

Seeding disturbed sites to establish native species in desert and 

desert grassland areas of Arizona has been shown to be 

successful. A growing awareness of and appreciation in the role 

native species play in ecosystem functioning is a major factor in 

their use. There is also an increasing interest and acceptance of 

arid lands as valuable beyond livestock production. Land values in 

. term of esthetic appeal, wildlife, fisheries, watershed, tourism and 

other forms of recreation are of significant public importance. 

Native flora and fauna contribute immeasurably to the value of 

these entities. Using native species for revegetating to closely 

approximate the original pre-disturbance, or contiguous native flora 

will best meet restoration goals. This can often be accomplished 

using certain simple technologies of site preparation and direct 

seeding. 

The practices described in this paper are involved with acutely or drastically disturbed sites as 

considered by Box, (1978). These are sites such as deep construction cuts and fills where 

vegetative communities have been removed and the natural surface soils have been lost, altered, 

or buried. These sites are ones which do not typically restore themselves in reasonable time. 

Adequately applied common soil surface modifications combined with the appropriate materials can 

dramatically accelerate the process of secondary succession. 

There has been a phenomenal increase in drastically disturbed sites due to construction 

activities in recent years. This coupled with increased environmental awareness has created a 

demand for restoring natural vegetation. Erosion control has been a major objective and still is on 

many projects. However, esthetics are of greater perceived importance due to land values based 

on visual appeal of real estate. 

Traditional landscaping solutions have often been used. Drip irrigated landscape container 

plantings and transplanting are relatively expensive often running in excess of $30,000.00 per acre. 

Using small containerized plants Bainbridge, et. al. (1995) reported planting costs alone of $0.50 

to $3.00 per plant. This was for installation only not indicating plant costs or irrigation and 

subsequent management costs. Direct seeding is much less costly. A greater density and variety 

of plants can be realized for less than 1/10 the cost of containerized plants. 

1 Western Sod/Western Sere, Casa Grande, Arizona. 

297 
Species Use 

Until very recently there has been resistance to the use of native species. It was believed that 

native species primarily grasses were difficult or impossible to establish. Cox, et. al. (1982) 

reviewed the history and literature of revegetation activities in the Chihuahua and Sonoran Deserts. 

Most research focused on restoring grasses, not necessarily native grasses, to overgrazed ranges to 

promote livestock production. Treatments were typically minimal because of the large land areas 

which were degraded. Less regard was given to other entities such as floral and faunal diversity. 

Seeding failures were common. Introduced exotic grasses such as Lehmanns lovegrass, Eragrostis 

lehmanniana, and bufflegrass, Pennisetum ciliare appeared to give easier initial success prompting 

their extensive use. Roundy, (1995) in a review of G.L. Jordan's revegetation work indicates that 

Jordan stopped testing natives not only because of failure but likely also because of the lack of 

quality native seed. It is probable that other researchers had difficulty obtaining quality native site 

specific seed. 

Even though Cox, et. al. (1982) recognized success of eighty-three species their conclusion was 

that only fourteen should warrant general use. This included 11 non-native species. Their 

widespread use is considered to be ecologically detrimental (D'Antonio and Vitonsek, 1992). 

Typically differing from past projects is the use of a relatively high variety of native species 

combined with good soil surface modification. It appears that this "shotgun" approach to species 

use particularly suits many of these arid lands due to the unpredictability of environmental factors 

such as weather and the resultant dynamic plant communities as elucidated by Burgess (1995). 

Although other factors resulting in success may be attributed to using diverse seed mixes. Miller, 

et. al. (1983) showed that mycorrhizal colonization was more likely to occur with interspecific 

associations. This may give greater long term success. 

The southwestern deserts and desert grasslands have a wide variety of plant communities. 

Many diverse species are found here on many diverse soils. Some of the grasses found here are 

grasses usually associated with prairies such as plains bristle grass, Setaria macrostachya, and side 

oats grama, Bouteloua curtipendula. These are likely arid-adapted ecotypes. Other species are 

more specialized desert types found in unique habitats such as big galleta, Hilaria rigida, often 

associated with sandy desert areas such as dunes. This high diversity makes for a great selection 

of species for revegetation. Table 1 shows the variety of species commercially available for seeding 

use in desert grassland areas of Arizona. Most of these species have been used with a high degree 

of success in revegetation seeding since the mid 1980's. 

298 
Grasses 

Side oats grama, Bouteloua curtipendula 

Blue grama, Bouteloua gracilis 

Squirrel tail, Sitanion hystrix 

Purple three awn, Aristida purpurea 

Green sprangletop, Leptochloa dubia 

Plains lovegrass, Eragrostis intermedia 

Curly mesquite, Hilaria belangeri 

Sand dropseed, Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Plains bristle grass, Setaria macrostachya 

Vine mesquite, Panicum obtusum 

Alkali sacaton, Sporobolus airoides 

Arizona cottontop, Trichachne califomica 

Tangle head, Heteropogon contortus 

Indian ricegrass, Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Forbs 

Firewheels, Gallarciia pu/chella 

Prairie aster, Machaeranthera tanacetifolia 

Mexican poppy, Escholtzia mexicana 

Firecracker penstemon, Penstemon eatonii 

Sonoran penstemon, Penstemon parryi 

Palmer penstemon, Penstemon palmeri 

Desert globemallow, Sphaeralcea ambigua 

Desert marigold, Baileya multiradiata 

Shrubs & Trees 

Four wing saltbush, Atrip/ex canescens 

Apache plume, Fallugia paradoxa 

Squawbush sumac, Rhus trilobata 

Wait-a-minute bush, Mimosa biuncifera 

Cat claw acacia, Acacia greggii 

White thorn acacia, Acacia constricta 

Velvet mesquite, Prosopis velutina 

Desert willow, Chi/opsis /inearis 

Table 1 

ARIZONA NATIVE SPECIES FOR ELEVATION OF 3,500' - 5,500' 

A greater probability of success can be attained when certain technologies are used in dryland 

revegetation seedings. Three basic phases should be considered; 1) site/soil preparation, 2) 

seeding, 3) surface mulching. All three done with specific techniques and materials will interact to 

give a greater probability of success. 

299 
Soil Preparation 

Soil properties such as erosiveness, compaction, surface roughness, structure, fertility, and 

water capture and retention capacity can be modified to increase plant establishment and growth. 

These factors are often interacting and can be significant determinates in plant establishment. The 

effect of good soil preparation techniques prior to seeding has been well documented. Soil surface 

modifications to relieve compaction, reduce runoff, and capture and retain moisture is generally 

considered to be of benefit to plant establishment (Verma and Thames 1978, Packer & Aldan, 

1978, Wright, et. al. 1978). Most projects we have worked on show a marked increase in plant 

establishment and growth when contour ripping is done. This simple technique can be 

accomplished with widely available equipment. A minimum of four inches depth of ripping on 10-

20 inch centers is recommended. On steeper slopes or more heavily compacted sites, crawler 

tractors are employed. The resultant roughened or furrowed surface helps to stabilize the surface, 

reduce runoff and infiltrate moisture. Ripping also provides an improved environment for root 

growth. Soil should not be pulverized with discs or rototillers. 

In general, very little is known on the mineral nutrient requirements of native arid land species. 

Standards for soil fertility testing in the arid southwest are based on land used for agricultural crops 

such as cotton. Native drought tolerant species likely utilize nutrients very differently compared to 

field crops. Interacting effects of microbial symbioses further complicate the picture. However, it is 

well known that arid land soils are typically deficient in nitrogen and available phosphorus (Bauer, 

et. al. 1978). Subsoils and drastically disturbed sites are even lower in these nutrients. We have 

noticed a great benefit to plant growth by the supplementing of these nutrients. It is common 

practice to add 200 to 400 lbs per acre of ammonium phosphate (16-20-0) preferably tilled into 

the soil during tillage. It appears that supplements of organic soil conditioners such as compost 

high in humus compounds are also of benefit. However, because of complicated interactions, 

especially regarding soil microbes, an accurate identification of what is happening remains elusive. 

It has been shown that mycorrhizal fungi improve plant survival (Miller, 1987). However, 

commercially available mycorrhizal symboints for practical addition to revegetation projects have 

been restricted to container plantings until recently. We have established many species without the 

artificial addition of microbe symbionts. 

If inoculation is occurring on these sites, it may be that symbionts such as mycorrhizal fungi are 

occurring naturally by wind (Warner, et. al. 1987), or as spores in organic residue during the 

addition of organic matters applied as surface mulching. Supplementing a site with chemical 

fertilizer may allow for initial growth of desirable species until natural symbiosis can occur. 

However, St. Johns, (1987), suggests that chemical fertilizer strongly favors weeds and the 

resultant detrimental competition limits establishment of desirable later successional species. He 

suggest a method of anti-fertilization whereby carbon:nitrogen ratios are increased thereby, 

reducing nutrient availability by microbes resulting in less nutrient availability for weed growth. We 

have never tried anti-fertilization on our projects, but it could be a solution on sites heavily infested 

with the non-mycorrhizal Russian thistle, Sa/so/a spp. or wild mustards, Brassica spp., Sysimborum 

spp. among others. 

Nutrient modification is likely occuring with the addition of high carbon mulches, such as straw 

and wood fiber. It is recommended that drastically disturbed sites be prepared and seeded before 

weedy species can colonize. This is one reason we feel that newly disturbed sites should typically 

not be left fallow anticipating a preferred seeding season. 

300 
Seeding Methods 

The objective is to place seed in a stable environment conducive to germination and 

emergence. A stable environment is one in which soil movement is limited, in which rainfall will not 

wash the seed away, in which wind will not blow the seed away, and in which moisture and 

temperature variations are relatively low. Birds, insects, and other animals should not have easy 

access to the seeds. An environment conducive to germination and emergence is one that retains 

available moisture, that does not form a hard, crusted surface, and that allows relatively low 

fluctuations in moisture and temperature. Most of the revegetation seeding being done now in 

Arizona employs hydroseeders. The hydroseeder is very versatile and can far exceed the limitations 

of drill or dry broadcast seeding. 

The hydroseed slurry, if composed of specific types and quantities of materials and sprayed over 

well prepared roughened sites with loose surface soil, meets many of the criteria that define a 

stable environment conducive to germination and emergence. The slurry sprayed over loose soil 

combines mulch and soil to a depth of one-half inch. This mulch/soil layer is resistant to erosion. 

If quality materials are used, it will move very little with rainfall and virtually not at all with wind. 

Tackifiers are used in the slurry as adhesives to increase the mulch's resistance to erosion. Birds, 

insects, and other wildlife have difficulty finding and removing the seed. The mulch material 

reduces surface crusting caused by rainfall impaction. Moisture softens the mulch/soil layer, 

allowing water percolation and seeding emergence. Seed placement is excellent, in that the 

surface soil/mulch layer meets the depth requirement for nearly all desert seeds. 

The basic materials used in hydroseeding, other than seed, are mulch, tackifier, and fertilizers. 

Mulch materials produced solely for the hydroseed industry are highly engineered; some are 

more effective than others. Among the better hydromulches are wood fibers from the byproduct 

wood chips of the lumber industry. Other materials, such as waste paper, sawdust, wood shaving, 

and grass clippings, have proven to be only about sixty percent as effective in creating a 

germination environment. Waste paper tends to flatten, wash out, and compact; the other types in 

this group lack integrity and wash out easily. 

Tackifiers, too, come in a wide range of material types. Some have very effective adhesive and 

cohesive qualities. Two of the better materials are plantago mucilage and guar-based mucilage. 

Plantago mucilage is derived from the Indian wheat, Plantago insularis. It is a powder that, when 

mixed with water, forms a sticky, gel-like glue. Tackifiers should be applied to impart good binding 

characteristics to the slurry as it sets up. 

Surface Mulching 

Many studies have shown that surface mulching increases soil moisture, and stabilizes the soil 

temperature. Kay (1978, 1987), compared the effectiveness of a variety of surface mulching 

materials in terms of temporary erosion control and eventual plant establishment. 

Hydromulch used in the seeding process is considered a surface mulch. Hydromulch is in 

intimate contact with the soil and seed. This is of definite benefit to seed germination but of less 

benefit in modifying moisture and temperature fluctuation in the soil profile. Hydromulch, therefore, 

is very good for germination but less so for seedling establishment. During the cool season, 

hydromulch used as the sole mulch material generally gives as good a result in terms of seedling 

establishment as straw mulch. Added quality grade tackifiers greatly improve effectiveness. Used 

together, hydromulch and straw mulch give an excellent combination of erosion control and 

301 
germination and seedling establishment. It is one of the most cost effective techniques. 

Long lived stands of diverse native species have been established using good tillage, diverse 

site specific seedmixes, and well affixed surface mulching of hydromulch and/or straw mulch. Table 

2 lists a seed mix which was used employing some of the techniques outlined here establishing 

native vegetation along a pipeline corridor where surface soils were drastically altered. After 

pipeline construction, ammonium phosphate (16-20-0) was broadcast at 200 lbs/Acre. The site 

was tilled with crawler tractors leaving a roughened furrowed surface. Seed was immediately 

broadcast. Straw mulch was applied at 2 tons per acre and crimped on 8 inch centers. Today the 

site is dominated by the species which were seeded. The stand appears as dense as adjacent 

natural undisturbed areas. 

With improved methods and materials and attention to detail, many disturbed sites have been 

dryland seeded using native species with a long term measure of success. The costs are very low 

compared with landscaping solutions but higher compared with most past attempts at restoring 

desert grassland. 

Species 

Grasses 

Side oats grama, Bouteloua curtipendula 

Blue grama, Bouteloua gracilis 

Green sprangletop, Leptochloa dubia 

Plains lovegrass, Eragrostis intermedia 

Sand dropseed, Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Plains bristle grass, Setaria macrostachya 

Shrubs 

Four wing saltbush, Atriplex canescens 

Apache plume, Fal/ugia paradoxa 

White thorn acacia, Acacia constricta 

Cat claw acacia, Acacia gregg;; 

Velvet mesquite, Prosopis velutina 

Forbs 

Sagewort, Artemisia ludoviciana 

Desert globemallow, Sphaeralcea ambigua 

Table 2 

PLS rate lbs/Acre 

3.0 

1.0 

3.0 

1.0 

1.0 

3.0 

3.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

MULESHOE RANCH SEEDMIX (Seeded -August, 1986) 

REFERENCES 

Bainbridge, D.A., Fidelibus, M., MacAIIer, R., 1995. Techniques for Plant Establishment in 

Arid Ecosystems. Restoration and Management Notes. 13(2):190-197. 

Bauer, A., Berg, W.A., and Gould, W.L., 1978. Correction of nutrient deficiencies and 

302 
toxicities in strip-mined land in semi-arid and arid regions. Pp. 451-466, in F.W. Schaller 

and P. Sutton (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. American Society of 

Agronomy. Madison, Wise. 

Box, T.W. 1978. The significance and responsibility of rehabilitating drastically disturbed land. Pp. 

1-10 in F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. 

American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wise. 

Burgess, T.L., 1995. Desert grassland, mixed shrub savanna, shrub steppe, or 

semi-desert scrub? The dilemma of coexisting growth forms. Pp. 31-67, in M.P. McClaran and 

T.R. Van Devender (eds.), The Desert Grassland. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ariz. 

Cox, J.R., Morton, H.L., Johnsen, T.N. Jr., Jordan, G.L., Martin, S.C., and Fierro, L.C., 1982. 

Vegetation restoration in the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts of North America. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Agricultural Reviews and Manuals, 

ARM-W-28. 

D'Antonio, C.M. and Vitousek, P.M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire 

cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 23:63-87. 

Kay B.L., 1978. Mulch and chemical stabilizers for land reclamation in dry regions. 

Pp. 467-483, in F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. 

American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wise. 

Kay, B.L., 1987. Modifications of seedbeds with natural and artificial mulches. Pp. 221-224, in 

G.W. Frasier and R.A. Evans (eds.), Proceedings of symposium "seed and seedbed ecology of 

rangeland plants". Tucson, Ariz. 

Miller, R.M., Moorman, T.B., and Schmidt, S.K., 1983. Interspecific plant association effects on 

vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza occurrence in Atrip/ex confertifolia, New Phytol., 95, 241, 

1983. 

Miller, R.M ., 1987. The ecology of Vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizae in grass and shrublands. Pp. 

135-170, in G.R. Safir (Ed.), Ecophysiology of VA Mycorrhizal plants. CRC Press Inc. 

Packer, E.P. and Aldan E.F., 1978. Revegetation techniques for dry regions. Pp. 425-450, in F.W. 

Schaller and P. Sutton (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. American Society of 

Agronomy. Madison, Wise. 

Roundy, B.A., 1995. Lessons from the past- Gilbert L. Jordans, revegetation research in the 

Chihuahuan and Sonoran Desert. Pp. 107-112 in B.A. Roundy and E.D. McArthur (eds.), 

Proceedings: Wildland Shrubs and Arid Land Restoration Symposium, October 17-21, 1993, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

St. John, T.V., 1987. Soil disturbance and the mineral nutrition of native plants. Pp. 34-39, in J.P. 

Rieger and B.K. Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation 

symposium. San Diego, CA. 

Verma, T.R. and Thames, T.L., 1978. Grading and shaping for erosion control and vegetative 

establishment in dry regions. Pp. 399-409, in F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds.), Reclamation 

of drastically disturbed lands. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wise. 

Warner, N.J., Allen, M.F., and MacMahon, J.A., 1978. Dispersal agents of vesicular-arbuscular 

mycorrhizal fungi in a disturbed arid ecosystem. Mycologia, 79(5), 721-730. 

Wright, D.L., Perry, H.D. and Blaser, R.E., 1978. Persistent low maintenance vegetation for 

erosion control and aesthetics in highway corridors. Pp. 553-583, in F.W. Schaller, and P. 

Sutton (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. American Society of Agronomy. 

Madison, Wise. 

303 
Natural Site Conditions and their 

Effects on Establishment in 

Grassland Restoration1 

Margaret Livingston2 

Factors influencing establishment of three native species of grass, Arizona cottontop, plains 

love grass, and bush muhlenbergia were investigated. Natural habitats of these grasses were 

examined for conditions favorable to these species. From these observations, experimental 

plantings were established to test the emergence and establishment of these grasses, and some 

influences of associated species were determined. 

Differences in germination requirements between bush muhly and plains lovegrass were evident 

and emphasized the importance of coordinating plantings with natural rainfall patterns. Seed 

retrieval studies revealed bush muhly germinates quickly but seedlings die if soil moisture is not 

replenished. Lovegrass exhibits variable dormancy and may germinate up to three years after 

planting. In areas with a summer monsoon season, the rainfall pattern in August provides the most 

reliable time for plantings of warm season native grasses. Mulch provided the best microhabitat for 

establishment of these species, compared to small rocks or furrows, by lengthening the time period 

that soil moisture was available to seedlings. A layer of mulch may also reduce germination of 

weedy or aggressive species such as Lehmann1S lovegrass, which has a light requirement for 

germination. 

Characteristics of sites where these species were established in association with other species 

were examined, and differences between species were evident. Arizona cottontop was versatile, 

and plants were found either in the understory or in open areas. In some sites, plains lovegrass 

was more dense in the open, but in other sites, there was no difference in density between full sun 

and understory habitats. Bush muhly was always found in greater concentration under canopies 

provided by mesquite, cholla or creosote, and may choke out creosote in some sites. 

Although abiotic site characteristics may appear favorable for seeding a particular species, 

nearby aggressive species may choke out the desired plant. Land managers must determine ways 

to control invading species for successful establishment of native plants. Establishment is a lengthy 

process. Seeded species may remain dormant for several seasons or migrate to microsites that 

meet their requirements. Irrigation, or other alteration of natural conditions, may provide microsites 

suitable for native plants that are not usually able to establish in the area. 

1 Summarized by Linda Elliott, Arizona State University 2 Landscape Architecture , School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ. 

304 
Considering Genetic Diversity 

in Grassland Restoration 1 

Steve Smith2 

Biodiversity is a multifaceted characteristic of a biological system that may involve the variety of 

organisms present, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur. Arranged in a hierarchical fashion, one could consider the patterns and 

connections between landscapes and regions. The next level of the hierarchy would examine the 

characteristics of communities and ecosystems such as abundance, frequency and richness, and at 

the species level, the abundance or frequency of individual species. Genetic diversity would be 

found at the base of this hierarchial scheme, and although may be the least appreciated of the 

levels, is the most important. Genetic diversity is the source of variation among and within 

populations, and is the ultimate source of biodiversity at higher levels. 

Examination of model populations of grass species in minimally disturbed sites yields 

information on community organization and genetic variation for use in restoration. A few sites in 

southern Arizona have not been exposed to disturbance and serve as good sources of information. 

For collection of native seed, three rules should be followed to enhance genetic diversity. 

Restorationists must remember local adaptation to changes in environment may occur over a very 

short distance, so collections from model populations at or near the restoration site are 

recommended. The second rule relates to the size of the sample. The probability of sampling the 

full range of genetic variation present in a population is directly related to the size of the sample, so 

at least one hundred individuals in the model population should be sampled. Random sampling, 

rule three, stresses the importance of elimination of bias in the sampling procedure. 

Genetic diversity among and within the population is the ultimate source of all biodiversity. 

Successful grassland restoration depends on selection of reasonable model communities and 

populations. Samples from model populations for use in restoration should be large, and should be 

collected randomly. To obtain a truly random sample is complicated, and very little is known about 

the genetic characteristics of some plants. Collecting an overly large sample may provide an 

allowance for error. 

1 Summarized by Linda Elliott, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ. 2 Department of Plant Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

305 
Revegetation of Abandoned 

Agricultural Fields in the Sonoran Desert 

Jerry R. Cox1 and Gary W. Thacker2 

ABSTRACT 

Historical records show that southeastern Arizona was a 

grassland before 1880. Today, shrubby plants dominate the region. 

From 1880 to 1920, dramatic changes in the composition of 

vegetation took place along major waterways. Flooding and the 

resulting channelization, plowing of the floodplains, and livestock 

grazing essentially eliminated the natural process of shallow 

groundwater recharge. The purpose of this paper is to determine 

why the changes occurred, and determine if the resource can be 

reclaimed. 

INTRODUCTION 

Early Descriptions 

Early explorers in southeastern Arizona maintained journals describing vegetation. Their records 

provide descriptions of grazing areas and vegetation prior to 1880: 

Santa Cruz Basin. "We were off this morning (from Tucson) ... and soon entered a thickly wooded 

valley of mesquite. A ride of nine miles brought us to San Xavier de Bac ... a mile farther we stopped 

in a fine grove of large mesquite trees near a river, where there was plenty of grass. The bottomlands resembled meadows being covered with luxuriant grass and but a few trees. The bottoms 

(between San Xavier and Tubac) in places are several miles wide ... and covered with tall, golden 

colored grass ... divided by a meandering stream a dozen yards wide and as many inches deep, this 

shaded by cottonwoods, willows, and mesquites" (Bartlett 1854). 

San Pedro Basin. "The valley of this river is quite wide and is covered with a dense growth of 

mesquite, cottonwood, and willow. The majority of the valley has good grass ... the bottoms having 

very tall grass. There is excellent trout fishing, but the grass makes travel by wagon very difficult' 

(Cooke 1938). 

Sulphur Springs Basin. "This vast area is without either running streams or timber, but covered to 

a great extent with fine grass. Approaching Sulphur Springs from the east, the road lies for miles 

through a dense growth of sacaton grass" (Hinton 1878). 

1 Texas A&M Research & Extension Center, Vernon, TX 2 Pegasus Machinery Co., Tucson, AZ. 

306 
San Simon Basin. 11The valley of the San Simon is ... 25 miles in width, and contains much fine 

grazing and some agricultural land. It is covered with gramagrass. Mesquite is most conspicuous 

and abundant from the base of the mountain (Mount Graham) ... and sparse on the mesa ... the 

sacaton and grama cover the plain .... The country abounds in game, such as deer, antelope, wolf, 

wild turkey, duck and quaW (Hinton 1878). 

IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 

Farming in southeastern Arizona was concentrated initially near major lowland drainage areas. 

Water was taken directly from rivers. This practice was hazardous on the San Pedro River because 

beaver would build dams in irrigation ditches at night and limit water flow to cropland. During the 

floods of 1895 and 1900, channel cutting resulted from the combination of farming, wagon trails, 

and grazing. The soils associated with lowlands were extremely rich because above- and belowground growth of sacaton added organic carbon and nutrients. 

Sacaton grasslands had slowed floodwater, trapped sediment, and enhanced soil fertility on 

southeastern Arizona floodplains for thousands of years. Once removed by plowing, burning or 

grazing, there was nothing to slow water movement in the lowlands. The result was channelization. 

From 1930 to 1960, irrigated agriculture expanded rapidly in Arizona•s southeastern counties 

(Table 1). Decades of peak acreage were in the 194o•s in Cochise, 195o•s in Pima and Pinal, and 

1960•s in Graham and Santa Cruz Counties. During periods of maximum cultivation, about 2.6 

million acres were cultivated in the five southern counties; and if the areas farmed in 1980 are 

subtracted from the peak acreage, then 2.2 million acres of farmland have been abandoned in the 

past 40 or 50 years. Urban growth and water use in urban areas is predicted to increase 

dramatically by the year 2030 (Arizona Water Commission 1975). As urban demand for water 

increases, water will be diverted from agricultural uses, which have lesser value. This means the 

abandonment of more of the region•s farmland, a phenomenon occurring nationally at an estimated 

average rate of 3 million acres per year (Sheets 1981). 

Farmland is dominated by tumbleweed immediately after abandonment, and if undisturbed for 

2 or 3 years, tumbleweed is replaced by mustards (Cox and Madrigal1988). Annuals may be 

replaced in 3 to 10 years by half-shrubs such as baccharis and burroweed. After 10 years, 

abandoned fields are usually dominated by widely spaced half-shrubs and shrubs such as 

creosotebush, saltbush and mesquite. 

307 
Counties - Acres of abandoned farmland 

Year Cochise Graham Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Total 

1900 4,990 18,300 8,620 11,300 2,560 45,770 

1910 4,900 38,820 10,160 25,430 4,770 84,080 

1920 12,980 32,400 16,880 28,650 2,610 93,520 

1930 377,010 136,410 280,550 75,740 4,990 874,700 

1940 907,700 210,130 293,660 593,930 168,610 2,174,030 

1950 359,120 405,610 353,330 871,690 126,210 2,097,960 

1960 637,620 492,000 312,520 730,670 185,780 2,358,590 

1970 90,920 51,850 50,030 260,110 2,100 455,010 

1980 88,630 45,900 47,280 221,610 3,970 407,390 

819,000 446,100 288,050 509,060 181,810 2,244,090 

Table 1. Acres of irrigated agriculture in southeastern Arizona between 1990 and 1980 and 

estimates of abandoned farmland in 1980. Abandoned farmland acres were obtained by 

subtracting 1980 estimates from peak production years (Cox et al. 1983). 

Raindrop impact causes compaction of bare soil which reduces infiltration and enhances runoff, 

but wind erosion at the present is the most serious problem. In late June, moisture surges from the 

Gulf of Mexico generate long squall lines in southeastern Arizona. In front of the advancing squall 

lines, wind gusts approach 70 miles per hour, and visibility may decrease to zero. Dust storms, 

generated as the squall lines, pass over abandoned farmland were responsible for more than 440 

automobile accidents between 1960 and 1980. 

The following studies were initiated to determine if perennial plants can be established with 

irrigation water before water rights are transferred from agricultural to municipal uses, and to 

evaluate the survival of two grasses (big and alkali sacaton) which dominated abandoned farmland 

sites prior to cultivation and irrigation. 

CAN PERENNIAL PlANTS ESTABLISH AND PERSIST 

ON ABANDONED FARMlAND? 

Studies at San Xavier, Arizona 

A study was conducted on abandoned farmland at the San Xavier Indian Reservation, south of 

Tucson. The site was plowed and sown to cotton or alfalfa between 1933 and 1971 and 

abandoned in 1972. Reclamation studies were conducted between 1980 and 1986. 

A seedbed was prepared by disking in either spring, summer or fall, and seeding 7 perennial 

grasses. Perennial grass seeds need continuous soil moisture for 7 days to ensure germination, 

and additional soil moisture within 7 days after germination to ensure establishment. Therefore, 

grasses received either 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 flood irrigations at either 0, 7, 14 and 21 days after 

308 
planting. One-half of each irrigated area was hand weeded at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days after the 

final irrigation. 

Conclusions 

The intent of our study was to determine the effects of planting season, supplemental irrigation, 

and weed competition on the establishment and production of 7 perennial grasses. We found that 

small seed of 11A-6811 , 11 L-2811, 

11L-3811 Lehmann lovegrass and 11A-8411 Boer lovegrass were unable to 

emerge from silty clay loam soil irrespective of planting season, irrigation amount or weed 

competition; hence, these grasses were unacceptable for reclaiming abandoned farmland (Cox and 

Madrigal 1988). 11Catalina11 Boer lovegrass , and 11A-13011 and 11SDr1 blue panicgrass seedlings from seed planted in 

summer often persisted for 4 months or more after planting, whereas seedlings from seed planted 

in spring and fall always died in less than 4 months. Our most important finding is that 11Catalina11 

and both blue panic grasses will germinate and produce seedlings under natural rainfall, but longterm persistence was unreliable because plants eventually died. We might have missed this 

important point and recommended seeding without supplemental water, if the study plan had not 

included long-term evaluations. Therefore, these grasses are not adapted for planting on 

abandoned farmland if their survival is dependant on natural rainfall. 

Blue panicgrass 11A-13011 and 11SDr1 plants, established with 3 or 4 irrigations in summer, will 

persist for 52 months after planting and weeding to remove annual competition is unnecessary. 

The steady decline in plant persistence and forage production with time; however, may suggest that 

neither blue panic grass accession is adapted and both will disappear eventually. Thus, there is the 

distinct possibility that the methods and plant materials used in this study are not adequate to 

reclaim abandoned farmland in southeastern Arizona. 

Studies at Three Points, Arizona 

A second abandoned farmland study was conducted at the Buckelew Farm near Three Points. 

The site was sown to cotton between 1954 and 1975 (Thacker and Cox 1992). In 1976, the farm 

was purchased by the City of Tucson, and the water rights transferred from agricultural to municipal 

uses. 

After irrigation water is diverted from agricultural lands to municipalities, wind-borne soil particles 

from abandoned farmland reduce driver visibility and contribute to vehicle accidents. To stabilize 

soils, a cooperative study was initiated with the City of Tucson, a local farmer, and the state of 

Arizona. The City contributed two irrigation wells and 1,000 acres of abandoned farmland, the 

farmer provided machinery and fuel, and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality provided 

a grant. The purpose of the study was to establish perennial crops with irrigation before the water 

rights were transferred to the City of Tucson, and monitor plant persistence to determine 

relationships between plant survival, rainfall amount and distribution, and air quality after irrigation 

was discontinued. 

A seedbed was prepared by plowing a sandy clay loam to 18 inches, and disking prior to the 

summer rains. In this experiment, we broadcast 11Catalina11 Boer lovegrass, ~~s-7511 kleingrass, 11Common11 buffelgrass, 11COchise11 lovegrass, 11Kalahari 11 bottlebrush grass, and 11Hatcheta11 sideoats 

gramagrass seeds in 1986 and 1987, and collected data from 1987 to 1994. Irrigation 

treatments were flood applications at either 0, 2 applications at 7 day intervals, or 4 applications at 

7 day intervals. 

309 
Conclusions 11Catalina11 Boer lovegrass, 11S-75 kleingrass and 11Common11 buffelgrass seed, germinated after the 

summer rains, but only 11Common11 buffelgrass seedlings survived for more than 6 months. 

Buffelgrass plants established under natural rainfall were still present in fall 1996, but plant 

densities were less than 1 plant per 9 square ft. 

The native grass, sideoats grama, germinated after the initial irrigation, but most plants died 

before the second application, seven days later. Within 48 months, established sideoats plants 

began to die, and few plants were present in seeded plots during fall 1992. 11Catalina11 Boer lovegrass, 11 5-7511 kleingrass and 11Common11 buffelgrass seed germinated after the 

second irrigation, and after 1 year densities and production were similar on plots receiving either 2 

or 4 irrigations. By years 2 and 3, 11Catalina11 and 11S-7511 densities declined by approximately 50%, 

but 11Common11 buffelgrass densities either remained constant or increased. We frequently observed 

quail feeding in kleingrass plots, and deer and javelina feeding in buffelgrass plots. 

Observations in 1992 and 1996 indicated establishment of sideoats grama, three-awns and 

sand dropseed in irrigated lovegrass and kleingrass plots, but no native grass establishment in 

buffelgrass plots where plant densities have remained relatively constant for the past 10 years. 

Studies at the University of Arizona-Romero Road Farm, Tucson, Arizona 

To determine if sacaton could survive on abandoned farmland where water flows from natural 

drainage had been diverted, 40 big and alkali sacaton collections from sites in west Texas, southern 

New Mexico, southeastern Arizona and the states of Zacatecas and Chihuahua in Mexico, were 

transplanted at the Romero Road Farm during spring 1981. All plants were watered in spring, 

summer, and fall 1981, but only one-half of the plants continued to receive irrigation in summers 

between 1982 and 1987. 

Conclusions 

After discontinuing irrigations, all big and alkali sacaton collections died within 24 months. 

IMPLICATIONS 

Under current soil and climatic conditions it is unlikely that big and alkali sacaton, and sideoats 

grama will establish and persist on abandoned farmland without the annual application of irrigation 

water. In contrast, buffelgrass, an introduced perennial from Africa, can be easily established and 

will persist for 10 years after establishment with 2 or 4 initial irrigations. One important observation 

was the establishment of native, perennial grasses in plots seeded to kleingrass and 11Catalina11 Boer 

lovegrass, and irrigated 2 to 4 times. 

We are not suggesting that introduced plants are the only perennial plants adapted on 

abandoned farmland, even though this does appear to be true. It may be that native plants will 

establish where introduced plants were initially sown after organic carbon and soil nutrients have 

accumulated; therefore, it may be possible to establish native plants within introduced stands. We 

have observed native plants invading fenced stands of Lehmann lovegrass in southeastern Arizona, 

and Dr. Bruce Roundy and graduate students have documented the establishment of native plants 

(from seed) in mature Lehmann lovegrass stands. It may be possible to use introduced plants to 

enhance infiltration and soil nutrients, and then seed natives into introduced stands. 

As desert farmland is removed from production and the water rights transferred to municipalities, 

the new owners will be faced with management problems. To reduce environmental impacts, we 

310 
recommend the establishment of a permanent vegetation cover before retirement, this will reduce 

the headaches and liabilities associated with land management. If adapted vegetation is 

established before retirement, the site will be stabilized with plant cover. Beneficial plant cover will 

limit blowing soil and inhibit tumbleweeds from dominating the land. 

The costs of establishing vegetation are easy to measure, the benefits are more difficult to 

quantify because they relate to health, safety, and legal issues. The environmental costs of 

abandoning farmland are in the form of dust pollution, erosion from water runoff, tumbleweeds 

blowing onto roadways, and automobile accidents caused by blowing dust. In the past, society was 

either not concerned or not aware of potential environmental impacts from abandoned farmland. 

Today, however, most are aware of adverse actions, and we in agriculture and municipalities must 

offer alternatives and incentives to minimize adverse environmental impacts. 

REFERENCES 

Arizona Water Commission. 1975. Phase 1-Arizona State Water Plan. Inventory 

of Resources and Uses. Phoenix, AZ. 37 pp. 

Bartlett, J. R. 1854. [Personal narrative of exploration and incidents in Texas, New Mexico, 

California, Sonora and Chihuahua. Volumes 1 and 3]. The Botanical Review 24:193-252. 

Cooke, P. G. 1938. [Journal of the March of the Mormon Battalion, 1846-184 7]. 

The Botanical Review 24:193-252. 

Cox, K. R., H. L. Morton, J. T. LaBaume and K. G. Renard. 1983. Reviving 

Arizona•s Rangelands. J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:342-345. 

Cox, J. R. and R. M. Madrigal. 1988. Establishing perennial grasses on 

abandoned farmland in southeastern Arizona. Applied Agricultural Research 3:36-43. 

Thacker, G. W. and J. R. Cox. 1992. How to establish a permanent vegetation 

cover on farmland. Arizona Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture, 

University of Arizona. #191051, 23 pp. 

311 
Holistic Reclamation: 

A Natural Remediation Process 

Using Cattle and Other Natural Tools 

Terence 0. Wheeler1 

Today, I believe that we are all here for the same purpose, at least I hope so. And that is to 

learn how to use one of our most valuable resources, our grasslands, in a multitude of ways for the 

betterment of our diverse society and to be able to pass this resource, in a healthy state, on to our 

heirs. 

The National Research Council through the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences 

completed a new set of guidelines regarding range land health in 1994. In my opinion it is an 

excellent document. Anyone interested in managing for healthy grasslands should get a copy. 

The committee defined 11Rangeland Health11 as the degree to which the integrity of the soil and 

the ecological process are sustained. 

More specifically, the committee recommends the term 11Rangeland Health11 be used to indicate 

the degree of integrity of the soil and ecological processes that are most important in sustaining the 

capacity of the rangelands to satisfy values and produce commodities. In other words folks we need 

these healthy rangelands to not only be able to support healthy plant and animal communities but 

support the economic needs of our communities through grazing and other uses as well. 

We are fortunate today to have on our panel two members of the committee that labored for 

several years to produce this document, ~~Rangeland Health11 • They are my friends Kirk Gadzia and 

George Ruyle. 

The Title of Our Conference is 11The Future of Arid Grasslands11 As far as I am concerned the 

future of arid grasslands is solely up to us. We can make them be what we want them to be. We 

need to set our goals and manage toward these goals. We have all the tools at our disposal. 

This morning I will show you how that can be done and on sites that are much worse than any 

grassland you will ever see. These sites are at their lowest point of successional development. 

These sites are mine tailings. 

For many years people believed, and still do, that mine tailings were toxic piles of poisonous 

dirt. That they were problems to be solved. And for years we have tried to solve these problems 

using lots and lots of money with almost no lasting effect. 

In 1986 it occurred to me that we were looking at the wrong thing. That we were not dealing 

with a toxic problem. We are dealing with an ecological phenomenon . Mine tailings are no more 

than pulverized rock with the minerals removed, one of the primary ingredients for soil. Once we 

begin to realize that we are working with an ecological condition the rules change, and we can begin 

to deal with the situation in a positive manner. 

In today's complex world where competition for space on the earth1S surface is increasing by the 

day it is mandatory that industry, even though essential economically, be responsible for cleanup of 

aftermath or residue of an industrial process. For many years the knowledge of this cleanup wasn1t 

readily available, was too costly, wasn't effective, or a combination of these. Stability on reclaimed 

1 Arizona Ranch Management, Globe, AZ .. 

312 
sites has always been problem but today there has been a break- through that can cost effectively 

handle most of these problems. The ability for nature to repair itself has been part of the natural 

process since the beginning of time. We can now stimulate and speed up this natural process 

through the planned use of ruminant herbivores, particularly cattle, and other natural tools in 

context with applied technology. 

Mining, next to agriculture, is probably the single most economically important industry not only 

in our nation but around the world. Yet in today1S complex society these two disciplines are so 

interdependent on one another, as well as other disciplines, that it is often difficult to determine 

where one discipline starts and the other leaves off. 

This is certainly the case with reclaiming land affected by mining and other industrial processes. 

Because these lands are a natural environment they are dependent on several agricultural 

disciplines to be to be successfully reclaimed even though much of the success of reclamation work 

depends on work of a mechanical nature and other technology. 

Natural environments are dynamic and when stimulated will progress or regress successional as 

determined by an influence, whether that influence be mechanical, natural or a combination 

thereof. Therefore, natural progression toward successional more complex and diverse plant and 

animal communities can be achieved through the application of appropriate planned influences. 

Knowing this, it is then possible to predetermine a reasonable future landscape description and 

then attain it by stimulating the natural process through the application of selected management 

tools in a timely manner. 

Tools of management can be divided into two major categories; they are the natural tools (tools 

of nature) and tools of technology (mechanical tools). 

During the mechanical revolution, especially in agriculture since World War II, the development 

of technology has been so fast, great and overwhelming that most of us in the natural fields have 

all but lost touch with the natural process. As a result we tend to look almost totally to technology 

for the answer to solve natural problems of agriculture and it's related fields including reclamation. 

We do this when in actuality these fields are dependent on the natural process for not only success; 

they are dependent on the natural process for their very existence. We rely on the mechanical 

process and then wonder why success ratios with natural resource projects are so low as well as 

costly. 

To compound the problem, Federal and State policies regulating reclamation more often than 

not create rules that stymie the use of a natural process to improve natural conditions. This can be 

a result of ignorance, a faulty paradigm, or a lack of knowledge regarding ecological processes. 

Many times, however, policy is influenced by big business in order to create markets for technology. 

A perfect example of policy influenced by big business are weed control laws in many states. These 

laws force the use of costly chemicals to control weeds that seldom present a problem where there 

are good farmers because they can be controlled by cultural methods. The result is that much 

money has been spent, water, soil, people, domestic animals and wildlife have been damaged by 

chemicals and the weed problem is worse than before spraying because natural control systems 

have been poisoned and cultural control practices have been abandoned in favor of the chemical 

control. 

The fact that we in the U.S., can, today, enjoy a prosperous economy buoyed by plentiful 

foodstuffs at the worlds lowest prices is not the result of superior agronomic skills based on 

intellectual! y superior natural resource knowledge. No, it is because we have the cheapest 

availability of fossil fuel combined with the most advanced and superior engineering capabilities the 

world has ever known. And although, on the face of things, agriculture and its many related fields 

313 
are seemingly prosperous, a closer look will disclose that they are not. Soils once stable and fertile 

have been mined of their organic matter and are highly vulnerable to erosion. These soils are now 

dependent on vast amounts of chemical fertilizers to produce at all. The use of insecticides is at an 

all time high while at the same time insect problems are also at an all time high. Water is becoming 

contaminated with fertilizer, insecticide and herbicide residues. And because of these problems with 

technology, flawed governmental policies, and reduced use of natural practices we have wiped out 

a profit margin, have ruined many thousands of acres of productive land and have lost entire land 

based communities. 

I have used this scenario to lay the groundwork for what I see as a mounting problem in the 

field of natural resources particularly as it refers to reclamation. We are now employing the same 

management paradigm, that is killing us in agriculture, to vegetate and stabilize, the worst case 

scenario, mine tailings. 

Technology is neither good nor bad, but in itself is not the answer. Technology is just a large 

array of tools that if used in the right context can produce beneficial results. Many of today•s 

resource problems would not exist if technology were used more judiciously. 

Natural tools include rest, fire, grazing, animal impact, and living organisms. All except fire have 

been successfully employed in the new methodology termed .. Holistic Reclamation .. of using cattle 

for reclamation. The use of all of these tools, as well as technology, is part of a process that starts 

with the development of a three part goal. One part of the goal is a future desired natural landscape 

description that is managed toward, instead of creating an artificial landscape out of step with 

nature and, therefore, not sustainable. 

Tailings are no more than ground up rock, the product of a mechanical process but basically no 

different than soil particles that resulted from a geological grinding process. The only real difference 

between the two mediums, i.e. soil and tailings, is the presence or absence of life. Mechanical 

stabilization more closely resembles a hydroponics unit than a natural stage of succession, and in 

order to produce stability on tailings the natural process must be stimulated, by an outside source, 

to produce a diverse and complex landscape. The missing ingredient was life, particularly the 

micro-organisms that decay plant material and provide the nutrient base for plant growth and soil 

development. 

The most obvious source of this type of micro-organism was ruminant animals such as cattle. 

These microbes along with important enzymes, minerals and other nutrients are passed through the 

animal with the manure to provide life to the soil. This would be an excellent source of life for the 

tailings. Cattle and other grazers have other benefits as well. They provide the outside stimulus 

through hoof action which is extremely important for several reasons. It breaks the bare tailings 

surface creating miniature dams or air spoils that reduce air turbulence on the surface thereby 

reducing wind erosion. Farmers in the plains states learned this concept many years ago and when 

the winds began blowing dry bare fields they plowed them to provide the roughened surface to 

retard soil movement. When hoof action breaks soil capping it also prepares the surface to accept 

rainfall. It can prepare the seed bed by incorporating mulch (organic material) into the tailings 

surface, further stabilizing it, and planting the seed. 

Cattle also remove old growth during the grazing process. This allows sunlight to penetrate to 

the growth points of a grass plant, located near the base of the plant. This stimulates new growth 

and promotes the health and vigor of the plant. This concept has proven to be exceptionally 

important in the maintenance of reclaimed tailings. 

In the last six years approximately 800 acres of mine tailings have been reclaimed using this 

method by several mining companies working with Arizona Ranch Management, Globe Arizona 

314 
including Cyprus, Magma, ASARCO and Kennecott. 

Holistic Reclamation is also capable of solving several other problems that haunt traditional 

reclamation methods. For example, while many consider highly acid pyretic tailings nearly 

impossible to reclaim, this method can raise the pH level over two points. The micro-organisms 

incorporated into the tailings along with the mulch and straw create humic acid which raises pH and 

provides an environment for plant growth. In the process the blanket effect of the mulching robs the 

acid producing microbes of the oxygen necessary for them to function. 

Although each reclamation effort is site specific and each offers different challenges, Holistic 

Reclamation methodology is flexible in its approach and makes the difficult process of reclaiming 

arid southwestern tailings more manageable. Failed reclamation projects of the past are being 

repaired and current mine operations have a more cost effective alternative to soil capping, hydromulching, fertilizing, seeding and irrigating. Above all this new management concept produces 

stable sites. 

An unexpected but welcome side benefit of this management methodology is the wildlife. 

Tailings reclaimed in this manner have become magnets for wildlife of every size and description. 

Fauna observed on tailings dams in association with cattle include deer, javelina, coyotes, fox, 

other predators, burrowing animals, insects, raptors including bald and golden eagles and water 

fowl. 

In conclusion, we have learned that using the hoofed animals the microorganisms and other 

natural tools along with the planned used of technology has given us the ability to produce stability 

on sites that were thought to be too sterile and toxic to produce life. This process is being done in a 

cost effective manner that precludes expensive soil capping. Tailings material is being converted 

into living soil with the capability of not only sustaining life, but developing to higher stages of 

successional plateaus to support diverse plant and animal communities. 

315 
Planting Giant Sacaton: Initial Results at 

Cienega Creek Natural Preserve 

Julia E. Fonseca1 and Ronald L. Tiller2

· 

3 

INTRODUCTION 

Giant Sacaton (Sporobo/us wrightil) is a bushy, perennial grass that once was common along 

the floodplains of major river systems in southeastern Arizona (Humphrey 1958). The type locality 

for the species, as described in 1882 by C. G. Pringle (Hitchcock, 1971), today is found within the 

Cienega Creek National Preserve, within an abandoned farm field that is now the site of a 

revegetation project. 

The field was selected for revegetation to improve wildlife habitat along an otherwise extensive 

riparian corridor. The site is being rehabilitated with funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

s Partners for Wildlife Program and the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Stewardship Program. 

Sacaton was selected as one of the species to plant because it was present at the site in 1972 

(Lacey et al., 1975), and because the project team hoped that it could be established without 

irrigation. Only a few isolated sacaton plants have established in the 40-acre (16.2 ha) field since 

it was cleared in 197 4. 

SITE DESCRIPTION 

The field is located in Township 16 South, Range 17 East, Section 35, at an elevation of 

approximately 3550 feet above mean sea level. Soils at the site are predominantly silt loams, with 

gravelly loams present at the southern margin of the field. Slopes are generally from 0 to 3%. 

Annual rainfall is approximately 14 inches. 

The site's mesquite woodland was removed in 197 4 using chainsaws and bulldozers; a root 

plow was used to remove stumps (Neal Hanna, personal communication). For the first several 

years, alfalfa was grown under irrigation. Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) was then planted for 

livestock forage. Bermuda grass is still the dominant perennial plant at the site. The site was 

grazed by cattle until its acquisition by Pima County Flood Control District in 1988. The field was 

grazed by five horses from 1989 to May 1996. 

METHODS 

Archeological trenching at the site revealed the presence of buried pithouses and other features 

below a 1-foot (0.3 m) deep plow zone. Because the State Historic Preservation Office prohibits 

planting deep-rooted trees or shrubs above archeological sites, sacaton was one of the few plants 

suitable for these sensitive areas. 

Sacaton seeds were collected in the Preserve by Arizona Native Plant Society in October 1995. 

1 Pima County Flood Control District, Tucson AZ. 2 Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ. 3 Presented as a poster. 

316 
,', :.;. 

The collecting site was located approximately one mile south of the field, along an ephemeral reach 

of Cienega Creek, where sacaton grows on infrequently flooded terraces with velvet mesquite 

(Prosopis velutina), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), and bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porten}. 

The sacaton seeds were germinated by a local (Coronado Heights) nursery in April and June 

1996 in flats in a shaded outdoor structure. One to three seedlings were transplanted into 4-inch 

and 14-inch deep containers. Half of plants were grown in the 14-inch by 4-inch container size. 

USFWS funded the seedlings at a cost of $0.80 and $1.85 per container, respectively. 

A mid-August planting date was chosen to take advantage of higher humidity and soil moisture 

generally present during the summer monsoonal season. One week prior to planting, inspection of 

the soil profile demonstrated that rain had moistened the entire soil profile to a depth of 14 inches 

(Figure 1). On the day of planting, the top six inches of soil appeared dry in many of the planting 

sites. An automated rain gauge located approximately one mile from the site was used to monitor 

rainfall. 

On August 10, 1996, 45 volunteers planted approximately 670 seedlings of sacaton over an 

area of approximately three acres. Groups represented at the event include the Audubon Explorers 

Post, Pima County Adult Probation, Southwest Center for Biodiversity and Arizona Native Plant 

Society. Two one-person gas-powered soil augers with 6-inch bits were used to drill holes for the 

deeper containers, otherwise seedlings were transplanted into holes dug by hand. All plants were 

planted and hand-watered in four hours. 

On August 11, a crew of 10 volunteers watered the seedlings again by hand and planted 

several additional remaining containers. Because of slow infiltration rates, few plants received more 

than three liters of water during each watering. Pinflags marking clusters of plants and small, 

hand-dug basins helped to identify seedling locations. 

Volunteers were encouraged to plant seedlings in clusters, with each plant no closer than four 

feet. The objective of clustering was to speed the creation of patches of the dense, upright sacaton 

for wildlife purposes. The clustering also helped locate individuals for subsequent watering. 

Volunteers were encouraged to plant the seedlings in natural swales in the belief that survival might 

be higher in the swales, but other, more xeric microsites were also chosen. 

As part of a larger research effort funded by the Arizona Water Protection Fund, data on a 

number of vegetative characteristics of the transplants is being collected by the junior author. The 

goal of the monitoring effort is to facilitate an ongoing study of the ecology and recovery potential of 

Sporobolus wrightii to abandoned agricultural fields in southern Arizona. Other sites being monitored 

are along the San Pedro River. 

Eighty-six transplants were marked for monthly monitoring, 39 of which are the smaller 

container size. Characteristics being measured include basal area, height of tallest leaf, 

phenological stage and development, topographic position (swale, alluvial fan, or level ground), and 

percentage of vegetative cover within a 1 1

12 foot (0.5 m) radius. 

PRELIMINARY RESULTS 

Approximately 0.3 inches of rain fell on August 11. By September 11, a total of 3.5 inches of 

rain had been received (Figure 1). 

By the end of December, only two of the 86 individuals had died. Both of these were from small 

pots (n=39). Both of these mortalities were evident by late October. With this low mortality rate, 

the influence of topography on survival is not evident. Thirty percent of the individuals grown from 

14-inch containers flowered since planting. Flowering is typically preceded by development of 

317 
. •. ~ .. ~ ~· ... 

·.-.·1 

several new shoots. Nearly all of the plants had senesced by late December. Plants in the swales 

appear to senesce more slowly than plants in other topographic positions. Larger plants 

maintained higher basal diameters than small plants. Although no statistical tests have been 

performed yet, plants growing in gravelly soils of the alluvial slopes appear to have grown more than 

individuals located in swales or on level ground. 

REFERENCES 

Hitchcock, A. S. 1991. Page 966 in Manual of the Grasses of the United States (Vol. 2). Dover 

Publications, New York. 

Humphrey, R. R 1958. The desert grassland. Botanical Review 24: 193-253. 

Lacey, J. R., P. 0. Ogden, and K. E. Foster 1975. Southern Arizona riparian habitat: spatial 

distribution and analysis. Office of Arid Lands Studies Bull. 8 . 

•. 00 

3.911 

3.811 

3.70 

3.811 

3.50 

3.40 

3.311 

3.20 

3.111 

3.1111 

uo 

I 2.10 

i 2.70 

0 2.10 

i 2.50 

.. 2.40 

s 2.311 

i :t.20 

} 2.111 

! 

11. 2.00 

Ull 

1.811 

1.70 

uo 

1.50 

1.40 

1.311 

1.20 

1.10 

1.00 

uo 

11.811 

0.70 

0.811 

0.50 

11.40 

0.311 

0.20 

0.10 

0.00 

PRECIPITATION AT PANTANO JUNGLE SACATON PLANTING SITE Data Collected: 07130196through 10/04196 

I 

~ I Oa18 

-- Cumulative Prac:ipitatlon Figure 1. - Daily Prac:ipitation 

318 
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, 

a Possible Tool for Restoration of Giant 

Sacaton Grasslands 

Linda Kennedy Elliott1

, Jean C. Stutz1

, 

Ronald L. Tiller2 and Juliet C. Stromberg2 

Sporobolus wrightii Munro ex Scribn, giant sacaton, is a perennial bunchgrass found only in 

southwestern North America. Once a dominant species on upper terraces of riparian zones, giant 

sacaton is now restricted to only 5% of its original range as upper floodplain terraces were 

converted to agricultural use (Stromberg 1993). Recent changes in land management goals have 

generated interest in returning these sites to grasslands. However, many restoration attempts 

have been unsuccessful, and natural succession has been slow. 

Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi has been an effective tool of restoration 

projects in many ecosystems. Many plants and AM fungi form mutualistic relationships within 

roots that provide benefits to host plants including enhanced nutrient status, increased drought 

stress resistance and heightened resistance to soil borne pathogens. Mycorrhizae form when plant 

roots are colonized by AM fungal hyphae from germinating spores or an existing hypha I network in 

the soil. This hyphal network exploits the soil matrix and serves as conduit for nutrient flow into 

roots of plants that are facultatively or obligately dependent upon mycorrhizae. Erosion or a history 

of tillage and pesticide use, conditions common in former agricultural fields, may disrupt this hypha I 

network (Johnson and Pfleger 1992). Some species of plant (i.e. Brassicaceae, Chenopodiaceae) 

are not dependent on mycorrhizal associations for nutrient uptake, thus are able to establish quickly 

in disturbed areas. Revegetation of later seral species of plant that are dependent upon 

mycorrhizae may not be successful until an effective AM fungal network is present. 

It is important to determine the role of mycorrhizae in giant sacaton before inoculation with AM 

fungi is considered as a tool in restoration or revegetation projects, because effectiveness of AM 

fungi varies with species of plant and because populations of AM fungi from separate geographic 

locations have different impacts on plant hosts (Koide and Schreiner 1992). Our study of the 

mycorrhizal ecology of Sporobolus wrightii has three objectives: (1) determine levels of AM fungal 

colonization within giant sacaton roots from different habitats, and at different phenological stages 

of the host plant, (2) identify AM fungal species present in the rhizosphere of giant sacaton and 

(3) quantify the effectiveness of AM fungal inoculation on emergence, survivorship and growth of S. 

wrightii. 

Objective 1: Giant sacaton plants in the riparian zone of the San Pedro River in Arizona were 

sampled six times in 1995 to determine differences in levels of AM colonization between habitats 

and between phenological stages of the host plants. Samples were collected from two sites on 

upper floodplain terraces where remnants of sacaton grasslands still exist, and from two sites on 

1 Dept. of Botany, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 2 Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ. 

319 
Feb Mar May Jul Sep Dec 

Total Colonization• 

Lower Terrace 90.8±14.4 110.9±13. 91.0±10.3 66.3± 7.9 61.5±11.3 65.3+ 9.9 

2 

Upper Terrace 58.7 ± 9.6 68.8±10.2 59.6±8.2 63.5±11.7 26.1+ 4.1 32.9+ 5.9 

% Relative Moistureb 

Lower Terrace 42.6 46.6 27.7 21.8 29.9 29.5 

Upper Terrace 41.1 37.9 21.2 20.3 17.7 18.7 

Figure 1. Levels of AM fungal colonization within the roots of Sporobolus wrightii from upper and 

lower floodplain terraces of the San Pedro River. Phenological stages of the plants were assessed as: 

Dormant (D), Intermediate (1), Vegetative (V), Panicle (P), or Mature (M). Colonization varied significantly 

between upper and lower terraces (Pr>F 0.001) and between sampling periods (Pr>F 0.0004). n=24 

lower floodplain terraces where S. wrightii grows in scattered clumps. Roots and soil were 

removed from the base of each plant with a soil auger and transported to laboratory facilities. 

Phenological stage of each plant was assessed and percent relative moisture of each soil sample 

was determined. Sections of root were cleared and stained (Kormanik and McGraw 1982) and 

levels of colonization were evaluated (McGonigle eta/., 1990). 

Levels of AM fungi colonizing roots of Sporobolus wrightii varied significantly over an annual 

period (Table 1). Variation in total colonization of giant sacaton between sampling periods (Figure 

1) may reflect changes in the phenology of S. wrightii, a perennial bunchgrass which exhibits a 

period of dormancy or near dormancy during winter. Colonization of roots during this stage of 

phenology may indicate parasitism by AM fungi. Early in spring, giant sacaton becomes 

photosynthetically active, evidenced by growth of new leaves, and an increase in total AM fungal 

colonization was observed. Elevated levels of AM fungal colonization may indicate increased 

demand on the fungi by the host plant to supply nutrients for actively growing tissue. The prolonged 

decline in total colonization during anthesis and seed maturation may indicate carbon allocation to 

the plant reproductive effort at the expense of the fungal symbiont (Koide and Schreiner 1992). 

Sporobolus wrightii on lower floodplain terraces exhibited significantly greater total AM fungal 

colonization compared to plants on upper terraces (Table 1, Figure 1). This does not indicate 

mycorrhizal associations are less important to giant sacaton in drier habitats. Contributions of AM 

fungi in semi-arid conditions may be critical to the fitness of the host plant, and geographic isolates 

differentially affect water relations of the same species of plant. 

Objective 2: AM fungal species are identified using characteristics of spores. However, not all 

AM fungal species sporulate under field conditions, or a species may sporulate at such low levels 

that detection in field samples is difficult. Several generations of trap cultures (Stutz and Morton 

1996) from field soil cores are necessary to determine species composition. Trap cultures have 

been established using field soil cores from the above sites, and from riparian zones of other rivers 

in Arizona. Each trap culture is maintained in a glasshouse on the Arizona State University campus. 

Preliminary results indicate spores from several species of Glomus and Acau/ospora are present in 

the rhizosphere of giant sacaton. Living cultures of AM fungal populations from each site have 

320 
been established which may be used as inoculum for additional glasshouse and field restoration 

research. 

Objective 3: S. wrightii seed has been collected and will be planted in soil from an existing 

giant sacaton grassland that has been autoclaved to destroy any fungal propagules. Twenty pots 

will receive AM fungal inoculum from the rhizosphere of giant sacaton on an upper floodplain 

terrace, 20 pots will receive inoculum from a lower terrace and 20 pots will serve as control. 

Effectiveness of AM fungal inoculation will be quantified as the difference in emergence, 

survivorship, and growth between plants grown with and without mycorrhizae and will be determined 

experimentally along a gradient of phosphorus availability. This experiment will be concluded in 

February, 1997, when all plants will be harvested. 

If populations of AM fungi that promote growth or survivorship of giant sacaton are 

determined, land use managers may enhance revegetation projects by introduction of these fungal 

populations into abandoned agricultural fields. Mycorrhizal associations may serve as a biotic 

fertilizer, reducing the amount of time, seed and fertilizer needed to return upper floodplain terraces 

to sacaton grasslands. This study will increase our understanding of relationships between AM 

fungi and Sporobolus wrightii, and provide baseline data for further studies that may aid restoration 

and recovery efforts of this valued and fragile ecosystem. 

Feb Mar May Jul Sep Dec 

Total 

Colon izationa 

Lower Terrace 90.8.±14.4 110.9.±13.2 91.0.±10.3 66.3 .± 7.9 61.5.±11.3 65.3.± 9.9 

Upper Terrace 58.7 .± 9.6 68.8.±10.2 59.6 .± 8.2 63.5.±11.7 26.1.± 4.1 32.9.± 5.9 

Vesiclesa 

Lower Terrace 14.9 .± 4.0 18.4 .± 5.0 17.5 .± 5.9 14.0.± 3.8 13.3.± 3.7 5.4.± 1.3 

Upper Terrace 9.6 .±2.6 8.2 .±2.3 7.0 .± 1.5 9.3.± 1.8 4.5.± 1.1 3.4.± 0.9 

%Relative Moistureb 

Lower 42.6 46.6 27.7 21.8 29.9 29.5 

Terrace 

Upper 41.1 37.9 21.2 20.3 17.7 18.7 

Terrace 

a Units are mean number of intersections exhibiting AM fungi per 200 intersections of root (McGonigle 

eta/. 1990) :!:. SE 

b Calculated as (net dry weight of soil - net dry weight I net saturated -net dry) X 100 

Table 1. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization of Sporobo/us wrightii and the mean % relative moisture 

of soil samples from floodplain terraces of the San Pedro River, AZ. Significant differences between 

upper and lower terraces were noted in total colonization, presence of vesicles, and% relative moisture 

of soil (Pr>F 0.0001, 0.0039, 0.0029 respectively). Levels of total colonization and % relative moisture 

were significantly different between sampling periods (Pr>F 0.0004, 0.0001 ). n = 24 for colonization. 

321 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study is being supported in part by grants from the Arizona Water Protection Fund and the 

Graduate Research Support Program from the Office of the Vice President for Research of Arizona 

State University, and a fellowship from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

REFERENCES 

Johnson, N. C. and F. L. Pfleger. 1992. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae and cultural stresses. 

In: Mycorrhizae in Sustainable Agriculture. ASA Special Publication no. 54. Amer. Soc. Ag., 

Crop Sci. Soc, of Amer., and Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer .. Madison. 

Koide, R.T. and R.P. Schreiner. 1992. Regulation of the vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizal 

symbiosis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Bioi. 43:557-581. 

Kormanik, P.P. and A. C. McGraw. 1982. Quantification of vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizae in 

plant roots. In: Schenck, N.C. (ed.). Methods and Principles of Mycorrhizal Research. APS 

Press. 

McGonigle, T.P., M.H. Miller, D.G. Evans, G.L. Fairchild, and J.L. Swan. 1990. A new method 

which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal 

fungi. New Phytol. 115:495-501. 

Stromberg, J.C. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract: Sacaton grasslands. The Arizona Nature 

Conservancy, Tucson AZ. 

Stutz, J. C. and J. B. Morton. 1996. Successive pot cultures reveal high species richness of 

arbuscular endomycorrhizal fungi in arid ecosystems. Can. J. of Bot. In Press. 

322 
Mineland Reclamation 

in Arid Environments 1 

Stu Bengson2 

Mine reclamation involves the establishment of a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem from 

severely altered substrate materials. Restoration of a site to the condition prior to mining 

disturbance is not a practical goal due to extensive disturbance of substrate and soil surface. 

Reclamation of mineland must focus on stabilization of the site and establishing conditions whereby 

the evolutionary processes which are part of a natural ecosystem may begin. 

Mine tailings have no soil characteristics, but will support vegetative growth if managed carefully. 

Stabilization of the tailings and establishment of vegetation may be enhanced by spreading a layer 

of crushed rock over the surface of the tailings, creating microhabitats suitable for plant growth. 

Revegetation is faster if topsoil is available to spread over the tailings followed with hydroseeding 

and mulching with prairie or native hay. Prairie hay is preferred as a ground cover because the hay 

lays flatter than a straw mulch, includes seed and will last for years if properly tacked. Irrigation 

must be supplied as needed. This program has yielded productive and viable ecosystems, but the 

cost may range up to $25,000 per acre. 

Native grasses do not fare well in projects which call for revegetation directly onto mine tailings 

without a soil layer. Native grasses have evolved with native soil and native soil microorganisms, 

components that are lacking in mine tailings. It is possible to use exotics to stabilize the sites, 

which then allows introduction of natives. Four-legged organic soil growers, otherwise known as 

cows, may be used to enhance revegetation roaming on sites where native hay or alfalfa has been 

spread. The cattle work the organic material into the surface, creating microsites on the tailing 

slopes. Their manure may be a source of seed, and provides germination sites and nutrients for 

growth. This starts a progression of annual grasses and forbs which may be grazed off, allowing 

perennials to become established. 

In 1983 and 1984, reclamation of a site was begun with a topsoil spread of 6 inches over mine 

tailings. Livestock was turned onto the site for six months, after which two exotics and four natives 

were found. The soil surface was covered with vegetation. One factor which promoted this rapid 

growth was breakage of the soil crust by the cattle, promoting seed germination and emergence. 

1 Summarized by Linda Elliot, Botany Department, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ. 2 ASARCO Copper Operations, Tucson AZ 

323 
Revegetation of Native Grasses at a 

Mojave Desert Gold Mine 1 

Raymond Franson2 

Cattle were introduced to the east Mojave Desert in the 1880•s, and records indicate the 

vegetation was mostly grass, shoulder high by some accounts, with some herbs. Gold was 

discovered in 1906, and mines were established in areas already altered by grazing. The influx of 

miners, and the resultant effects of cattle drives to provide beef to the miners may have created 

even more disturbance. Currently, the area must be considered borderline habitat for grazing, as 

the land will only support one cow per 1000 acres. 

At this elevation, 4300-5000 feet above sea level, there are reportedly 175 species of native 

plants, but many are rarely found. The rainfall pattern differs from that of Arizona, as most of the 

eight inches of mean annual precipitation falls in the winter months. Seed set in a given year is 

undependable, and successful establishment from seed is rare. These conditions, coupled with 

degradation from cattle and mining, make revegetation projects in the Mojave particularly 

challenging. Propagation of seed in a greenhouse, from plants collected locally, is an important 

element in revegetation of these mine sites, as is a salvage nursery for plants removed from sites 

that are slated for mining activities. 

Grasses present a special suite of problems for revegetation. Many rarely set seed in native 

habitats. Propagation under greenhouse conditions is possible, but successful live plantings are 

very difficult, even if the plants are hardened off. Supplementation of sparse natural rainfall with 

irrigation brings salts to the surface. The planting substrate is crushed rock, so there is no topsoil 

to provide appropriate growth media for grasses. Without topsoil, there is no mycorrhizal network to 

provide nutrients to the grasses. These conditions, although unfavorable for grass, are conducive to 

the establishment of some exotics, namely Russian thistle. 

Although many regulators now insist on the use of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as a 

component of revegetation projects, most land use managers are not qualified to determine the 

appropriate fungal population for a given site, and may become victims of unscrupulous 

contractors. Independent assessment of the mycorrhizal component of a revegetation program 

may prevent abuses. 

1 Summarized by Linda Elliott, Botany Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, /lZ.. 2 Viceroy Gold Corporation, Searchlight, NV. 

324 
Land Imprinting for Restoring 

Vegetation in the Desert Southwestl 

Robert M. Dixon and Ann B. Carr2 

ABSTRACT 

During the past two decades land imprinting has been 

used to restore perennial grasses on 20,000 hectares of 

degraded rangeland in southern Arizona alone. Using 

homemade imprinters, several ranchers have profited from 

the greatly increased forage produced by the restored 

grasses. Elsewhere in the Desert Southwest, imprinter 

seeding has been directed to ecological restoration of native 

ecosystems. Seed mixes of early, mid and late seral species 

have been germinated in soil imprints at several locations in 

the Sonoran, Colorado and Mohave Deserts. V-shaped 

imprints funnel seed, rainwater, eroded soil and plant litter 

together where these resources can work in concert to 

germinate seeds and establish seedlings. Imprinting has 

established vegetation successfully on degraded land areas 

where annual precipitation ranges from 3 to 14 inches. The 

imprinting technology is currently being extended to the 

revegetation of steep slopes to control erosion and 

sedimentation. Future developments will be directed to 

using imprinting in wetland restoration. 

INTRODUCTION 

Revegetation is needed in the Desert Southwest to replace the perennial grasses nearly 

eliminated by a combination of cattle grazing and drought (Roundy and Biedenbender 1995). Loss 

of the grass cover has greatly decreased rainwater infiltration and increased water runoff, erosion, 

flash flooding and sedimentation. Reduced recharge of upland aquifers has lowered water tables, 

thereby reducing or stopping the flow of springs and streams. 

Currently, rangeland revegetation objectives are changing to meet the needs of society. This is 

especially true for public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management. There is greater emphasis on ecological restoration for biodiversity, wildlife and 

recreation. Revegetation approaches have changed to achieve these new goals. When increased 

grass forage production was the principal goal, classical agricultural wisdom was applied, whereby 

existing vegetation was destroyed using a variety of mechanical and chemical methods to eliminate 

competition with the grasses to be seeded. Often the final plant community was essentially a 

monoculture of an exotic grass such as Lehmann love grass (Eragrostis lehmanniana). Thus the 

complex, although degraded, existing ecosystem was converted to a simple agricultural ecosystem 

of exotics including Eurasian livestock--usually cattle. Exotic grasses were not only easier to 

1 Presented as a poster. 2 The Imprinting Foundation, Tucson. AZ. 

325 
establish in the degraded rangeland, but also could cope better with the intense grazing of large 

exotic ungulates, having co-evolved with them in Africa and elsewhere. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The new land treatment process, land imprinting, has been under development since 1976 

when the first imprinter was fabricated in the machine shop at the USDA's Walnut Gulch 

Experimental Watershed which surrounds Tombstone, Arizona (Dixon and Simanton 1977) 

Development of this new method has been driven by two needs. First was the fact that the 

rangeland drill, often considered the best conventional method, was only marginally successful 

about one time out of ten. And next was the growing need for a method that would restore 

perennial grasses without destroying the existing vegetation; i.e., an effective method for inter 

seeding the missing ecosystem component. 

Imprinter seeding, when done properly, has been successful about nine times out of ten both for 

increasing forage production and ecological restoration. The greater success of imprinting relative to 

drilling was attributed to greatly improved control of rainwater at the soil surface (Dixon 1990). 

Ranchers, using homemade imprinters, have inter seeded perennial grasses on some 20,000 

hectares of degraded rangeland in southern Arizona, alone. 

Failure of imprinter seeding has almost always been directly attributable to either poor imprints 

or poor seed or both. Poor imprints result from the use of substandard equipment and/or operating 

procedures. Poor imprints are those which are relatively shallow and/or unstable. Poor seed can 

have a number of causes, but perhaps the most common one is insufficient pioneer species in the 

seed mix to improve the microenvironment enough to help in the establishment of later seral 

species. These pioneer species serve as cover, nurse, mulch and green manure plants. They are 

especially needed where the land has been severely disturbed and the revegetation objective is 

ecological restoration. 

Shallow or partial imprints result from a poorly designed imprinting roller, insufficient imprinter 

ballast or extremely hard soils. Ripping to soften extremely hard rangeland soils should not be done 

as an alternative to adding more imprinter ballast unless the imprinting pressure required for an 

adequate imprint exceeds 345kPa (50 psi.). Another alternative is to wait until a rain has softened 

the soil an approach especially appropriate for fall seeding of rocky rangeland soils. 

Imprint instability may be caused by initial till age, lack of surface cover such as plant litter or 

gravel and coarse (sandy) soil texture. Time of imprinting also affects imprint stability. Fall imprinting 

is recommended because of the prevalence of gentle rains which settle and stabilize the imprint 

geometry. A rapid-growing cover crop of cool season annual grasses will further stabilize imprints 

before they are exposed subsequently to the highly erosive summer monsoonal rainfall. Special 

care should be taken to stabilize imprints in sandy soil which tends to be inherently unstable. Till 

age prior to imprinting should be avoided as it regresses the secondary succession back to the 

starting point or to a thick stand of severely competitive pioneer plants. Such till age, not only kills 

desirable plants, but also severely disrupts the soil ecosystem which otherwise would facilitate the 

establishment of perennial grasses and ecosystem restoration. Disruption of cryptogamic crusts, 

mycorrhizal fungi and invertebrate communities is especially harmful to the natural functioning of 

soil ecosystems. Till age also accelerates oxidation of organic matter and the breakdown of soil 

structure. 

Increasingly, imprinter seeding is being directed to ecological restoration of desert savannas 

instead of grass forage production. Good seed mixes are fundamental to the success of such 

projects. Failure or limited success is often the result of not using enough early sera I species. They 

stabilize and improve the soil for later seral species. Two large scale projects in the Sonoran desert 

near Tucson, Arizona will serve to exemplify the general approach to ecological restoration of 

326 
severely degraded land through imprinter seeding (Dixon and Carr 1993). 

In the first project, an 8-km stretch (240 ha) of severely disturbed floodplain along the Santa 

Cruz River was imprinter seeded during November 1987. The disturbed floodplain had been leveled, 

straightened, and walled to allow housing development within most of the outlying historic 

floodplain. Revegetation was required to mitigate the hydrologic effects of reshaping the floodplain 

including accelerated flow of floodwater, floodplain erosion, and downstream sedimentation. In the 

second project, a strip of severely disturbed land in the foothills of the Tucson mountains was 

seeded during November 1991. The 80-ha strip, 11 km in length, was disturbed during the 

installation of a large underground aqueduct by the Central Arizona Project to supply irrigation water 

to the San Xavier Indian Reservation. Complex native seed mixes, which were used at both project 

locations, included early, mid and late successional species to help accelerate the secondary 

succession toward a stable plant community with biodiversity equal to or greater than relatively 

undisturbed nearby areas. Thick stands of exotic weeds, present at the time of imprinting at both 

locations, served well in the roles of cover, nurse, mulch and green manure. Imprinting converted 

these weeds into a water saving, soil enriching mulch partially imbedded in the faces of the imprint. 

Many species within the seed mix responded rapidly to the imprinted seedbeds and seedling 

cradles. Consequently, plant communities at both locations are progressing rapidly toward the 

biodiversity goal. The V-shaped imprints funnel resources together at the imprint bottom where they 

can work in concert to germinate seeds and establish seedlings. The imprints also protect small 

seedlings against the desiccating effects of strong winds and hot sunlight to help them get their 

roots down before they have to face the severe macro climate above. The relatively long life of 

imprints and natural seed dormancy greatly increase the chances for imprinting success relative to 

conventional drilling of seed. Thus, imprints and seeds can last through several years of drought 

and still function to germinate seeds and establish seedlings when the rains finally come. 

Land imprinting arose from extensive infiltration studies which found that degraded/desertified 

land surfaces become smooth and sealed and as a consequence shed most of the rainwater 

instead of infiltrating it (Dixon, 1995). Imprinting was conceived as the most benign method 

possible for restoring the surface micro roughness and macro porosity to, in turn, accelerate 

infiltration and revegetation processes (Dixon and Simanton 1977). Imprints are formed by 

downward acting forces (much like foot and hoof prints) without soil surface inversion, uprooting of 

plants, covering of plant materials, and destruction of cryptogamic crusts, mycorrhizae and soil 

invertebrates. Imprints are well-firmed and well-formed V-shaped pockets which funnel rainwater, 

plant litter, splash eroded soil and seeds together where these resources can work in concert to 

germinate seeds and establish seedlings (Dixon and Carr 1994). Since the imprints are small 

closed micro watersheds (usually about 30-cm square) they do not bleed resources downslope as 

do the furrows of conventional methods such as drill seeding. Thus, imprinting goes a long way 

toward achieving the long held conservation goal of holding soil and water resources in place to 

maximize biomass production while maintaining and building topsoil for sustainable productivity 

indefinitely into the future. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Imprinter seeding is highly successful in the Desert Southwest for increasing grass forage production 

for livestock and for restoring ecosystems for biodiversity, wildlife and recreation. However, these goals 

are often somewhat incompatible and thus cannot be achieved to the maximum degree on the same 

land area at the same time. 

Correct use of the new imprinting technology requires a marked departure from conventional 

agricultural wisdom for growing annual crops and the application of ecological principles for accelerating 

secondary succession of plant communities following land disturbances. 

327 
Common problems and mistakes which limit the success of imprinter seeding include: 

1. Poorly designed imprinting roller. 

2. Prior till age for weed and brush control. 

3. Inadequate ballast for a full-tooth imprint. 

4. Operating imprinter in wet soil that sticks to the imprinting teeth. 

5. Failure to rip soil that has been deeply compacted by heavy equipment. 

6. Seed mix with insufficient early sera I species present to accelerate the secondary succession 

Rnally success in imprinter seeding as in most no-till methods requires perseverance and the belief 

that it will work if done properly (Orchard 1996). It's 

not so much a question of whether imprinter seeding will work, but rather how can it be made to work? 

Making imprinting work in a variety of new situations may require minor modifications in the 

standard equipment and operating procedures. Imprinting equipment is currently being adapted for use 

on steep slopes (Dixon and Carr, In Press). This entails the development of an imprinting tooth with a 

curvilinear triangular cross section to increase water and seed storage space on steep slopes. 

Additionally, crawler tractors with self-cleaning triangular track pads can be readily adapted to imprinting 

steep slopes. An imprinting roller clamped to the dozer blade will imprint the space between the tracks. 

This same arrangement can be easily adapted to wetland restoration. 

REFERENCES 

Dixon, R.M. 1990. Land imprinting for dry land revegetation and restoration. In: Environmental 

Restoration: Sciences and Strategies for Restoring the Earth. Edited, John J. Berger. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C. p. 14-22. 

Dixon, R.M. 1995. Water Infiltration control at the soil surface: Theory and practice. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 50 (5): 450-453. 

Dixon, R.M. and A.B. Carr. 1993. Recent revegetation projects in southern Arizona using land 

imprinting. Abstracts Eighth Wildland Shrub Symposium Shrub Research Consortium, 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Oct. 19-21. p.30-31. 

Dixon, R.M. and A.B. Carr. 1994.Land imprinting for low-cost revegetation. 

Erosion Control! (3): 38-43. 

Dixon, R.M. and A.B. Carr. In Press. Infiltration regulation for erosion control: Principles and practices. 

Proceedings International Erosion Control Association, 281h Conference. Nashville, Tennessee, 

25-28 Feb, 1997. 

Dixon, R.M. and J.R. Simanton. 1977. A land imprinter for revegetation of barren land areas through 

infiltration control. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci. and Anl Water Resources Assoc. 7: 79-88. 

Orchard, Julie. 1996. No-till takes perseverance. No-Till Farmer, Lessiter Publications, Oct.. p. 8. 

Roundy, B.A. and S.H. Biedenbender.1995.Revegetation in desert grassland. In: Desert Grasslands. 

Edited, Mitchell P. McClaran and Thomas R. VanDevender. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson, Arizona. p.265-303. 

328 
Non-Traditional Uses of Grasslands Panel 

Nathan Sayre1

, Moderator 2 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PANEL 

Wendy Laird, the Executive Director of the Tucson Audubon Society initially conceived the idea 

for this panel. She originally was going to call it Alternative Use of Grasslands. We talked a little bit. She 

didn't like that title. We were left wondering what is the traditional use that we are trying not to talk 

about right now. I thought I'd say a few things about that to start with before introducing our panelists. 

Clearly the first and primary use that we are suggesting is the traditional use in cattle ranching and I 

think it's been said enough already in the conference that late 19th century overgrazing and drought 

caused a whole lot of damage to the grasslands of this area. It also caused a lot of damage obviously 

to individual ranchers, but we don't mean to imply that ranching is incompatible with grassland 

preservation and they al=8 a lot of other panels going~ "fa I king about issues of sustainable grazing. At 

least two of our panelists here, and perhaps more, Tom Orum and Tom Hildebrand, are talking about 

uses of grassland that can complement rather than replace ranching. I don't think anybody here is 

going to speak for a radical alternative to grazing. 

Without going into detail then, I would suggest that the critical issue we're talking about is 

economics not cattle. 19th century destruction of grasslands can be traced to boom and bust cycles 

in the economy that prompted a massive overstocking of the range and then when times got bad, 

attempts not to sell cattle because the price was very low even if grasslands were being destroyed. I 

think these boom and bust cycles still persist today even if they are moderated relative to the late 19th 

century. From this perspective, the topic of our panel is how grassland owners and managers can 

organize their enterprises in such a way that economic pressures do not translate into ecological 

stresses; to what extent can revenues from films or from ecotourism complement ranching; how can 

alternative land ownership strategies such as land trusts or non-profit organizations insulate grasslands 

from market conditions. 

I think there's also a second conventional or traditional use of grasslands that is implicit in our 

title and it cuts across issues of economics. For simplicity I'm going to call it state conservation. At its 

extreme, this is the polar opposite of cattle ranching as I've just described it since it involves the 

withdrawal of land not only from private ownership but from market forces as a whole-the attempt to 

set aside the land and say this will be the way it is regardless of what the price of cattle or the price 

of land may be. Publicly owned grazing land falls in between. The more strictly they are regulated by 

government agencies or the higher the lease rates rise, the more exposed the lease-holder becomes 

to market pressures. For various reasons we can't expect all grasslands to be withdrawn from private 

use and insulated from the market. Nontraditional uses therefore include uses other than or 

complimentary to state conservation. The Nature Conservancy and the Mal pais Group are perhaps the 

best known big examples of this. Here we're hoping to find mechanisms that are available to more 

people more broadly who don't have the resources of the Nature Conservancy or the Mal pais Group 

and they're looking for ways to participate in the management and acquisition of grasslands without 

being sucked into the pressure to subdivide and develop these lands. 

One topic which I hope we touch on at least somewhat here is the issue of taxation. What is a 

nonprofit group able to do by virtue of being nonprofit and exempt from taxation? How do tax policies 

1 University of Chicago, retired, now residing in Tucson AZ. 2 The entire panel was transcribed by Boleyn Baylor, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

329 
affect other ways of organizing enterprises? I'm hoping that Tom Orum will talk at least a little bit about 

the Saguaro-Juniper Project, which is not nonprofit even though it appears to pursue goals that would 

make it such. 

Finally, the third use, which I think is not what we're talking about, is subdivision and 

development. This is no alternative but I think it lends the urgency to our discussion in this conference 

and reminds us that we can't simply declare that grasslands are valuable in the abstract. The value that 

we see in grasslands must be transformed in practice into livelihoods for people that do not undermine 

grassland ecosystems. 

Our four panelists: Tom Hildebrand works for the City of Tucson coordinating large-production 

filming in the Tucson area and is going to speak about the way that is organized and the impact it has 

on the local economy and the way it has utilized grasslands in this area historically and more recently. 

Roseanne Hanson represents the Buenos Aires Natural History Association which is a nonprofit 

education association set up in partnership with the Buenos Aires Natural Wildlife Refuge. Chris Benish 

is from Field Guides Incorporated. He's a birding tour guide and is going to speak about grassland 

birding and the limits of ecotourism. And finally, Tom Orum from the Saguaro-Juniper Project, "a 

network of friends that have formed a for-profit corporation to combine cattle grazing and land 

stewardship." He'll be speaking about the history of that group and the obstacles they have overcome 

in their work. 

330 
Use of Grasslands for Movie-Making 

Tom Hildebrand1 

The Tucson Film Office was established about 12 years ago when the Tucson realized that there 

was a lot of potential economic development, which is what the movie business represents to Tucson 

and southern Arizona. I'll refer to Tucson, but our office covers the whole southern part of the state. Our 

office was formed in 1986 and we operate today with a budget of about $150,000. It's not a big 

department but the revenues generated into the economy here represents about $25 million yearly 

over the last two or three years. It's a pretty clean industry. I'm going to speak about the grasslands. 

As you go back in history the westerns have always used a lot of the grassland areas. A lot of the 

John Wayne movies were shot here in Tucson. We're fortunate here in Tucson that we've got such a 

variety of looks. Within about 50 miles of where we're sitting here today you can be in almost any type 

of terrain that you can find throughout the United States. We're a little short of ocean, but other than 

that we're in pretty good shape. 

I think the movie business can offer a heavy economic impact to the managers and owners of 

grasslands. The people in the San Rafael Valley, where the film 11The Fantastics11 was recently shot, got 

between two or three thousand dollars a day just for the use of the dirt and grass and scenery. There's 

unbelievable vistas when you're down in that area. They leave it in good shape. It's like any business 

that you're involved in. A film company will take advantage of you if they think they can. Sometimes it's 

not intentional. Sometimes it's just sloppy. We always tell people to handle it very well. Make sure 

you've got a good tight contract. 

Make sure that when they leave it's all spelled out about how they're going to clean up the 

property when they leave, that there has to be re-seeding that will be done. There's no reason to have 

a situation that when they leave there's damage done to the property. They can usually go away and 

you never know they've been there. They built two houses and put in a cornfield and sunflower field with 

the help of the University on the site where they filmed 11The FantastiCS11 in the San Rafael Valley. We 

were down there about a week ago and I couldn't tell at first where they'd been. On real close 

examination I could tell where they'd re-seeded, but the grass was almost back to completely normal. 

It is a good way to make quite a few thousands of dollars to help operate something like the Cienega 

Ranch down there because they will come in and utilize that facility and they pay usually very good 

money. That's just the feature films that come in. We have had in recent months two or three 

occasions where we've used those grasslands as the 11 0Ut of Africa11 

l~ok for fashion and catalog 

shootings. Speigel's just came in and did quite a large catalog shoot and it was an 11 0ut of Africa11 look 

that they wanted to establish and it worked great. With a few props you don't know where you are. 

Our office has put together photos of the grasslands and we will send these out. We'll get a 

request from a company and they'll say, we know you've got mountains and you've got saguaros but 

we want something more than that. They'll tell us what they want and then we'll go into our files. We 

put together photo panoramas so that they can get a good idea. To my knowledge, we've had very good 

working relationships with the film companies in their usage of these plants. They respect it for the 

most part. It's like any other segment of society. Once and while you'll get somebody who has no 

respect for the property and you just have to snap them into line. I think overall it's a good way to make 

a nice clean income. Something like the Cienega Ranch can make $25,000 to $30,000 income off 

of a film shoot, direct to them. That doesn't include all the money the film company will spend in hiring 

local labor and buying hardware and lumber and everything else that they might use in the production. 

1 City of Tucson Film Office, Tucson AZ. 

331 
Using Grasslands for 

Environmental Education 

Roseanne Hanson1 

About a year ago, I became involved with the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and I will 

speak about that and how this organization came to be in relation to a wildlife refuge but 1

1

m here 

because this could easily be applied to a private ranch or business that owns a ranch. I was asked to 

form this organization which is somewhat unusual. Normally these organizations, which are called 

natural history associations, are a group of community people who get together and form an 

organization as a friends group or a benefit organization that is private that works with the government. 

The fact that I was asked to form this organization is interesting in and of itself because it indicates a 

need which is being echoed in the private sector. I see that need as education and advocacy. Buenos 

Aires Natural History Association is membership driven. We have operated for a year and without trying 

very hard we have a very good base of about 50 members and 300 in a mailing list. I think that's quite 

good starting from zero. We publish a newsletter that we mail out to the members. We have begun 

to plan and operate tours for free as well as for a fee and educational workshops. 

It is that interface between the urban members and the rural element. We bring people out and 

show them what's going on. On a ranch I think the cultural value would be very high as well. People 

have no idea what happens on a ranch and the educational value is exceptional because the advocacy 

that comes from learning is in the long run very valuable to a ranch. You would gain political allies as 

well as teach people what's going on. I prefer to answer questions. We've only been operating for a year 

so I really don1

t have a lot of experience except with the forming of the group as a nonprofit. There are 

certain things you have to do. It's complicated and you have to jump through an amazing number of 

hoops to get that status. It's not easy. They want to know everything about you and what you plan to 

do. The government sometimes inadvertently sweeps in and says, here we are, aren't we wonderful? 

And the community says, yuck! We1re trying to mend that very, very slowly. 

1 Buenos Aires Natural History Association 

332 
Using Grasslands for Birding Tours 

Chris Benish1 

There is a fairly sizable birding market in Arizona. I work for a company that is based in Austin, 

Texas called Field Guides Incorporated which has been in business since 1985. Its representative 

of where the business of birding and doing birding tours internationally has taken us. The business 

supports ten full-time guides, of which I'm one, plus a staff of five, and basically pays our bills and 

generates in the neighborhood of $100,000 to $150,000 profit every year. As part of that we do a 

few different tours in Arizona. Most of these tours are in some way centered around the grasslands. 

There are a number of species which are found either primarily or secondarily in grasslands. Access 

to those types of habitats are real important to us from a business perspective. It's to our 

advantage to encourage those who have land holdings to at least explore the potential for 

developing a birding market. 

We are just one company. There are many others. I would guess there are perhaps 80 

different organized tours that conduct birding trips in southeastern Arizona and probably all of those 

visit grasslands for some significant percentage of their tour. On that tour you're talking anywhere 

from five to sixteen people who are paying anywhere from $120 to $200 a day to this tour 

company and then some of that cost is going back into the community. In addition, there are many 

people who travel to Arizona on their own. 

There are probably in the neighborhood of 10,000 birders, and that's a conservative estimate, 

who visit the state every year. They generally stay for a week to two weeks and base themselves in 

various places-Tucson, Sierra Vista, Nogales, Patagonia and further east. There are a few different 

people who have been successful at opening up bed and breakfasts and that type of thing that 

caters specifically to bird watchers and other nature trekkers. There's probably some market for 

that. It's hard to know just when you stretch the limits of the body of birders that are out there, but 

it's a market that's growing. Birding in general has really taken off in the last twenty years. Twenty 

years ago there were no companies like the one that I belong to now and now there seems to be 

enough of a market to allow certainly three big companies and 20 to 30 smaller companies to 

exist. 

A couple of examples of other kind of activities that have been bringing some economic 

benefit to Arizona grasslands. The American Birding Association has about 15,000 members. 

About three times a year they conduct conferences in various parts of the country and once every 

two years they hold a big convention in an area. Arizona, because of its position biogeographically 

close to Mexico, yet politically in the United States, is very attractive to people who want to see an 

assortment of specialty birds, birds found in the grasslands of northern Mexico and southern 

Arizona, yet fall be the U.S. They've filled conferences of from two to three hundred people and 

conventions of up to 700 people and so there's some economic benefit to the community. 

Sierra Vista has gotten into developing the Southwest Wings Birding Festival which they hold 

every year in August, which brings in anywhere from 500 to 1,000 people for a long weekend there. 

There's some potential for that elsewhere. If there were a few more ranches that developed bed and 

breakfast situations, particularly ranches that offered some riparian associated vegetation or oak 

woodland mix. Those would be popular. There are a lot of people who are looking for an alternative 

to staying right in Sierra Vista or Tucson and would like to get away from things. Birders are 

generally pretty affluent people and have some disposable income. 

1 Reid Guides Incorporated, Tucson AZ. 

333 
Rural-Urban Grassland Connections 

Tom Orum1 

Saguaro/Juniper is a group of friends that has grown since 1988. We have land in the San 

Pedro near the community of Cascabel with a grazing lease associated which has a three and a half 

or four mile boundary with the Muleshoe Nature Conservancy/BLM joint management area to the 

north of us. We share Hot Springs Canyon with that joint management area so we have a lot of 

interest in Hot Springs Canyon as a corridor between the riparian areas on the BLM/Nature 

Conservancy area and the San Pedro. It also includes a lot of grassland and that's where the 

connection here would be. One of the things that we're trying to figure out-and I say it's a process, 

not a conclusion-is how people of modest means can acquire a management or an ownership 

interest in rural land without contributing to fragmentation and subdivision. We're really working 

against the subdivision aspects and I think that subdivision is probably a bigger threat to grasslands 

and wildlife communities than cattle ranching. 

We have about 4,000 acres or seven sections of leased grazing land from the State and 

private and now about 1,000 acres of deeded land. In order to do this we are organized as a 

for-profit corporation and in order to hold our grazing lease we do have cattle. We've tried to 

translate private ownership rights into more land rights, although Leopold has influenced our 

thinking a great deal, so we've recorded some of our deeded land in Cochise County with a real 

estate covenant. I'll read from the preamble of that covenant: 

"The Saguaro/Juniper covenants preambles and principles establish 

a common ground for group discussion and deliberation. They are to 

function primarily as queries that guide decision making, not as 

conclusions that override deliberations. In acquiring private 

governance of land we agree to cherish its earth, waters, plants and 

animals in a way that promotes the health, stability and diversity of 

the whole community. This entails attentive stillness to meet and 

know the land as an active presence. It entails study, observation, 

shared reflection and cumulative corporate experience to increase 

and bequeath our understanding of ecosystem health, stability and 

diversity. It entails symbiotic naturalization into the planned 

community, the communion of actual nurture and shelter. As 

elaborated by these entailments, fully accountable governance, 

stewardship, is the distinctively human way of bonding into one 

society with all who share in the land's life, which is the foundation 

for instituting a biocentric ethic among humankind." 

The five principles that we try to hold in guiding us in terms of managing the land: 

The land has a right to be free of human activity that accelerates erosion. Native plants and animals 

on the land have a right to life with a minimum of human disturbance. The land has a right to 

evolve its own character from its own elements without scarring from construction or the 

importation of foreign objects dominating the scene. The land has a preeminent right to the 

preservation of its unique or rare constituents and features. The land, its rocks, waters and 

minerals, its plants and animals, and their fruits and harvest have a right to never be rented, sold, 

1 Saguaro/Juniper Project, Tucson AZ. 

334 
extracted or exported as mere commodities. 

I say that these function primarily as queries that guide decision-making and not conclusions 

that override deliberations. That's the way we•re working. There•s a lot of deliberation and there•s a 

lot of talk. The other element which is crucial and which has been touched upon again and again is 

the importance of the surrounding community and neighbors and the whole community process. 

Cascabel is now a much more unified community than it was eight years ago, but it's still highly 

diversified. We work hard. The Nature Conservancy works hard. The people in the community work 

very hard at trying to understand each other. We don•t always succeed, but we keep working at it. 

Currently there are seven members of Saguaro/Juniper who do live in Cascabel. It's this rural-urban 

connection that we•re working very hard to try to develop. 

335 
336 
Economic Benefits of 

Preserving Natural Areas 

Bonnie G. Colby1 

ABSTRACT 

The focus of this paper is on values that can be quantified in 

dollar terms. It is important to acknowledge that natural 

preserves-such as grasslands and riparian areas-have 

psychological, cultural, and spiritual values that may be just as, or 

more, important than the values which economists are able to 

quantify. While economists have developed methods to quantify 

natural resource values beyond the direct use of resources for 

commercial purposes and recreation, even these modern economic 

methods cannot capture the full range of benefits that natural areas 

provide. 

QUANTIFYING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF NATURAL AREAS 

The notion of measuring the value of nature in dollar terms may seem distasteful. Money is a 

cold unit by which to characterize grasslands, clean air, scenic views, open space, endangered 

species and other amenities which are important to our quality of life. Nevertheless, there are some 

valid reasons to cast the value of nature in monetary terms. 

In times of tight government budgets, public policies require closer scrutiny of how taxpayers 

dollars are spent. Consequently, when an agency is considering spending money to acquire or to 

manage land for a natural preserve it typically must document the benefits anticipated from the 

preserve, as well as the costs of leaving the land in a natural state (including the foregone benefits 

of more intensive land uses). Over the last five years, popular concern regarding the potential 

impact of government activities on private property values has swelled. This has led to more use of 

economic analysis by public agencies because they are subject to added scrutiny of the impact of 

their proposed regulations, land acquisitions, and land management plans on private property. For 

instance, Arizona statutes now require review of proposed state agency rules by the Governor's 

Regulatory Review Council and the agency must submit an economic impact statement on the 

proposed action to the Council for their consideration. Other states have passed stronger measures 

to prevent takings (the diminishment of private property values caused by government action). 

Congress has considered such legislation as well. These policies, which seek to protect private 

property, have the effect of increasing the pressure on agencies to document the costs and 

benefits of their activities, including acquisition and management of lands as nature preserves. 

Private firms and environmental organizations also must weigh economic costs and benefits 

associated with natural areas. For instance, to obtain a final certificate of a water right for instream 

flow purposes in Arizona, the holder of the right (a federal agency or the Nature Conservancy, for 

example) must document the benefits of preserving streamflows. Even in instances where 

examination of economic values is not required, it still is a useful exercise for an environmental 

1

Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

337 
organization or a public agency to weigh the economic costs and benefits of setting aside a natural 

area for wildlife and recreation. 

This paper briefly reviews the different types of economic values associated with natural 

preserves. Strong economic arguments can be made for preserving natural areas for recreation and 

wildlife habitat and for maintaining the aesthetic appeal that wide open spaces have in the 

American West. 

TYPES OF ECONOMIC VALUES GENERATED BY NATURAL AREAS 

Direct Benefits to Recreationists 

Many natural areas in the West are heavily used for recreation and generate increased 

economic benefits as population and demand for outdoor recreation grows. Urban westerners 

demand outdoor recreation opportunities and place a high value on them. A comprehensive survey 

of economic benefits to recreationists at outdoor recreation sites in the western United States 

indicates recreation benefits of $18 to $27 per visitor day for general hiking and wildlife viewing 

(Walsh et al, 1992). Data collected for southern and central Arizona riparian areas indicates values 

per visitor (in a one-time contribution) of $65 to $102 to maintain the quality of the Hassayampa 

River Preserve, and $65 to $97 to protect the riparian ecosystems of the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area and the Nature Conservancy's Ramsey Canyon Preserve (Kirchoff, 

1994, Crandall, Colby and Rait, 1992). These values lie far above the nominal fees charged to 

enter federal and state parks and recreation areas. 

ContributiQn to Local Economies 

In addition to economic benefits to the recreationists themselves, small businesses and 

outlying communities depend on spending by outdoor recreationists. Outdoor recreation brings 

millions of dollars each year into the Arizona economy. Restaurants, retail stores, motels, bed and 

breakfasts, gas stations and other businesses benefit from preservation of attractive outdoor 

recreation sites. 

Tourism linked to outdoor recreation is a particularly important component of the economy of 

rural Arizona, including Arizona's tribes and their reservation economies, many of which contain 

Arizona's last unspoiled natural areas. 

Bird-watching opportunities in Cave Creek, Madera Canyon, Ramsey Canyon, and other sites 

are known worldwide and bring relatively high-income visitors to these parts of Arizona. In the Sierra 

Vista area alone, expenditures by visitors to prime bird-watching areas stimulate $3 million per year 

in local economic activity (Crandall, Leones and Colby, 1992). The San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area and the Nature Conservancy's Ramsey Canyon have annual visitation of 

approximately 12,000 and 26,000 visitor days, respectively. 

Several factors affect the extent to which natural areas contribute to the economy of nearby 

communities. Local economic stimulation is increased as the percentage of nature preserve visitors 

that are non-local increases and as visitors stay overnight in the area (instead of just making a day 

visit) and thus spend more on lodging and meals. As the local economy diversifies, dollars spent by 

tourists circulate more times within the local area and further stimulate local business activity, 

before "leaking" out of the local economy as payments for goods and services produced elsewhere 

(Crandall, Leones, and Colby, 1992). 

338 
···.··· 

Habitat Preservation 

Natural areas preserve wildlife habitat and can help avert a species becoming listed as 

threatened or endangered, thus averting the complex and costly formal Endangered Species Act 

processes for designating critical habitat and developing species recovery plans. These averted 

costs and conflicts are a notable benefit of nature preserves, a benefit that can be appreciated by 

examining the enormous costs incurred in the Pacific Northwest over salmon and spotted owl 

issues. Indeed, the threat of a species becoming listed as threatened or endangered and of 

triggering the formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) process has proved a powerful incentive for 

setting aside habitat for species. 

Water Protection 

Natural preserves that maintain the ecological integrity of watersheds can protect water quality 

and stream flow levels. Preserving the quality and volumes of flows reduces the costs of complying 

with surface water quality standards for downstream towns and industries which discharge into 

rivers. High quality stream flows from protected natural areas provide economic benefits to these 

dischargers by averting or postponing the costs of providing more sophisticated sewage treatment 

(and the huge capital costs of upgrading treatment facilities) to remain in compliance with surface 

water standards. If streams become degraded, downstream pollutant loads become more 

concentrated and the probability of surface water quality standard violations increases, as do costs 

and fines for non-compliance (Colby, 1994). 

Private Property Values 

The value of private property located adjacent to or near natural open space preserves is 

enhanced when water quality, open space and wildlife habitat are protected. Studies elsewhere in 

the U.S. indicate a twenty percent increase in private property values due to water quality protection 

in nearby water bodies (Young, 1984). In the Tucson area, economic studies document an increase 

in property values associated with proximity to wildlife habitat, such as washes and riparian areas 

(King, White and Shaw, 1991). Southern Arizona homes and resorts that are located adjacent to 

open spaces (such as national forests and monuments) enjoy a property value premium associated 

with the natural areas. The growth of residential construction in the Sonoita/Patagonia area, and the 

accompanying rise in property values, is an example of the positive influence of attractive open 

space on private property values. 

Values Unrelated to Direct Use 

People who don't actually visit natural areas still benefit from them and are willing to contribute 

to their preservation. Economists divide these nonuse values into three categories, based on the 

underlying motivations. Existence value stems from knowing a particular species will continue to 

exist in a natural state. Option value is based on a collective desire to keep options open for the 

future. Option value emerges when faced with an irreversible decision-do we develop a natural 

area for agricultural or urban use-altering the area forever, or do we leave it as it is for now, 

knowing it can always be developed in the future? Policy choices to preserve a species rather than 

let it become extinct (irreversibly lost), also exemplify the option value concept. Bequest value 

stems from wanting to preserve natural areas and wildlife for the future, for our own heirs or for 

future generations in general. 

These nonuse values represent substantial economic benefits associated with preserving 

endangered species, wildlife habitat, and unique natural sites. These preservation values (also 

termed "nonuse or passive use" values) have been affirmed by the courts as a valid component of 

economic costs and benefits (State of Ohio v U.S. Department of Interior, 880 F.2d 432 (D.C. Circ. 

1989)), and are incorporated into assessments of proposed federal regulatory actions as well as in 

339 
assessing liability for environmental damages under CERCLA. These values are expressed through 

donations of time and money to wildlife and environmental organizations, and through political 

support for species recovery programs and for laws and policies that preserve habitat and prevent 

environmental degradation. 

Examples of the application of nonuse values to examine environmental policies in Arizona 

include the Federal Bureau of Reclamation's Environmental Impact Statement for Operations of 

Glen Canyon Dam (1995) and an earlier federal study on changes in air quality and visibility in the 

Four Corners region. 

Recent studies of preservation values associated with nature preserves in the western United 

States indicate economic benefits of $15 to $80 annually per household located in the general 

region of the site (Sanders, Walsh and Loomis, 1990 and Brown, 1991). Studies in Colorado, 

Canada, Wyoming and Alaska indicate $40 to $80 per non-user household in cities located within 

a few hours of nature preserves. These nonuse values may seem esoteric (less tangible than 

spending by recreationists, for instance), but they are real values and economic studies on natural 

areas around the West suggest these values are even larger than the direct values people place on 

their recreational use of such areas. 

IF NATURAL AREAS ARE SO VALUABLE, 

WHY DON'T THEY RECEIVE MORE PROTECTION? 

Despite the numerous economic benefits provided by natural areas, they are not .. supplied" by 

market forces to an extent commensurate with the benefits they provide. This .. market failure" 

occurs for several reasons. First, benefits provided are real, but often not readily "collectible." There 

is no easy voluntary way to collect money for acquiring open space and wildlife habitat. Only 

nominal fees are charged to enter parks and recreation areas. Recreationists' "true" values, their 

willingness to pay, are not collected by anyone. Of all the types of economic benefits described, the 

only money actually going into someone's pockets is dollars spent by recreationists. However, these 

expenditures are not a complete measure of the value of a natural area. Part of the .. collectibility" 

problem is the absence of a clear, well-defined constituency to collect money from. It requires a 

tremendous effort to raise money from a dispersed constituency through voluntary donations, as 

environmental groups do. Recreationists and environmental advocates are dispersed among the 

general population. They do not tend to be as identifiable and tightly organized as commercial users 

of land and water. Developers, farmers, ranchers, loggers, and mining interests have effective 

lobbies to promote their access to land and water. Another reason for the "collectibility" problem is 

free-rider tendencies. Once a preserve is established, many can benefit from its existence even 

though they made no donations to help establish the preserve. 

There also is a lack of information that handicaps protection of natural areas. In contrast to the 

benefits provided by nature preserves, the values of other land uses (industry, agriculture, 

subdivisions) are easier to measure, "collect," and recognize as an economic investment. There is 

plenty of information from the real estate market on the value of land in growing crops, houses, and 

golf courses, but very little documentation on the value of wildlife habitat and recreation areas. 

In response to the inability of the free market to supply nature areas to the degree justified by the 

benefits provided, two broad approaches are taken to acquiring land for recreational and 

environmental needs. First, private organizations such as the Nature Conservancy and Trout 

Unlimited buy land and water, using money they have raised from donors and investments. Second, 

public agencies acquire land and water. However, new public agency acquisitions have become 

difficult in times of tight budgets. Funds are tight for managing natural areas already held by 

federal, state, and local governments. 

A two-pronged approach involving both the private and public sector is necessary for improved 

340 
protection of natural areas. Private groups, such as the Nature Conservancy, can't do it all on their 

own due to the "collectibility" problem. State, local and federal agencies use tax dollars and need 

not rely on voluntary donations alone. Private-sector participation can be facilitated through 

favorable tax policies that encourage contributions of money, water rights, and land to non-profit 

wildlife and environmental organizations. Enhanced public-sector participation requires continued 

authorization and funding for federal, state and local agencies to acquire and manage natural 

areas. 

Cooperative strategies involving public-private partnerships are a hopeful approach that combines 

the strengths offered by public agencies with those of the non-profit sector. Examples include the 

Nature Conservancy's acquisition of land when it becomes available at the right price, at times 

when a public agency is not able to secure funds quickly enough to make a timely purchase. In 

many cases, the Nature Conservancy later turns the land over to a public agency, such as the BLM, 

for long term management, with the Conservancy eventually reimbursed for some or all of their 

acquisition expenses. 

SUMMARY 

To summarize, many (though not all) of the benefits provided by natural areas can be quantified 

in dollar terms. It is increasingly necessary to quantify these values in order to respond to increased 

scrutiny of public agency spending in times of tight budgets and to concerns over takings. The 

market forces of supply and demand do not provide adequate protection of natural areas, so 

continued involvement by public agencies and the non-profit sector is essential. 

REFERENCES 

Brown, T., "Water For Wilderness Areas," Rivers 2:311-325, 1991. 

Checchio, Elizabeth and Bonnie Colby. Indian Water Rights: Negotiating The Future. Water 

Resources Research Center, The University of Arizona, Tucson, 1993 (103 pp.) 

Colby, Bonnie G. "Benefits, Costs and Water Acquisition Strategies: Economic Considerations in 

lnstream Flow Protection," chapter in L. MacDonnell, editor, lnstream Flow Law and Policy, 

Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, 1994. 

Colby, Bonnie G. "Applying Fair Market Value Concepts to Water Rights," Real Estate Issues 

18:8-14, 1993. 

Crandall, K., Bonnie Colby and K. A. Rait. "Valuing Riparian Preserves: A Southwestern Case 

Study," Rivers 3: 88-98, 1992. 

Colby, Bonnie G. "Southwestern Water Values and Market Activity," Appraisal Journal 59:488-500, 

1991. 

Colby, Bonnie G. ''Alternative Approaches to Valuing Water Rights," Appraisal Journal 57: 180-196, 

1989. 

Crandall. K., J .. Leones, and B. Colby, "Nature Based Tourism and the Economy of Southern 

Arizona,"University of Arizona, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, 1992. 

King, D., J. White and W. Shaw, "Influence of Wildlife Habitat on the Value of Residential 

Properties," in: Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments, Columbia, Maryland: 

National Institute for Urban Wildlife, 1991. 

Kirchoff, S. "Estimating the Benefits of lnstream Flows: Case Studies in Arizona and New Mexico," 

Master's Thesis, University of Arizona, 1994. 

Moore, S, M. Wilkosz and S. Brickler, 'The Recreational Impact of Reducing the Flows of Aravaipa 

Creek," Rivers 1: 43-50, 1990. 

Sanders, L., R. Walsh and J. Loomis, "Toward Empirical Estimation of The Total Value of Protecting 

341 
Rivers," Water Res. Research 26:1345-1357, 1990. 

Walsh, R., D. Johnson, and J. McKean, "Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies, 

1968-1988," Water Res. Research 28:707-716, 1992 (no. 3). 

Water Intelligence Monthly and Water Strategist, published by Strat Econ Inc., Claremont, 

California. 

Young, E. "Perceived Water Quality and The Value of Seasonal Homes," Water Res. Bull., April, 

1984. 

342 
The Future of Grasslands in Cochise 

County, Arizona: Identifying the Issues 

Judy Anderson1 

ABSTRACT 

Grasslands in Cochise County are increasingly under 

development pressure from 11Wildcat land divisions and new 

residential subdivision development. If grasslands are to be 

maintained, methods must be employed that accommodate this 

growth in a manner that retains the natural resources and rural open 

feeling including the grasslands. 

INTRODUCTION 

The quality of life in Cochise County creates challenges along with opportunities. After the Civil 

war, pioneers pushed westward with hopes of striking it rich in mining or establishing their own 

ranch or farm. Others followed, creating communities to provide necessary services. Doctors, 

teachers, storekeepers and entertainers clustered in the communities throughout the County. In 

1881, when the County was established, land seemed endless, water infinite, clean air was taken 

for granted and a rider could travel for miles without seeing another person. Measures to protect 

the rivers, grasslands and mountains were not considered. 

Times have changed. Cochise County is now one of the three rural Arizona Counties with 

increasing population. The County is located within a reasonable commute to Tucson, has 

economic opportunity and is an attractive place to live. People move here hoping to escape the 

problems of the city and enjoy the pleasures of the country. 

As a result of this influx of population, the attractions that draw people are in danger of being 

lost. Traditional industries such as ranching are experiencing economic downturns making it 

difficult to for them to maintain the rural character they provide which is so valued in the County. 

The vast open spaces are increasingly being subdivided, often in an unguided fashion. These 

trends create a challenge to plan in a manner that helps preserve, protect and enhance natural 

resources, existing communities and neighborhoods, and rural character, while at the same time 

recognizing the desire for economic opportunities and the likelihood of growth. 

GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Cochise County is located in the southeast corner of the State, sharing boundaries with Mexico, 

New Mexico, Graham, Pima and Santa Cruz Counties. The County is 6,219 square miles in size, 

seventh in land area of the fifteen Arizona counties. The number of people per square mile is 

estimated to be 16.3, tied with Coconino County but a little less densely populated than Santa Cruz 

and Pinal Counties. The annual growth rate is 3. 77 percent similar to the overall rate of growth for 

the State. The Planning Department issues approximately 1400 building permits per year. 

Forty-one percent of the land is privately owned, the highest percentage in the State- Santa 

Cruz County, our neighbor to the last is a close second with thirty-nine percent of their land in 

1 Cochise County Planning Department, Sierra Vista, AI... 

343 
private ownership. Maricopa and Pima Counties, the most intensively developed Arizona Counties 

have respectively thirty-one and thirteen percent of land privately owned. 

DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES 

Grasslands in Cochise County are concentrated east and north of the Huachuca Mountains in 

the southwest corner of the County. They are found in the Palominas/Hereford area between Sierra 

Vista and Bisbee on both sides of Highway 92.c Grasslands can also be seen along Highway 82 

approaching the boundary with Santa Cruz County. The San Simon/Bowie in the northeast corner 

of the County can also be considered grasslands. 

All of these areas are zoned to allow development at a density of one house per four acres 

although under a density bonus option, used to encourage the formal subdivision process rather 

than uwildcat11 land splits, the density can increase to one house per three acres. Much of this 

grassland is located on privately owned land. 

The areas along Highways 90 and 82 are subject to the most development pressure. 

Residential development, on forty acre splits that subsequently split down to four acre parcels as 

allowed by state law, is beginning to extend westward along Highway 82 from the Whetstone area. 

Along Highway 90, a similar trend of development is occurring at an even faster pace. 

Additionally, a 7,000 acre tract of land was sold several years ago which is now developing; two 

subdivisions have been approved, with a total of 156 three acre lots; and the remainder of the land 

has been divided into 160 acre parcels some of which are being surveyed into forty acre parcels 

and advertised or sale as five, eight acre parcels which could then be further split into two more 

four acre parcels by new owners. 

EFFORTS TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE ON PRIVATE LAND 

During the recent update to the Comprehensive Plan, it was clear that the rural, open character 

of the County, including the wide open grasslands, was cherished by longtime and recent residents 

like. The question asked was 11Can this character be retained11 • The response an adamant 11Yes but 

voluntarily!~~ Given this response, County Regulations include three methods for property owners 

and developers to voluntarily retain more open space on their land. 

The first is the subdivision cluster option, which was recently opted allowing developers in the 

rural areas to cluster housing at a higher density on part of the site, leaving the remaining property 

in natural vegetation and open space to be used for passive recreation, such as hiking and 

horseback riding, or retained in agricultural use. 

The second is voluntarily downzoning from smaller lot sizes to larger lot sizes; this option has 

been used by developers to help guarantee that buyers of thirty-six acre or larger II rural lifestyle .. 

parcels do not find neighboring parcels split into postage stamp lots. No fee is charged for this 

action. 

Third, the Comprehensive Plan offers property owners the opportunity to establish Resource 

Conservation Areas on their own property, to protect significant resources such as untouched 

grasslands, stands of oak trees or washes that serve as wildlife corridors . 

In addition to options found in the regulations, also available, are options which fall outside the 

realm of County jurisdiction such as private deed restrictions and conservation easements. 

344 
CONCLUSION 

The provision under State law that allows dividing of land into five separate lots by an individual 

owner down to the minimum lot size allowed by zoning means that much of land development in 

the county occurs outside of our jurisdiction. Clearly, to preserve cultural resources and retain 

some regulatory control, the County could rezone the rural areas to larger lot sizes thereby, for 

example, requiring minimum lot sizes of thirty-six acres. In the current climate with heightened 

concern over violating property rights, the County Board of Supervisors does not support such 

voluntary downzonings. Given this reality and the steady residential growth in the County, it seems 

most likely that the grasslands will be developed in four acre parcels each with its own house, 

fence, driveway, corral and swing set unless other innovative measures are found or property 

owners take advantage of existing options. 

345 
The Use of Zoning to Protect Grasslands 

A Panel Discussion1 

David Yetman2

, Session Moderator 

The biggest player concerning decisions that affect the land is the county. In Arizona, Santa 

Cruz County retains the highest acreage of grassland. 

Concerning zoning, every landowner has the right to request a change in zoning and it must be 

heard at the county level. At present, it is almost guaranteed that the rezoning will then happen 

unless it could constitute an emergency such as relating to public health and safety (flood 

protection, for example). When there are exceptions, there is usually a time frame attached 

whereupon the reason for caution will be mitigated. 

In Arizona, the procedure is to petition for a change in zoning. Planning and Zoning considers it 

and makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. But if P&Z gives a negative 

recommendation, most often the Board will ignore it and rezone anyway. Landowners do have 

ultimate say. 

1 The entire panel was summarized by Nancy Zierenberg, Sky Island Alliance, Tucson, AZ. 2 Southwest Center, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

346 
Planning and Zoning as 

Land Managment Tools 

Arlan Colton1 

Planning is a guideline that communities can use to define the future for land use. The Plan is 

authorized by the State for local governments to enforce. Zoning is a tool to implement planning. 

There are also other tools such as subdivision regulations, private covenants, and restrictions to 

implement planning. 

All counties in Arizona have the power to zone. In some states, such as Texas, counties do not 

have zoning power. Oregon, Hawaii, Florida, and Vermont are examples of states which have strong 

state-wide planning directives. There is no State planning in Arizona except in two areas--for pest 

management and manpower. In Arizona law, "open space" is given a definition as a place of 

natural beauty, and not mentioned again. 

Arizona's enabling legislation for planning and zoning is contained in Title 9 concerning cities 

and towns, and Title 11 concerning counties. Where grasslands are concerned, most action 

happens at the county level. The zoning ordinance contained in the Pima County Comprehensive 

Plan is only 4 paragraphs long and is not good. Those things not contained or discussed in those 4 

paragraphs are prohibited, unlike most counties where an item which is omitted !.§ permitted unless 

there is language somewhere else in the plan which says otherwise. Agriculture, mining, ranching, 

railroads, and utilities are all excluded from the P&Z Titles so only private lands are considered. 

Lot Splits was brought up in a question to be clarified. In Arizona, a landowner can split his 

land down to 40 acre chunks. He does not have to go through a special process to do this. He 

can do up to three splits under his ownership. The next landowner can do the same, etc. There 

were no requirements for roads, sewer or water systems, nothing. This law was finally changed to 

allow for services, however the tradeoff was that the landowner could now do five splits instead of 

just three. 

In 1985, Pima County went through Rural Zoning Category changes. Base rural zoning is now 

just over four acres, so a property owner can't split rural zoned land below that acreage. The 

highest zoning is 36 acres, but those are mostly found in parks and on public lands so already have 

a measure of protection. The solution for protecting grassland is not large lot zoning as there are 

still no regulations concerning what private landowners can do on it. The solution is in good 

planning for development; to get something in place before development becomes inevitable so 

that it is managed correctly. 

Arizona Game & Fish Department has been active with Planning and Zoning over the last ten 

years, especially in the southern counties, says Sherry Ruther of the Department. Their interest has 

been in situations concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, and for critical or sensitive 

wildlife and habitat. They are treading lightly regarding private land P&Z issues. They would like to 

influence public concern for G&F interests. 

Tools that citizens may find useful in order to become active in P&Z issues: 

1) A web site called ALIS; Arizona Legislative Information System. 

2) ALRIS; Arizona Land Resource Information System. This has one of the most comprehensive 

GIS systems in the country. Citizens can use it to download maps with overlays, etc. 

1 Arizona Preserve Initiative, Arizona State Land Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

347 
3) Through the Arizona Department of Commerce (whose main goal is economic development), 

you can ask for community planning help including training and rural and local governments. 

Contact is Deb Sydenham @ (602) 280-1350. She is a good resource. 

4) The American Planning Association has been working on model state enabling legislation to 

help states in planning. Their web site is: http://www.planning.org 

5) The Thoreau Institute has done a good case study called "Transitions: New Incentives for 

Rural Communities". It makes use of the commons theory. Web site: 

http://www.glasswing.com/-rot/transits.html 

6) A book called Rural by Design, by Randall Arant describes how to use clustering techniques 

to preseNe open space. It does not mention grasslands, but much of this information can be 

applied to grasslands planning. 

348 
. ·~ -' 

Land Use in Santa Cruz County 

Brian Friedman1 

The Rio Rico subdivision in Santa Cruz County is the second largest in the US. Over the last 

year, we have worked with eight subdivisions in the county, indicating fast growth. A popular idea of 

late is "cluster" development, where houses are clustered in close proximity to each other, leaving 

the rest of the private acreage as a continual open space surrounding the cluster for all to enjoy. 

Managing viewscapes seemed to be the big reason that planners consider this cluster idea a good 

one. An example of such development is one called "Casas Arroyo" west of the Santa Rita 

Mountains. It is a 220 acre subdivision with 190 acres held in common. Housing is on Y2 acre 

lots. There was a question concerning grazing use of these common areas. In Casas Arroyo those 

areas are occasionally grazed for fire protection. 

In Santa Cruz County the rapid pace of growth is outstripping managers' ability to keep up with 

regulations to control it with good planning efforts. Traditionally, P&Z has been weak. For example, 

in a Conditional Rezoning--one in which the Board attaches conditions to the rezoning--often there 

is no verification that these conditions are met before the rezoning takes place. This is one area 

where we are working to put this verification process in place. I have been in my current position 

for a year and am working to strengthen P&Z's role and relationship with the County Board. 

Community participation has been sporadic. Recently, there has been quite a bit of public 

controversy over the Star View development, containing 5 acre parcels. The county finished their 

Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The Plan established a systematic way of dealing with things outside 

of the plan. 

1 Santa Cruz County Planning Department, Nogales AZ. 

349 
.···.· ... 

Being a Sticker 

Dan Dagget, as presented by Luther Propst1 

When folk singer Joanie Mitchell sang about paving paradise to put up a parking lot, she 

warned that: 11You don't know what you've got till it's gone ... 

Well, ... what have we got when a ranch is gone? Or better yet, what haven't we got? Maybe 

the only way we can really know what a ranch provided while it was alive is to discover what we've 

lost after it's gone. Perhaps that's how we can make something positive out of the turmoil we're 

seeing in the American West today, where in Colorado alone an acre of agricultural land is 

converted to some other use every 4 minutes. Maybe it's worth it to lose a few ranches if that's 

what it takes to discover how they enrich our lives, our culture and our environment; or if thats what 

it takes to convince us that we need to work to sustain the ones that are left. 

Anyone who's bothered to think about it knows that pressures threatening ranches are growing 

and will continue to do so. Baby Boomers are coming to the West in droves, tantalized by a media 

that uses western landscapes to sell everything from pickups to preservation. Fleeing cities that 

are becoming uninhabitable; freed by the information superhighway from having to live where their 

jobs are, this new wave of modem sod-busters is coming West convinced that their destiny is 

manifest and that the ranching culture they are replacing is a liability and a relic. In this scenario is 

it any surprise that ranches are dying? 

So, what do we lose when a ranch dies? The most obvious answer is that we lose some of the 

wide open spaces, the broad panoramas, the pure, uncluttered sweep of nature that defines the 

American West. And in its place we're left with sprawling suburbs and strips of fast food joints. 

And that's just the beginning. 

We lose the viability of the agricultural economy that enables rural communities to resist the 

seduction of suburbanization; that serves as an essential element of the sense of place and 

neighborliness that cause the residents of those communities to want to stay there and inspire so 

many of the rest of us want to move to them. 

When a ranch dies nature loses too. While pronghorn, sage grouse and even mountain lions 

and wolves can find the pure grasslands, unfragmented stands of sagebrush, and expansive areas 

of undisturbed landscape they require on well-managed ranches, subdivisions can fragment and 

destroy the viability of the very habitats that are essential for these animals' existence. For 

people who have lived and worked, even been born on a ranch, its loss is a personal tragedy the 

rest of us can, at best, only partially understand. Frequently, this loss occurs when a family 

member dies without an estate tax plan and the family discovers that they owe the government 

more than half the value of a large piece of property assessed as a potential high-end 

development. More often than not the only way to pay that bill is to sell the ranch. 

Personal loss, the loss of the West's wide open spaces, of some of its most productive wildlife 

habitat, of its cultural diversity and sense of place; the loss of viability of agricultural economies and 

the destabilization of the rural communities they support-this is some of what we lose when a ranch 

dies. But the greatest tragedy is that many of these deaths could be avoided; avoided easily 

enough that it's fair to say that some ranches die of plain, ordinary negligence, Some, it could be 

said, come pretty close to committing suicide. 

It's no news that ranches have been going belly up for as long as there have been ranches. 

They've been going bankrupt, been gobbled up by suburban sprawl, been bought out and tossed 

aside by celebrities, cut up into forties, and turned into wildlife refuges, parks or preserves. And it's 

1 The Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ. 

350 
old news (but it's still news) that those who have managed to survive all this are the ones that have 

been able to change. To switch from longhorns to herefords to Barzonas. To hay the meadows and· 

rotate their herds. To host a few hunters. To live frugally and learn to be what writer Wallace 

Stegner called a "sticker." 

The ranchers who survive in today's West, the stickers, are the ones who are learning to adapt 

to the changing economics and land-use patterns that unavoidably are shaping the future of the 

West. They're the ones who are learning to ranch more than livestock; to ranch the view, the 

ecosystem, the lifestyle, even wilderness. We know it can be done because it's already being 

done. 

The ranchers who will be here tomorrow are those who are willing to learn to use all the tools at 

their disposal: conservation easements, estate planning, conservation development, collaborative 

planning. Today that's as important as knowing how to use a rope and a good cow horse. (Even 

more so, but we hate to admit it.) 

Because these tools are unfamiliar to most ranchers, and because to use them properly 

requires a high level of expertise, those who are going to be stickers are also going to have to 

learn to effectively use help from others to get the job done. You've always prided yourself on being 

independent? Now you're going to have to learn how to be interdependent. 

Some have already taken the plunge. In many cases they had to. From their successes we can 

take heart and inspiration. From their failures we can learn what not to do. 

Ranchers on the Elk River near Steamboat Springs, Colorado--home of one of the fastest 

growing ski areas in the West--used a tactic more commonly associated with martial arts than with 

Western politics to keep their ranches alive. Instead of resisting the stampede of boomers 

threatening to inundate the Elk River Valley with a tidal wave of recreation homes, they redirected 

the energy of that tide, as an aikido master might redirect the charge of an aggressor. In the 

process they not only saved their ranches but made them more prosperous. 

With consulting help from a Denver conservation planner, a couple of pioneering Elk River Valley 

ranchers marketed a limited number of building sites on their ranches in areas where they would 

have little or no impact on agricultural operations. Then they placed conservation easements on 

the undeveloped remainder of their land. By creating homesites that were able to demand top 

dollar, those ranchers were able to maximize return while developing a minimum amount of land. 

By applying conservation easements to the rest of their land, they were able to reduce its taxable 

value sufficiently that when it comes time to pass the ranch on to the next generation, as Colorado 

rancher T. Wright Dickinson puts it, they won't have to buy it back from the government first. 

Remedies used to save ranchlands can even involve cows! (Now, there's a novel idea!) That's 

the case in northern Arizona, where an internationally known artist bought a ranch that 

encompasses 106,000 acres of private, state and Forest Service land surrounding a landscapesized art project that's attracting worldwide attention. The artist/rancher is applying the profits of a 

cow-calf operation rejuvenated by holistic management practices to buy back some of the 500 

forty-acre parcels that were created when part of the ranch was subdivided about thirty years ago. 

Just four years into the rejuvenation the cows are buying their first five forties, and in holders who 

threatened to shoot the rancher's cows when he first started up are now offering to kiss them. 

As good as these stories sound, they are in some ways a distortion. Some of the ranchers 

applying these remedies are "deep pocket" ranchers who don't rely on agriculture for their main 

means of support. Working ranchers scraping to make a living in an unpredictable market and a 

hostile political climate have proven less likely to grant or even to sell easements on real estate that 

may be their family's only ace in the hole when the going gets rough. 

Though it is true that taking chances with your best bet is not something you should do lightly, 

there is a growing number of ranchers around the West showing that they can succeed in shaping 

the future of their lands, their families and their communities if they know all the tools in their 

351 
tool bag, know how to choose the one they need when they need it, and know how to use it after 

they've chosen it. In the process these people are proving that they are their own best bet. They•re 

proving that they are stickers. So can you. 

Note: This article was originally published in Range Magazine, Summer 1996, and was taken from 

the script of a slideshow presentation written by Dan Dagget for the So no ran Institute of Tucson, 

Arizona. In addition to the slideshow, the lnstitute•s Ranch Outreach Program offers a Private Land 

Options Guidebook that highlights successful examples of ranchers in the Rocky Mountain West 

who have protected their agricultural land base and generated income with flexible conservation 

strategies, such as limited development and conservation easements programs. This publication 

also provides estate planning strategies, an annotated bibliography on pertinent articles and books 

on preserving ranches and open space, and a list of resources and organizations that provide 

technical assistance on private land conservation. For more information on this program contact: 

Luther Propst, Executive Director, the Sonoran Institute, 7290 East Broadway, Ste M, Tucson, AZ 

85710, (520) 290-0828, fax (520) 290-0969, e-mail soninst@azstarnet.com. 

352 
The Value of Your Land Today 

and into the FutureChoices Landowners Face 

Lane Coulston1 

"SMALL HOMESTEAD - LARGE LANDSCAPE"8M 

Financial compensation to landowners for conservation easements 

11This deal saved a ranch! 11 is an exclamation rarely heard at the conclusion of a ranch real 

estate transaction. Yet those were Zach Wirth1S words as he closed the transaction which 

compensated his family for protecting their ranch from rural subdivision. The Wirths, who live in 

Wolf Creek, are the first Montana family to receive cash from a private individual for granting a 

conservation easement. 

Conservation easements are voluntary legal agreements which landowners make to restrict the 

type and amount of subdivision and development which may take place on their property. 

Landowners choose the restrictions to safeguard the agricultural productivity and ecological health 

of the land. 

In additional to protecting the future of agriculture and wildlife, conservation easements are 

useful financial planning tools. To understand this financial planning role, first consider the sources 

of land value. The top market price for a ranch generally reflects the high bids of speculators and 

developers. Agricultural value -- the productive value of the ranch -- tends to be much less than 

development value. 

A common mis-perception is that conservation easements reduce ranch value from 

development to agricultural levels. In practice, a conservation easement usually lowers ranch value 

to a level between agricultural and development values. We call this level 110pen space value. 11 

Many affluent ranch buyers look for scenic, spacious, and ecologically diverse ranches. They will 

pay more than agricultural value for such properties, even if the land is under a conservation 

easement. Development value, open space value, and agricultural value can all be determined by 

a qualified appraiser. 

The appraised reduction in market value resulting from the donation of a conservation 

easement -- perhaps 25 to 35 percent of development value -- usually qualifies the landowner for 

income and estate tax breaks. Yet many ranchers are 11 land-rich11 but 11Cash-poor, 11 and therefore 

benefit little from income tax deductions associated with the donation of a conservation easement. 

As part of their land use and financial planning, these ranchers may wish to sell, rather than 

donate, a conservation easement. The landowner negotiates and grants the conservation 

easement to a land trust organization. 

Land trusts are private, nonprofit organizations with small budgets dependent on private 

donations. They cannot afford to buy easements unassisted. However, the American Conservation 

Real Estate Co. (ACRE) is working with land trusts to create a new market for privately 11purchased11 

easements. This market is driven by buyers who have clear, motivating land ethics. Such people 

strive to protect our natural heritage. 

Conservation buyers understand that the demand for ranchette subdivisions threatens our 

1 American ConseNation Real Estate, Helena, Montana. 

353 
heritage of native plant and animal communities. They seek alternatives to honor lands which have 

outstanding natural resource values. In return for a single homesite in a secluded location, and for 

limited, low-impact recreational privileges, a conservation buyer may be willing to pay a rancher to 

grant a conservation easement. The landowner creates value by choosing restrictions on future 

development of the property. 

Usually, conservation buyers cannot fully compensate a landowner for the loss of development 

value due to a conservation easement. However, through their purchase, these buyers can help 

ranchers get out of debt, buy out partners, or acquire more land. Conservation buyers have shown 

interest in paying anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000 for this type of opportunity. On 

especially large and valuable ranches, it may be possible to generate well over $1,000,000. 

UNDERSTANDING THE "PRESENT-DAY VALUE" 

OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT 

Granting a conservation easement means restricting certain rights that usually accompany the 

ownership of land. Some of these rights may be worth a lot of money. Examples of potentially 

valuable rights include the right to convert a working ranch to a vacation home subdivision, the right 

to clearcut timber, the right to engage in mining and other forms of land resource development. 

There are other privileges of land ownership which are ecologically significant but do not provide a 

significant financial return to the owner. 

The monetary worth of the various rights of land ownership can be appraised. Some ranches 

are encumbered by deed restrictions which limit development, such as conservation easements or 

agricultural zoning districts. Development of many other properties is limited only by the county 

subdivision review process. Speculators and developers bid on ranches which do not have deed 

restrictions, driving up the price of such properties. Qualified appraisers determine the market 

value of development rights by comparing the sale prices of deed-restricted ranches with the sale 

prices of properties open to development. 

Different appraisal techniques may be employed to learn the value of other land ownership 

rights. For instance, a timber cruise reveals the monetary value associated with different logging 

practices and rates of timber harvest. 

In the scenic Northern Rockies, the right to subdivide a working ranch into recreational 

.. ranchettes .. is the predominant value of a conservation easement. People often use the terms 

.. conservation easement value .. and .. development rights value .. interchangeably, because the two 

values are so similar. 

The landowners primary benefit from restricting development rights with a conservation 

easement is peace of mind, knowing that the land will be preserved in the future. There can be 

other benefits as well: income and estate tax advantages, or even an immediate influx of cash. 

DIRECT MONETARY COMPENSATION FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

Many property owners are 11land-ri~h 11 but 11Cash-poor, 11 and as a result benefit little from income 

tax deductions associated with the gift of a conservation easement. As part of their land use and 

estate planning, some landowners seek to sell a conservation easement. The conservation 

easement is negotiated and granted to a land trust organization. 

Land trusts rely on the contribution of money, gifts of conservation easements, and of land by 

private parties to support their work. They cannot afford to buy easements unassisted. However, 

there is an emerging market for .. purchased .. easements by private individuals. This market is driven 

by buyers who have clear, motivating land ethics. Such people endeavor to live their life in a way 

that promotes and protects our natural heritage. They understand the conservation roles played by 

354 
land trusts. 

Like many people, dedicated conseNationists enjoy the open spaces, recreational 

opportunities, and natural values of the Northern Rockies. However, the demand for ranchette 

subdivisions threatens our heritage of native plant and animal communities. The purchase of a 

rural ranchette is inconsistent with the open spaces we enjoy in the West. 

ConseNation buyers choose to honor lands which have outstanding natural resource values. In 

return for a single homesite in a selected location, and for limited, low-impact recreational 

privileges, a conseNation buyer may be willing to pay the rancher to grant a conseNation 

easement. The landowner creates value by choosing restrictions on future development of the 

property. 

Another market for purchased conseNation easements is supported by government agencies. 

The US Fish and Wildlife SeNice at times has program money to purchase easements on wetlands 

and associated uplands. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has a small but 

stable supply of money for securing easements which augment wildlife habitat and recreation 

opportunities. They may request hunter and fisherman access, or negotiate limits on agricultural 

activities to improve wildlife and fisheries habitat. 

Each land trust organization has a different character, which is reflected in their easement 

documents. The Nature ConseNancy emphasizes biological diversity. The terms of a Nature 

ConseNancy easement often include specific protections for vulnerable plant and animal 

communities. The Montana Land Reliance is a state-wide land trust which emphasizes open space 

and agriculture, as well as wildlife and fisheries habitat. Local land trusts write easements to 

maintain traditional land uses which contribute to the character of the community. 

355 
Estate Planning for Ranchers 

Gregory V. Gadarian, J.D.1 

I. GENERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CONCEPTS 

A. An annual exclusion is provided for gifts of $10,000 (or less) per donee. 

B. A lifetime exemption of $600,000 is provided for gifts or bequests that are not 

deductible. 

C. Deductible bequests are bequests to a surviving spouse or a charity. 

D. Estate tax rates. 

1. The estate tax rates begin at 37% for estates in excess of $600,000 and 

increase to 55% for estates in excess of $3,000,000. 

2. A special 5% surtax is imposed on estates of $10,000,000 to $21,040,000. 

E. A generation skipping transfer tax (GST Tax) applies to transfers to grandchildren. The GST 

tax rate is 55%. A $1 million lifetime exemption is provided for the GST tax. 

II. BASIC PLANNING TECHNIQUES. 

A. Utilizing the Credit Exemption Amount. 

1. Avoid 111 Love You .. wills. 

2. Credit is for $192,800. 

B. Special Rules for Ranchers and Small Business Owners. 

1. Special Use Valuation allows property to be valued as a ranch or business 

property. However, value can only be reduced by $750,000 under this rule. 

2. Rule applies if property continues to be used for ranching by a qualified heir. 

3. Installment payment of estate taxes is allowed for businesses (including 

ranches). Installment period is 1 for 5 years. Amortizing principal over next 10 

years. 

C. Bypass Trusts. 

1. $600,000 is placed in trust for benefit of the surviving spouse. 

2. Income and principal can be sprinkled to family members. 

3. Surviving spouse can serve as trustee. 

4. Remainder passes estate tax free to children on death of surviving spouse. 

D. QTIP Trusts. 

1. Trust qualifies for marital deduction. 

2. Assets pass to children on death of surviving spouse. 

3. Used frequently in second marriages. 

4. Election out of QTIP treatment allows postmortem planning. 

Ill. ADVANCED PLANNING CONCEPTS 

A. The Traditional Corporate Freeze. 

1. Parents hold preferred stock and give common stock to children. 

1 Attorney, Tucson /lZ. 

356 
2. The appreciation in the value of the business is reflected in the common stock. 

The value of the preferred stock is frozen. 

3. This type of planning was restricted by the 1987 and 1988 Tax Acts. 

B. The Testamentary Freeze. 

1. Parents hold common and preferred stock in the business. 

2. Preferred stock is left to surviving spouse. 

3. Common stock is left to children (or in a generation skipping trust). 

4. Appreciation in value of family business after death of first spouse escapes 

estate taxation on death of surviving spouse. 

C. Minority Discount. 

1. Property is valued for estate tax purposes at the amount a willing buyer would 

pay a willing seller. 

2. Valuation will reflect the fact that the decedent held a controlling interest or 

minority interest in the business. 

3. The parents• interests should be restructured so that each holds a minority 

interest in the business. 

D. Family Limited Partnerships. 

1. Gifts or bequests are subject to tax on the 11Value .. of the property transferred. 

2. Limited partnership interests are traditionally subject to discounts for lack of 

marketability and lack of control. 

3. Transferring assets to a family limited partnership allows the discounts for lack 

of marketability and lack of control to be applied to assets such as real estate, 

stocks, bonds and other securities. 

E. GRATS and GRUTS 

1. Trusts which provide an annuity or unitrust payment to the grantor for a term 

of years and the remainder to the Grantor's children (or other individual) are 

GRATS and GRUTS respectively. 

2. The value of the gift of the remainder is a present value calculation. 

3. If the assets in the trust earn more than the IRS table assumes, then the 

difference escapes estate tax and gift tax. 

F. Charitable Remainder Trusts. 

1. Similar to GRATS and GRUTS with an annuity or unitrust amount being paid 

to the grantor and the remainder to a charity. 

2. Tax benefits are (I) a current income tax deduction and (ii) avoidance of gain 

on the transfer of assets to the CRT. 

G. Generation Skipping Transfers 

1. The GST tax provides for a $1,000,000 exemption for each taxpayer. 

2. The parents should leave the assets in trust for their children The children cam 

serve as trustees. Upon the children's deaths the property is not subject to estate 

tax and passes in trust or outright to the grandchildren. 

H. Life Insurance Trusts. 

1. Proceeds of life insurance payable to the trustee of a life insurance trust are not 

subject to estate tax or income tax on the insured's death. 

2. The proceeds may be used to purchase assets from the insured's estate. 

3. The life insurance trust can also be set up to hold the assets as a generation 

skipping trust. 

I. Defective Trusts. 

1 . The creator of a trust or the beneficiary will be subject to tax on trust income 

if certain types of .. defects .. are used in drafting the trust agreement. 

357 
2. A Defective Grantor Trust causes the creator to pay tax on trust income even if 

the income is accumulated in the trust for the benefit of the creator's children. 

By paying the tax on the income the creator is in effect making additional tax-free gifts to 

the trust. 

3. A Defective 678 Trust causes a beneficiary to be taxed on the trust income 

even if the income is accumulated in the trust. Most beneficiaries will have a 

lower tax rate than the trust so this defect reduces income taxes. 

J. Recent Tax Law Changes. 

1. Income tax rates for individuals are 39.6% on ordinary income. The rates for 

capital gain caps out at 28%. 

2. Income tax rates for trusts hits 39.6% at $7,900 

3. No alternative minimum tax for gifts to charities of appreciated property. 

K. Legislative Proposals. 

1. Increase in lifetime exemption from $600,000 to $750,000. 

2. Indexing of lifetime exemption. 

3. Indexing of annual exclusion. 

4. Special treatment for small businesses. 

358 
Land Management Partnerships: 

a Panel Discussion 

Ann Moote, Session Moderator 1 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PANEL 

Land management partnerships are organized groups of individuals and organizations working 

together to address land use, natural resource, or environmental issues at the local level. Partners 

may include government agencies, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, corporations, 

landowners, and private citizens. Frequently, these people or organizations have not previously 

worked together. Often they are traditional adversaries. They form a partnership when one or more 

individuals or groups identifies a problem or need that they cannot address alone because they lack 

adequate funding, skills, jurisdiction over the resource, or land ownership. 

Partnerships are said to enhance land use and natural resource management by drawing 

expertise and input from a wide range of individuals and groups who live in and intimately know the 

resource base and the local economy. Getting more people involved in a project increases the 

likelihood that it will be accepted and maintained over the long term. Working through issues with a 

diverse group of individuals and organizations, partnership groups often come up with creative and 

desirable projects. Furthermore, by pooling resources of several organizations, agencies, and 

individuals, partnerships can achieve greater volunteer involvement and a broader base of financial 

support. 

DISCUSSION (SUMMARY) 

Although a new concept in the United States, community-based conservation has had a longer 

history in other countries, particularly in the developing world. In developing countries, almost all 

conservation efforts are focused on the people living close to protected areas. Research has shown 

that conservation projects that ignore local patterns of resource use or tenure relationships tend to 

fail, as do those that depend on outside expertise. Yet in the U.S., conservation efforts traditionally 

have ignored local residents and relied exclusively on agencies or private conservation groups to 

manage the resources. 

This is changing, however. With the advent of ecosystem management and increasing 

restrictions on public lands access and use, communities adjacent to public lands have become 

less willing to let outsiders make public land management decisions for those lands. New 

concepts, like holistic resource management and coordinated resource management, also have 

united many grassland communities around their resource base. Local communities are fighting for 

equal consideration in land management decisions that effect them. 

As described by discussants and illustrated in the Sonoita and Cascabel cases, successful 

partnerships share some common characteristics. They are characterized by broad membership; a 

common guideline for partnership groups is .. involve everyone." Working together, the participants 

generate a commonly shared vision for natural resources and local communities that helps build 

long-term support and can improve project implementation. Communication is the primary tool 

used to solve problems and reach agreements. Decisions are typically made collaboratively or by 

consensus, to ensure everyone's needs and concerns have been addressed. Through the process 

1 Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ. 

359 
of group decision-making, partnerships increase individual members' levels of responsibility, 

involvement, and commitment. 

Not all partnerships are successful, however. Discussants in this session identified several 

reasons partnership groups have fallen apart, including: a history of extreme, unresolved conflict 

among key interests; lack of a clear purpose; unrealistic goals or deadlines; failing to include key 

interests and decision-makers; major inequity of power or benefits; and forming the group too late--

after projects or proposals are already developed. All discussants considered communication--

keeping everyone up-to-date and maintaining dialogue among partners--critical to building trust and 

a sense of community. In Cascabel, the Management Committee addressed some of these 

potential problems by setting a definite deadline, agreeing on a policy of limited consensus, and 

keeping the partnership .. open, but not too open ... The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership keeps 

lines of communication open by mailing minutes of meetings to a large list of interested people, 

and accepts written comments as well as input during meetings. 

Commitment and trust were said to be critical to effective group processes. Discussants 

stressed that all participants need to make a long-term, personal commitment. In Sonoita, for 

example, all meetings are held on weekends, not weekdays when agency and organization 

representatives would paid for meeting while self-employed people lose a day•s work. 

Often, community members have been frustrated by past experiences and are leery of investing 

their time and energy in these efforts. Participation and confidence often must be earned, primarily 

by allowing sufficient time for partners to become acquainted on a personal level and discover 

areas of agreement. Therefore, partnerships should tackle issues they can agree upon first, leaving 

the contentious ones until they have developed some mutual trust. ~or example, the Cascabel 

Management Committee agreed to avoid highly contentious issues like fire and grazing 

management on private lands, but moved forward with planning for several other resource issues. 

Both of the partnership groups discussed avoided private property rights issues by explicitly 

limiting themselves to discussion of public land management. During the discussion, some 

participants mentioned the tendency of private landowners to .. hide behind private property rights .. 

and avoid partnering. Private property owners expressed a fear that increasing government 

regulation and environmental zealotry will limit their use of their land. They agreed, however, that 

with property rights come responsibilities. 

Consensus is another highly contentious issue for partnerships. Many people insist that 

consensus decision-making is the only way to ensure that everyone•s needs and concerns are 

addressed. Offering another perspective, Eric Schwennesen stressed the difference between 

common or collective agreement and consensus, describing consensus as .. a way to brow-beat 

minority opinion into submission ... Other participants expressed the concern that consensus gives 

any one individual veto power. 

The appropriate role for traditional decision-makers (i.e., agencies, powerful interest groups) in 

partnerships was also discussed. Agency representatives, in particular, may be viewed as arrogant, 

led by their .. agency culture .. to believe they are the sole experts, and by bureaucratic rigidity to 

believe they should be the sole decision-makers in public land management planning. Discussants 

emphasized that agency representatives need to .. separate themselves from their uniforms .. as 

much as possible. While still representing their agency and bound by some laws, they also need to 

present themselves as individuals, with respect for other individuals. 

Finally, reliable funding was mentioned as a critical factor in the success or failure of a 

partnership effort. Both partnership groups presented here were funded by agency and interest 

group participants. In general, however, government funding can only be expected in the short 

term. Luther Propst noted that identifying innovative, long-term funding sources is one of the 

greatest challenges partnership groups face. 

As communities rally around their local public lands, agencies and traditional powers are slowly 

360 
becoming more willing to share decision-making with them. In this session, presenters described 

how the Bureau of Land Management is sharing its planning authority, and The Nature Conservancy 

has evolved from a 11Command-and-control 11 type organization to one that can share control. The 

results are innovative partnerships characterized by broad-based local participation that utilize and 

build on local knowledge to develop better land management plans. 

361 
Strategies for Creating 

Successful Partnerships1 

Luther Propst2 

Here are some suggestions for park and refuge managers who want to build partnerships with 

the communities and landowners on their borders: 

Know thy Neighbor. Take the time to get to know local leaders. Working relationships with 

community members are best developed outside of hearing rooms or council chambers. Don•t just 

host an annual open house for the community--have lunch regularly with community leaders, give 

them VIP tours of the park or refuge, or join them on a hunting, hiking, or fishing trip. Be sure to 

interact not just with elected officials, but with everyone involved in local decision-making: bankers, 

developers, environmental advocates, landowners, journalists, land-use planners, and business 

owners. Make sure you•re visible before threats arise. 

Become a Member of the Community. Developing good relationships with gateway communities 

requires a full-time commitment to the well-being of the community. You won•t get results if you•re 

only willing to tackle issues of importance to your park or refuge. Instead, participate in the whole 

range of issues affecting the community. Get involved in the community as well--join a 

neighborhood association, coach a Little League team, volunteer on community projects, join the 

Rotary, or become an active member of a church. If possible, develop employee housing in the 

community rather than behind the park boundary. 

Get Involved Early and Often. Effective participation in a community•s decision-making process 

requires early and ongoing involvement. The best opportunity to influence decision-making occurs 

well before proposals are made public. This principle works both ways: Don•t expect to be invited to 

a community•s preliminary planning sessions if you don•t include local leaders in your own. 

Be a Team Player. As a member of the community, you are entitled to participate in local 

decision-making processes and express concerns and opinions. Accept that you are one of many 

who are trying to shape and influence decisions. Constructive participation in community 

decision-making will only enhance your role as a legitimate member of the community. 

Build Coalitions. Having a well-organized and thoughtful constituency is the best way to ensure 

that local government listens to park or refuge concerns. A coalition of individuals or groups 

working toward a common goal can be extremely effective in influencing decisions. Involving too 

many is always better than leaving someone out. Establish partnerships between divergent interest 

groups--an alliance between a downtown merchants association and a local .. Friends of the Refuge .. 

group, for example, can have a powerful impact on local decisions. Do so before you need to--a 

proactive group is typically more effective than one that organizes in response to a specific threat. 

1 Many thanks to Gil Lusk, director of the National Park Service•s employee training programs, for 

assistance in preparing these strategies which are excerpted from Balancing Nature and Commerce in 

America's Favorite Towns (tentative working title) by Jim Howe, Luther Propst, and Ed McMahon. 2 Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ. 

362 
Develop a Strategy. Don•t just go blindly into partnerships or community relations: Have a 

strategy and tangible goals in mind. Understand both the concerns most important to you and 

those where compromise can be sought. Instead of opposing projects, try to come up with 

modifications that would allow you to support them or with alternatives that allow you to present 

your concerns in a positive light. 

Don't Get Ruffled by Criticism. Some members of the community will not appreciate your views. 

Expect criticism and accept it without getting defensive. Resist the temptation to fire back. It's 

important to maintain an open dialogue not only with those who share your views, but with 

individuals and groups who may oppose you. At the same time, know which relationships will lead 

to fruitful partnerships and which will simply keep the lines of communication open. 

Understand the Full Range of Growth Management Strategies. Many local officials are 

unaware or suspicious of growth management tools. To ease doubts about growth management, 

every protected area manager should be familiar with the complete spectrum of public and private 

land-use techniques--conservation easements, agricultural districts, cluster development, floodplain 

regulations, zoning, etc.--and how they apply in your state or locality. 

Lead by Example. Wherever possible, protected area managers should set the example for new 

development. If a new park or refuge building is under consideration, involve the community in 

determining its location and scale. Then design a new facility that serves as a model for other 

projects in the community. Utilize architecture that blends in with the landscape, outside lighting 

that keeps night skies dark, landscaping that makes use of native plants, and conservation-minded 

plumbing and lighting. (Older buildings can be retrofitted, too.) Use interpretive signs and 

brochures to make sure the public knows what's been done. 

Demonstrate the Link Between Resource Protection and Economic Vitality. Local leaders 

are more likely to pay attention to environmental concerns if they can be linked to economic vitality. 

Develop data that demonstrate how your protected area contributes to the local economy through 

increased property values, tourism, sales tax revenue, local purchases, or jobs. A local college can 

help carry out this research. Also, wherever possible, hire from the community and purchase 

products and services from local businesses. 

363 
Empowering Land 

Management Partnerships 

Eric Schwennesen1 

In the small African kingdom of Lesotho a few years ago, I had a chance to witness firsthand 

some of the whimsy that occurs when modern technology meets practical culture. The mainly 

agrarian kingdom was about to receive the gift of a new international airport. 

As is often the case with new technology, there was to be some care and feeding of this gift, 

and local officials spent many long days explaining to the villagers in the surrounding region how 

beautiful!, important!, beneficial!, this new airport would be. 

And just to make sure, nearly one half million dollars was spent to put a very formidable fence 

around the whole thing. Well, the money spent was enough to scare nearly everybody away (is any 

of this starting to sound familiar?) And it really was important to keep this airport running smoothly. 

Well, even before the new airport had a chance to start operations a "breach" in the security 

fence spilled cattle all over the runways. Frantic investigations finally turned up the dangerous 

lunatic who had sabotaged the massive project: a 12-year-old boy with a $2 pair or pliers. 

He was a herdboy, an important responsibility in Africa. One morning he found his track 

blocked by a very formidable fence, found it to be an impediment to his progress ... and solved his 

problem with an elegant simplicity that I can only admire today. 

The lesson, in case it has escaped you, is that enforced partnerships, regardless of intention, 

don't work. They have a fatal weakness; anyone with a philosophical $2 pair of pliers can ruin 

them. It happens all the time; anyone care to guess how much money and effort has been built 

into massive projects, only to be defeated by "pliers?" That's what lawyers do. 

This all sounds defeatist, so can I suggest or demonstrate a better way? 

Yes I can. 

1. Instead of starting with a project ("what this country really needs is ... ") start with a common 

goal, not a vague, everybody-knows-it-anyway statement, but a detailed written goal that recognizes 

every serious wish of every participant. The goal becomes the guiding force for everything that 

happens later and cannot tolerate consensus! Either every participant supports the stated goal, or 

more effort has to be made to have the goal include further needs. It is not a workable goal until 

every participant supports it. (See paragraph one: "enforce partnerships.") 

2. No uniforms. A workable partnership at any level has no need of corporate identity of agency 

mystique. By the same reasoning, there can be no "experts." Participants are individuals with 

individuals' need for recognition, and if one individual has special knowledge that is pertinent, so do 

all others who participate. 

3. Be inclusive, not exclusive. We have evolved into a society that treats severely anyone who 

came in late." I'm still trying to understand why! Probably it's a throwback to school days and tardy 

bells, but it's a very silly reason to exclude someone who really cares, from participating in the 

management of a better future. I have had the fortune of seeing the inclusive approach and its 

consequences in extraordinary places. Rest assured that anyone who really wants to be involved, 

does have something important to contribute. 

1 Rancher, Winkleman ftZ. 

364 
4. Land management partnerships should not be made to "follow regulations." To do so places 

the group's goals in an inferior position to policy and bureaucracy and in that case, don't bother. 

Start over with a group that includes the policy writers. See point #1. By my reckoning, the "right 

way" to manage land has not been invented yet. 

5. The previous points all call for that rarest of commodities, trust. About two-thirds of the 

audience will now curl their lips in derision ... which does not change my statement in any way. In 

my experience our land management groups have tried hard to broker trust without realizing that 

you can't broker it; you have to earn it. When you do earn it, the whole management equation 

changes. 

6. I'd like to list a few brief examples which are nearby and will happily welcome you into their 

management partnerships . 

.,. Clay Riggs Ranch, Sunizona, Arizona 

.,. Double Check Ranch, Winkleman, Arizona 

.,. The 20:1 Group, Austin, Nevada 

.,. Rancho Mababi, Cucarachi, Sonora 

.,. Adams Ranch, Texas Canyon, Arizona 

.,. Wheeler Ranch, Globe Arizona 

.,. Holder Ranch, Eagle Creek, Arizona 

There are many other such partnerships, and I haven't bothered even to mention the much larger 

progress being made overseas. 

Thank you. 

365 
The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership 

Karen M. Simms1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP) is a voluntary association of agencies (federal, 

state, and local), organized groups and individuals who share a common interest in the future of 

public land resources in the Sonoita Valley. Participating individuals have come from a variety of 

communities including Sonoita, Elgin, Patagonia, Huachuca City, Sierra Vista, Nogales, Tucson, and 

Phoenix among others. Participation has also come from representatives of organized groups 

including hiking clubs, conservation organizations, off-highway vehicle clubs, mountain bike clubs, 

bird-dog clubs, and grazing and mining interests. Agency representation has come from BLM, 

Nogales and Sierra Vista Ranger Districts of the Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Land 

Department, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Pima County Parks and Recreation and 

Planning'Fiood Control, and Santa Cruz County. Participation in the SVPP is completely open. 

Anyone can participate and they can join at any time. Those who are unable to attend the monthly 

meetings are invited to participate by reviewing meeting minutes and providing written or phone 

comments. 

The (SVPP) was conceived as a way for the community (private, public, government, local, nonlocal, etc.) to come together to achieve community oriented resolutions to local and national issues 

affecting public lands within the Sonoita Valley. This in turn has increased awareness, 

communication, understanding, trust and support for each other. It has also helped us look at the 

valley as a whole and what we want and need in the future. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1988, The BLM acquired the public lands on the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation 

Area (RCA) through a land exchange. These lands located in north-eastern Santa Cruz County and 

southeastern Pima County, Arizona, hold extremely high social, cultural, and resource values for 

the local and national public. These values include a critical watershed which is important to 

Tucson for flood control and aquifer recharge, a site on the National Register of Histpric Places, 

endangered species, extensive riparian areas, broad expanses of native grasslands,;outstanding 

wildlife habitat, scenic open space and high potential for dispersed recreation. The BLM is 

mandated to complete long-term land use planning to guide management of the 45,000 acres of 

public land within the Empire-Cienega RCA. 

After several false starts on developing a plan for the RCA, the BLM decided to take a new 

approach which would involve greater public participation in all aspects of planning and which would 

also improve communication and coordination with surrounding public and private landowners. This 

desire for a new approach led to creation of the SVPP. 

In January of 1995, the BLM brought together representatives from federal, state, and local 

agencies with interest in the Sonoita Area to discuss the idea of forming a partnership to work with 

the community on public land issues. There was strong interest from all participants. This meeting 

was followed by a community potluck in April 1995. Agencies and groups were invited to put up 

displays of their activities in the Sonoita Area, and tours were given to various sites in the Valley. 

1 Bureau of Land Management, Tucson AZ Reid Office 

366 
Participants filled out a questionnaire on their concerns for the future of the Sonoita Valley. In July 

1995, the SVPP put on a community workshop to review the results of the questionnaire and to 

generate other issues related to the Sonoita Valley. The participants decided to deal only with 

issues related to public lands. Three working groups were created at the workshop to address 

issues relating to wildlife-vegetation, water-minerals, and people. The groups met monthly. In 

December 1995, the groups gave a joint presentation on their accomplishments on issues, visions 

and goals. They also decided to merge the water-minerals and wildlife-vegetation groups into the 

natural resources working group and to continue to meet monthly. In September 1996, the groups 

gave another joint presentation on accomplishments and decided to have all working groups meet 

together for the time being to finalize objectives and work on management recommendations. 

Although working with the BLM on planning for the Empire-Cienega has been a driving force behind 

the direction of SVPP. The working groups have also provided input into several BLM and USFS 

projects. 

SVPP ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

To date the SVPP has accomplished the following: 

• Created vision statements relating to open space, water, healthy diverse grasslands and 

traditional uses for the Sonoita Valley that broadly define what future conditions the community 

would like to maintain or reach in this valley. 

• Raised a variety of issues concerning public lands within the Sonoita Valley. 

• Formed three working groups to address issues relating to: 

People (cultural/historical resources, recreation, land uses, economics etc.), 

Water/Minerals (water quality and supply, mineral use and impacts, etc.), 

WildlifeNegetation (wildlife populations and habitat, endangered species, 

grasslands, grazing, etc.). 

• Developed goals for vegetation, wildlife, water, watershed, cultural resources, recreation, open 

space, traditional uses, and stewardship of resources. 

• Drafted specific, measurable objectives for upland and riparian vegetation, watershed, wildlife, 

cultural resources, and recreation. 

• Made preliminary recommendations on use of prescribed fire, off-highway vehicle designations, 

management of antelope habitat, and management of special recreation permit areas. 

SVPP FUTURE 

The SVPP has already accomplished a great deal. The direction that that group takes in the 

future is up to all of the participants. The working groups have decided to meet jointly for the time 

being while finalizing objectives and working on management recommendations. By meeting 

together, the groups can more effectively address the different views of the participants in relation 

to specific issues. Some of the tasks that the group will be working on include: 

• Finalizing objectives 

• Developing management recommendations to achieve objectives and solve issues 

367 
• Preparing a final report of accomplishments 

• Working with BLM to finish Land Use Plan for Empire-Cienega 

• Continuing to provide input on implementation of plans 

• Continuing to provide input on specific issueS/topics relating to public lands in Sonoita Valley as 

they arise 

Components of Success 

There are several indicators of the success of the SVPP approach so far: a high level of 

participation has been maintained in the working groups, new participants have continued to join, 

communication has increased between the participants on a variety of levels, there has been 

increased interest and involvement in management activities by the agencies, and the local 

community has started up the Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum which is dealing with many 

issues which complement those being dealt with by SVPP. 

BLM has achieved a better understanding of the importance of the valley to everyone; of 

community values, of present and future needs and concerns; how public lands are important to 

sustaining the desired community and character of the valley, and how the solutions to our 

problems today lie in the strength of our community in the future. 

Some of the components of success include: 

• Have an open process, don't keep anyone out, invite detractors in 

• Use an outside 'neutral' facilitator at least until trust is there 

• Initially, get everyone acquainted in a non-confrontational, recreational (fun) atmosphere 

• Keep communication going throughout the process (minutes) 

• Keep commitment going (funding, level of involvement)-don't back burner it 

• Have an education component with technical specialists 

• Respect diverse views 

• Seek common ground 

• Nurture partnerships 

368 
Trouble In Tortuga! 

A Rangeland Conflict Simulation Exercise: 

Simulation Materials and 

Evaluation Report 

Kirk Emerson, Hal Movius, and Garri Dryden1 

INTRODUCTION 

During the spring of 1996 a group of scholars from the University of Arizona and professional 

mediators from Tucson formed the Environmental Dispute Resolution Interest Group (ENDRIG) to 

promote the study and practice of environmental conflict resolution. One of the group's early 

projects was to design a simulation game that would model a distinctly southwestern environmental 

conflict and would help explore ways toward resolving the conflict. 

During the ensuing summer, Kirk Emerson, Coordinator of the Environmental Conflict Resolution 

Program at the University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, developed an initial 

version of the game. The result, Trouble in Tortuga!, is a group interaction intended to resolve a 

simulated rangeland conflict in the small community of Tortuga, a factitious mining-and-ranching 

town (in a setting similar to that of southeastern Arizona, or other western landscapes). 

While completely fabricated, the situation presented in the game was based on facts and 

events from actual disputes that had occurred in locales not far from Tucson. The simulation was 

designed to involve a cast of seven characters from Tortuga--two ranchers, a planner, an 

environmentalist, two government agency representatives, and a developer--brought together with a 

facilitator to try to sort out the trouble brewing in Tortuga. Here is a digest of the scenario: 

It all begins when Ed Middleton's widow, owner of the 640-acre X-Bar ranch, dies and leaves 

the ranch to her children. The three Middleton kids, not interested themselves in working the XBar, are determined to sell the ranch to the highest bidder. Developer Sydney Stone is eager to 

snap up the estate to build 400 clustered homes. 

Neighboring rancher Gil Sinespina also wants to buy the X-Bar--and its grazing rights to 15,000 

acres in the adjacent San Cristobal National Forest--but he doesn't have the cash. Meanwhile, 

Sinespina has been told by the Forest SeNice that his own grazing allotments on the public land 

are being reduced because of a recent drought in the area. 

Local firebrand Corey Flintlock, an activist with SAGE (Save the Arid Grassland Environment) 

wants to keep both cattle and condos out of the area to protect the grasslands and the habitat of 

the rare Gray Hawk. 

And while county planner Brady Euclid worries about the impact of the proposed clustered 

development on the small community of Tortuga--water, sewage, schools, and police--she frets 

even more about what some other developer--Blake Worstcase, for example--might do if Stone 

walks away or is driven away from the deal. So what to do in Tortuga? 

1 Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 

369 
In September 1996, ENDRIG held a trial-run of the exercise to assess whether the simulation 

was substantively realistic and procedurally efficient. With a few modifications, a final version was 

then generated for use at a session at "The Future of Arid Grasslands" conference held in October 

1996. Several Arizona residents volunteered to step into the seven character roles, many of which 

contrasted sharply with the players' real-life identities: a rancher played a U.S. Forest Service 

ranger, an environmentalist became a rancher, and so on. The Udall Center's Kirk Emerson and 

Hal Movius, a graduate student at the Center, facilitated the two-hour simulation. 

The simulation was intended to elicit the complex, interrelated issues concerning the use and 

disposition of rangeland and to demonstrate the potential for alternative approaches to conflict 

resolution. Another goal of the simulation was to provide a learning experience for the real 

stakeholders, the participants, by providing a venue in which they could interact with each other 

from an alternative vantage point. For most of the participants, this was their first such experience-

-acting out a role to portray and promote a view different than, if not contrary to, their own. And for 

many, it was a real eye opener. 

Following the simulation, Jim Walsh, President-elect of the Arizona Dispute Resolution 

Association (ADRA) and a former state legislator, moderated a panel discussion where the 

participants discussed the issues again, this time from their real-life perspectives. While the 

simulation and discussion did not completely resolve the trouble in Tortuga, it did help the 

participants, who approached the conflict from disparate viewpoints, move closer to resolving some 

of the issues. 

This report includes several items: 

• Part I: The simulation exercise, Trouble in Tortuga!, including a complete set of 

instructions, briefing documents, maps, and background materials; 

• Part II: A report and products of the simulation session conducted October 12, 

1996, at "The Future of Arid Grasslands" conference, including a summary of 

comments made by panelists following the simulation, with an evaluation and 

summary of lessons learned; and an 

Trouble in Tortuga! is still a work in progress. Its developers (ENDRIG members Bryce 

Appleton, Garri Dryden, Kirk Emerson, David Fuller, Dale Keyes, Hal Movius, Larry Robertson, and 

Ann Yellott) will be refining the exercise over time to use in different contexts and with different 

audiences and participants. 

For more information about Trouble in Tortuga!, the Udall Center's Environmental Conflict 

Resolution Program, or the Tucson-based Environmental Dispute Resolution Interest Group 

(ENDRIG), contact Kirk Emerson, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, 

803/811 East First Street, Tucson, AZ 85719, Tel. (520) 621-7189, Fax (520) 621-9234, email 

address <emersonk@u.arizona.edu >. 

370 
Map 1- X Bar Ranch Area Map 

' 

La Rosita Ranch 

!;• 

~~ BarNunn IJi~ 

Ranch 

Map 2 - X Bar Ranch Estates - Conceptual Land Use Plan 

Maps compiled by Gary Dryden. Scale: 1 inch = 1/2 mile 

371 
Part I SIMULATION EXERCISE 

General Instructions to Organizers & Facilitators 

1) The Trouble in Tortuga! simulation exercise is designed to involve seven participants, each 

assuming the role of a character (rancher, developer, planner, environmentalist, etc.), and one or 

two facilitators. Ideally, each of the seven participants will play a character different than their own 

real-life situation. The cast of characters to be played by the participants includes: 

• Brady Euclid, County Planner 

• Corey Flintlock, Coordinator, Save the Arid Grassland Environment 

• Toby Nunn, Rancher, Bar Nunn Ranch 

• Gil Sinespina, Rancher, La Rosita Ranch 

• Sidney Stone, Developer, Sierra Grande 

• Jo(e) Waterstone, State Game and Fish Commission 

• Pat Wright, San Cristobal District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service 

2) The recommended room arrangement for the simulation exercise is a roundtable format 

for 9 or 10 persons (participants and facilitators)--with name plates for each character--and 

additional seating around the room for observers. 

3) The recommended duration for the exercise is two 90-minute sessions--with a 15-minute 

break between sessions--followed by a 30-minute discussion and assessment by the participants of 

what they learned from the simulation exercise. The 90-minute sessions are meant to simulate two 

half-day sessions, ostensibly held on consecutive Saturdays, with the break simulating the 

intervening week. 

A note: Obviously, the format of this exercise can be varied--with durations ranging from onehour to full-day sessions, and with more or fewer characters--depending on the interests or 

constraints of the organizers and participants. 

4) Each participant should receive, in advance of the simulation exercise, a copy of the 

"Background and Setting" statement, his or her character's "Confidential Instructions," and both 

maps. 

5) Each facilitator should receive and review all materials, including the "Confidential 

Instructions" for facilitators and those for Qll characters. 

6) The facilitator should talk to each participant to see if they have any questions about their 

character and about the general format and process for the simulation exercise. Each participant 

should be encouraged to learn as much as possible about the type of character they will be playing, 

about his or her job or career/livelihood, and about what perspectives that character might 

realistically bring to the table. As appropriate (and without getting too corny), the participants 

should feel free to use props (maps, charts, books) or articles of clothing (such as, hats, jackets, 

vests) or whatever else might help them portray and proje'ct the "image" of their character. 

7) Immediately prior to the simulation exercise, the facilitator should meet with the other 

participants (as a group) for a brief discussion about the how the simulation will begin and proceed 

(i.e., the facilitator will begin the simulation with a brief overview, each participant will then go in 

turn to present his or her position and interests, and then the discussion will continue whereby each 

person must raise his or her hand to be recognized by the facilitator before talking). 

8) After the final session of the exercise, the facilitator should lead a discussion with the 

participants to solicit their comments about the simulation exercise and their roles in it, as well as 

any insights or lessons they might have learned from playing their respective characters. 

372 
Background and Setting 

Ed Middletonls widow died last year, leaving the fate of the X-Bar Ranch in the hands of the 

executors of the estate. The Middletons' three children were all in agreement: no one had an 

interest in ranching, and everyone had an interest in selling the ranch to the highest bidder. 

Moreover, since partial payment of inheritance taxes by the Middletons falls due in six months, 

there is pressure to sell soon. 

Located just past the old mining town of Tortuga in the foothills adjacent to the San Cristobal 

National Forest, the X-Bar includes one section (640 acres) of private deeded land and a 15,000-

acre grazing allotment in the national forest (see Map 1). 

Elena Sinespina and Toby Nunn own the ranches on either side of the Middleton property. 

Third generation ranchers, Toby and Elena were disappointed when none of the Middleton kids 

wanted to continue the tradition. Las Culebras Wash snakes through all three ranches, and for 

many years all three ranching families jointly managed fencing and flooding problems, droughts, 

and drops in cattle prices. When Ed Middleton died 10 years ago, Elena1

S son Gil gladly agreed to 

manage the X-Bar. Gil has made it known that he would like to buy the X-Bar, but it seems unlikely 

that he will be able on his own to come up with the money to do so. 

The community of Tortuga was established in 1871 by Basque silver miners. When the mines 

played out at the turn of the century, the town was virtually abandoned, left to serve as the local 

gathering place for the area1

S ranching community. Decades later an eccentric geology professor 

purchased the town site and began rehabilitating some of the old buildings. By the mid-1960s 

young professionals from the nearby city of Sierra Grande were moving to Tortuga in search of a 

small community lifestyle, renovating the old homes and businesses. There are now 1,500 

residents, and it is apparent that there will be a growing market for housing in Tortuga, particularly 

for commuters traveling west to Sierra Grande. 

Sydney Stone, a developer from Sierra Grande, has secured an option to purchase the X-Bar 

Ranch from the Middletons, conditioned on securing certain zoning approvals. Rather than 

subdivide the 640 acres into 160 lots at the current four-acre zoning, Stone has proposed a cluster 

development of 400 homes on one 200-acre portion of the site with shared infrastructure and 

minimal site coverage (see Map 2). He has indicated that the northeast portion across Las 

Culebras Wash would continue as grazing land and that he would keep the Forest Service allotment. 

But several related events have complicated the picture. Pat Wright, the San Cristobal District 

Ranger for the U.S. Forest Service, just made an administrative decision to reduce the grazing 

allotments on the Las Culebras Management Area. After reading the production utilization survey 

and watching the effects of the recent drought, Wright decided to reduce permanently the grazing 

allotments on all the area ranches by one-third (from 12 to 8 head per section). At a preliminary 

public scoping hearing, the area ranchers declared that they would appeal the reduction, and if 

denied, would pursue it in federal district court. 

Wright's action has partly mollified an environmental group called SAGE (Save the Arid 

Grassland Environment) which has repeatedly asserted that not enough has been done to protect 

the riparian habitat along Las Culebras Wash (home to the rare Gray Hawk). SAGE has argued that 

the habitat is being destroyed by overgrazing, and its leader, Corey Flintlock, has been preparing to 

sue the Forest Service. Flintlock1

S first reaction to the reduction in grazing allotments was 

supportive, though guarded. 

Brady Euclid, the County Planner, has been very worried about all of this. For one thing, 

Stone1S proposed development clearly violates the areals recently completed comprehensive plan, 

373 
which speCifically calls for residential growth and expanded urban infrastructure on the west side of 

town toward Sierra Grande. Last month, Euclid approached the county planning board with a 

proposal to bring the parties together to carefully review Stone's plan. Stone's option runs out in 

one month and the zoning board is scheduled to discuss the proposed zoning change in two weeks. 

If Stone walks away, the estate might accept a fall-back offer by Blake Worstcase to buy the land 

outright and subdivide it into 160 ranchettes. 

In response to Euclid's request, and worried about the increasingly confrontational 

atmosphere in Tortuga, the planning board has retained two facilitators from an out-of-state 

conflict-resolution firm to convene the major stakeholders. The board hopes that the stakeholders 

can develop a mutually agreeable solution which can inform the zoning board's decision in two 

weeks. With time short, the facilitators quickly interviewed the parties privately and generated a 

proposed agenda for a series of meetings which was reviewed by all parties and revised as needed. 

The parties have agreed to participate in two day-long meetings to be held a week apart. A 

representative from the State Game and Fish Commission, Jo(e) Waterstone, has also been asked 

to participate, based on the facilitators' interest in assuring that all stakeholders be at the table. 

Confidential Instructions for Brady Euclid, County Planner 

You have spent three years developing a very thoughtful, prudent comprehensive plan for the 

county. Now some people seem ready to throw all that hard work and careful planning out the 

window at the first sign of quick cash. It is annoying that after all the public meetings and long 

hours of revisions, people seem ready to abandon the plan. 

Sidney Stone's development as it currently stands will throw everything out of whack. 

Locating such a large development on the east side of Tortuga is totally inconsistent with the county 

plan. For one thing, traffic through town on Route 96 would be a disaster. But you also have a 

personal interest in redirecting the development. As a member of ROR (Recreational Off-Roaders), 

you want to preserve public access through the X-Bar Ranch, since the old mining trails up in the 

mountains are just incredible. With private development of that land, off-road access will likely be 

closed off. For both reasons, new development ought to be sited on the west side of Tortuga. 

Stone's proposal does have some appeal, though. The increase in tax ratables to the 

community will be significant. The County Board of Supervisors--particularly board chairperson 

Frances Townelder--supports the plan. And cluster development has the potential for saving more 

open space. However, there has got to be a reduction in the total number of units being proposed, 

given the fiscal and transportation impacts. The increase in ratables may not pay for all the new 

infrastructure needs that the development may require. At the very least, you want to be sure to 

negotiate the terms of any subdivision plan approval to cover some of these impacts. You need 

Stone to agree to underwrite such things as traffic lights, road widenings, water conservation 

measures, and public facilities. This may not be the appropriate forum for such negotiations, but 

you won't be endorsing the zoning change without some contingent agreement. 

Confidential Instructions for Corey Flintlock, Coordinator, 

Save the Arid Grassland Environment (SAGE) 

Saving the state's arid grasslands is not an easy mission, but someone's got to do it. For 

years you have witnessed the slow destruction of delicate grassland environs by overgrazing, 

development, and ineffective regulatory practices. Las Culebras Wash is a breeding ground for the 

rare and beautiful Gray Hawk, as well as for other threatened riparian species. You have built SAGE 

374 
into an effective regional lobbying group, recently recognized by larger environmental organizations 

for its dedication and hard work. 

News of Sidney Stone's proposed development has presented some interesting possibilities. 

If Stone can be persuaded to give up ranching altogether, maybe SAGE can help to retire the 

grazing allotment. That would reduce the impact on the critical riparian habitat on the X-Bar Ranch 

(as long as La Culebra Wash could be sufficiently buffered from the housing). Maybe you can 

interest Stone in some tax breaks in exchange for easements? "La Preserva de Las Culebras" 

sounds nice. 

But SAGE is facing serious budget problems; preparation for the lawsuit has been expensive. 

SAGE would have to look elsewhere for any funds that might be needed to compensate Stone. 

Perhaps the U.S. Forest Service or the State Game and Fish Commission have resources they can 

bring to bear? 

Another constraint is that your membership is divided. Some SAGE members are now 

strongly opposed to the housing development on principle; these "Open Spacers" will be very wary if 

you appear to cut a deal with Stone that sacrifices open space to preserve the Wash. On-the other 

hand, there are strong wildlife preservationists in SAGE who place the riparian habitat as the very 

first priority and would be willing to compromise on responsible development as long as the riparian 

habitat were preserved in its entirety. The key is building a coalition: if the Forest Service and 

State Game and Fish Commission will support a deal you make, it would certainly go over easier 

with your more diehard constituents. 

Confidential Instructions for Toby Nunn, Rancher 

You inherited the Bar Nunn from your father, and have faithfully been ranching for the last 40 

years. You, the Middletons, and the Sinespinas have been neighbors for along time, and it seems 

such a shame that the Middleton kids are selling. But you can't blame them- too much--it is getting 

harder and harder to live this way. With the U.S. Forest Service threatening to reduce your grazing 

allotment, it's hard to see how anyone can survive, except by increasing the herd. Gil Sinespina is 

young and enthusiastic, and is organizing the ranchers to fight the allotment reduction legally. 

You would like to stay in ranching if possible, and it makes you glad to see that there are 

good people with fight left in them. But you have other worries, too. The last year has not been an 

easy one for you personally. You had a bout with cancer that was pretty scary. You haven't felt as 

vigorous since. And you have a daughter who leaves for college next year. Now that the X-Bar is 

being sold, you have seriously considered selling the Bar Nunn. Last month you were secretly 

approached by a representative from Blake Worstcase's office, a nice young person. A price was 

mentioned; it was a lot of money. At this point, you have to consider the idea of taking it. Financial 

security has never been as important as it is now. And with the Middletons selling, it's not like you 

would be the only one. But you haven't mentioned this to anyone besides your spouse. If people 

around town found out, all hell would break loose! 

But you feel torn. Your decision to sell would affect other ranchers in the area; especially Gil. 

Before you got this offer, you had agreed to work with Gil to approach Sidney Stone to purchase the 

X-Bar allotment. Purchasing the allotment might be a way of keeping ranching alive in Tortuga 

without jeopardizing your financial security. With a daughter to school and your strength no longer 

what it used to be, you are sitting on the fence. You want to support Gil and the other ranchers in 

their fight against the allotment reduction, and help them and yourself to stay financially secure. 

But you have to look out for your family first. Don't let anyone make any rules at this meeting that 

might hurt the value of your land. 

375 
Confidential Instructions for Gil Sinespina, Rancher 

Cattle ranching sure isn•t what it used to be. Your grandfather started up La Rosita Ranch 

nearly 60 years ago. For the past ten years--ever since Ed Middleton died--you have managed the 

X-Bar, and it's a beautiful old place. Such a shame that the Middleton kids are selling out. And the 

timing couldn•t be worse! With cattle prices dropping, the only way to survive seems to be to sell 

more cattle, which means increasing the herd. 

If district ranger Pat Wright's plan to drastically reduce grazing allotments goes through, you•ll 

have to reduce the herd. How in the world can anyone expect you to make a decent living again as 

a rancher if this happens? This reduction must not go through! To make sure it doesn•t, you have 

organized the district ranchers and retained an attorney to fight the reduction tooth-and-nail if 

necessary. 

But adding to your headache is this crazy new development proposal, which you adamantly 

oppose. A massive new influx of residents to Tortuga will bring nothing but trouble. They will ask 

for a new school, a new library--all those expensive improvements that city folks insist on. Your 

taxes will skyrocket! And most importantly, there will be recreational demands placed on the San 

Cristobal National Forest, threatening the continued practice of grazing on that prime piece of public 

land. 

But you have come up with a plan of your own. You and your neighbor Toby Nunn--always a 

good friend in a pinch--have agreed to approach Sydney Stone with a proposal to buy 100 acres of 

the X-Bar Ranch at the full per-acre price paid to the Middleton estate. In exchange, you are 

prepared to support Stone's plan (especially if fewer cluster units are planned). This way you and 

Toby can qualify to buy the old X-Bar allotment. While you only need 40 acres to qualify, you would 

like some of this land to include Las Culebras Wash as a water source for your cattle. 

Confidential Instructions for Sydney Stone, Sierra Grande Developer 

You and your investors have been patiently eyeing this area for years now. With the Middletons 

selling, your ship has come in. Tortuga is rustic in a way that people seem to like. With Sierra 

Grande growing at a fast clip, there is bound to be demand for units out here, though it might take 

awhile to cultivate. For now you are content to start with a cluster development of more affordable 

units for cost-conscious commuters, while holding on to the prime portion of the site, up on the east 

side of Las Culebras Wash. Later, once Tortuga has caught on, you•ll build even more profitably in 

the foothills to accommodate the growing demand. The short-term cluster development will be 

profitable, especially at 400 units, but you know that the return is adequate for your investors at 

225. Naturally, you are wary of sharing your long-term plans with anyone in Tortuga right now. But 

you would like to protect that foothills acreage against any easements or other restrictions that might 

hamper your ability to develop it later. On the other hand, your investors will want their return sooner 

than later. And without the zoning change approval, they are likely to pull out. 

You are somewhat puzzled by the hostile response from some quarters regarding your modest 

plan. You don•t have a reputation for tackiness and ruthlessness like some developers. You have 

completed preliminary environmental surveys which suggest that there is adequate groundwater on 

site to serve 400 homes (although there might be a significant drawdown during extended dry 

periods). You are aware that Blake Worstcase is waiting in the wings. But no one could want the 

whole site covered with ranchettes! That would just devalue everyone•s land. The County Board of 

Supervisors--particularly board chairperson Frances Townelder--realizes this and supports your plan. 

At this meeting you've got to get the other people behind your plan and make them see that 

clustering can be attractive and low impact. This meeting is crucial to getting a good outcome at the 

376 
zoning board meeting in two weeks. Try to get as many units zoned as possible. The more demand 

you can create now, the more that prime foothills land will be worth later. But you may have to cut 

some kind of a deal (e.g., water conservation, maybe a greywater system, greater building setbacks 

from the wash, or a last resort, reduce the number of units). 

Confidential Instructions for Jo(e) Waterstone, State Game and Fish Commission 

As an official project coordinator of the Commission, you received a call last week inviting you 

to attend some sort of discussion meeting regarding a new development planned in Tortuga. 

Apparently the situation in Tortuga is messy with lawsuits in the wings. The facilitators of the 

meeting felt that your participation might be important. 

Your board has been interested in extending its non-game species protection program, 

particularly in arid grassland environments. The Gray Hawk has been included in the commissionls 

draft list of wildlife of special concern. 

However, the board has been reluctant to spend any of the State Heritage Fund money until a 

statewide plan prioritizing sites for acquisition is in place. This won1

t happen until early next year. 

Nonetheless, several parties from around the state have been asking the Commission to purchase 

conservation easements with proceeds from the Heritage Fund. 

If there were a plan that adequately protected the critical habitat for the Gray Hawk, there is a 

good chance that your board would approve funds for easement acquisition in next year's plan. You 

have worked with the environmental group, Save the Arid Grassland Environment (SAGE), before and 

have found them pretty reasonable, although there is a radical element in their membership that is a 

concern, especially if SAGE were to become the enforcer of the easements. You need to talk with 

Corey Flintlock to be sure the SAGE membership is on board for any collaborative agreement. 

Confidential Instructions for Pat Wright, U.S. Forest Service District Ranger 

You have worked hard to be responsive and responsible, and all you seem to get are 

complaints and threats. First, the environmental group, Save the Arid Grassland Environment 

(SAGE), and now the ranchers. There are good people in Tortuga, but trying to please everyone 

without giving away the store just seems impossible at this point. The Forest Servicels 11 Multiple Usell 

policy requires you to try to accommodate often conflicting demands--recreational, environmental, 

commercial, and so on. But it is far from clear how you are supposed to accomplish this when 

people are so polarized. 

Last years production-utilization survey clearly shows the carrying capacity of the range has 

been exceeded for too long; most importantly, Las Culebras Wash had been badly overgrazed. 

Reducing grazing is the right thing to do, particularly along the wash. People may holler for a while, 

but these are changing times and sometimes collective needs outweigh individual rights. As your old 

mentor used to say, 11The forest doesn't know what district it's in. 11 With SAGE1s suit in the wind, the 

time has never been better to implement sound forest management practices that protect the 

long-term health of the ecosystem. 

Nevertheless, the reality is that it will be a hard fight to reduce the allotments. When push 

comes to shove, you can1

t be sure how your boss will respond. Political pressures are real. And 

years of litigation will leave no one better off. At this point, maybe you could agree to some kind of 

delayed or phased-in reduction, or at the very least, an immediate plan to preserve and remediate 

Las Culebras Wash. Anything's better than legal stalemates and hostile notes on your windshield. 

377 
Confidential Instructions To the Facilitators 

Based on your background as a professional conflict mediator, you have been asked to try to 

facilitate a resolution to the trouble brewing in Tortuga. You have managed to get all parties involved 

in the dispute (with the exception of the Middleton siblings) to agree to hold a discussion. As agreed 

by all parties, the discussion will be held on two consecutive Saturdays (simulated by two 90-minute 

sessions in the exercise) with a week's reflection (simulated by the 15-minute break) between each 

session. 

As facilitator, you ostensibly have met privately with each participant prior to the discussion 

and have asked each character to express his or her concerns and views of the conflict (this is done 

simply by reading through the "Background and Setting" statement and "Confidential Instructions" 

for each character; but before the simulation begins and before the participants assume their 

respective character roles, you should have a brief meeting as a group just to review how the 

exercise will proceed). 

Goals 

As facilitator, you have six goals for the discussion: 

1) Make sure that each party is given a chance to speak and have his or her concerns 

acknowledged by other parties. 

2) Keep the parties committed to working toward a solution that everyone can live with. 

3) Acknowledge institutional and legal constraints that might exist, but keep the parties 

focused on an interest-based solution. 

4) Help the parties generate several possible alternative options before focusing on any one 

option for too long. 

5) Identify and seek to generate objectively any technical information that may be needed 

regarding either the assumptions on which different plans are based, or the implications of proposed 

plans. 

6) Remind the parties as necessary that failing to reach an acceptable solution may lead to an 

outcome that is less satisfactory to all. 

Format 

You should open the meeting by welcoming the each character and reminding all of the ground 

rules (ostensibly agreed to in an earlier meeting). Then proceed to review each parties major 

interests (as a kind of summary of the previous hypothetical meeting) and go around the table oneby-one to have each character affirm or elaborate further upon your opening remarks. 

In the ensuing open discussion (and remember to enforce to rule about speaking-in-turn), 

focus initially on your first three goals, establishing an atmosphere of tolerance and cooperation; 

reviewing with each party its interests and concerns; and attempting to generate improvements or 

alternatives that might lead to a recommendation to the board that all parties can endorse. Then 

concentrate on goals four and five, helping the parties to envision alternatives and documenting any 

technical information that might be needed to assist them in assessing the viability of those 

alternatives. 

At the end of the first Saturday meeting (i.e., the first 90-minute session) you should 

summarize what has been accomplished and encourage the parties to keep working on possible 

solutions during the week's (i.e., the 15-minute) break. Halfway through the break, you should 

circulate to each party a copy of the news flash you have just received from the Tortuga Times (see 

News Flash!). 

378 
At the beginning of the subsequent Saturday meeting (the second 90-minute session), you 

may want to provide any technical information that had been requested at the previous meeting 

(such information can be invented at your discretion to continue the simulation). Next, you should 

then survey reactions to the news flash, and help the parties to renew their efforts to jointly solve the 

problem at hand. 

At the end of the second meeting, you should briefly summarize the progress that has been 

made. If agreement has been reached, document and announce its provisions in detail. If no 

agreement has been reached, carefully review the points of agreement and disagreement regarding 

different options that were discussed, and survey participants for what their likely next step(s) will be. 

In either case, this short summary process should lead quickly to a 30-minute debriefing of the 

game, in which the participants (no longer playing their character roles now) provide an assessment 

of the simulation exercise, how it might relate to their real-life situations, and what they might have 

learned from the process. 

Overview 

News Flash! 

Tortuga Times 

Today's Climate: Troubled • Tomorrow's Outlook: Hopeful 

Developer Offers to Buy Local Ranch 

by Sam Storybored 

Land developer Blake Worstcase has 

reportedly offered a substantial sum to 

Tortuga rancher Toby Nunn to purchase 

the Bar Nunn ranch. 

Worstcase intends to turn the ranch 

into 160 four-acre ranchettes. 

Neither Worstcase nor Nunn were 

available for comment today, but one 

source close to the deal was quoted as 

saying, ''Toby's a good man, but Blake is 

making it awfully hard to say no. It's a 

big chunk of money." 

Frances Townelder, chairperson of 

the County Board of Supervisors, 

commented, "If Sydney Stone's option 

expires, Worstcase will buy the X-Bar 

too. Then we'll be looking at over 300 

ranchettes and the end of the ranching 

in Tortuga as we know it." 

PART II EVALUATION REPORT 

Trouble in Tortuga! was designed as a simulation to model rangeland conflict issues, to 

conflict processes, and procedural and substantive tools for working toward solutions to these 

conflicts. It was also designed to give both the participants and audience a chance to see how 

perspectives and priorities can differ in important ways, and how dialogue and creative solutions 

can be possible even when conflict is complex and impassioned. 

The exercise presented at "The Future of Arid Grasslands" conference took place in two 

one-hour sessions, separated by a lunch break. The participants in the exercise included 

Candace Allen, U.S. Forest Service district ranger from Nogales; Jeff Burgess, environmentalist 

379 
from Tempe; Jim Chilton, rancher from Arivaca; Becky Jordan, Arizona state representative from 

Phoenix; Rod Mandt, with The Wildlands Project in Tucson; Joe Parsons, rancher from Tucson; 

Dave Walker from Arizona Game and Fish Commission in Phoenix; and Kirk Emerson and Hal 

Movius from the Udall Center (see "Cast of Characters"). 

At the outset, the facilitators outlined ground rules for the discussion, and solicited 

introductions from the participants. The goal during this first stage of the process was to 

separate the verbal positions taken by the parties from the implicit interests and concerns driving 

them. Some of the interests that emerged included protecting ranchers' livelihoods, ensuring 

continued access to forest lands, minimizing traffic through town, and providing development 

investors with an adequate profit (see Table 1). It soon became clear that the short-term issues 

around the development project and allotment permits were connected to longer term planning 

and land use issues. 

During the second stage of the process there was lively discussion as the group 

generated a list of issues for consideration. These issues were recorded in the form of openended questions, leaving many solutions possible and respecting the needs of each participant. 

Such issues included the number of homes to be built by the developer, ownership of the X-Bar 

grazing permit, avoiding "leapfrog" develop, protecting the Gray Hawk, and preserving open 

spaces (see Table 2). 

After lunch a "News Flash!" was distributed to the participants and audience. This latebreaking bulletin made settlement more desirable for all the parties, and stimulated further 

discussion about tools and options for achieving solutions that would meet key interests. These 

tools included setbacks from Las Culebras Wash to protect the Gray Hawk, grassbanking 

practices among the ranchers, a development zoning change, and the use of easements and tax 

credits (see Table 3). Possible packages of tools began to take shape in the form of "options" 

as the session closed (see Table 4). Had there been more time, several packages might have 

been generated for evaluation by the parties. 

Cast of Characters 

PARTICIPANTS 

Candace Allen 

U.S. Forest Service District Ranger (Nogales) 

Jeff Burgess 

Environmentalist (Tempe) 

Jim Chilton 

Rancher (Arivaca) 

Becky Jordan 

AZ State Representative (Phoenix) 

Rod Mandt 

The Wildlands Project (Tucson) 

Joe Parsons .. 

Rancher (Tucson) 

Dave Walker 

AZ Game and Fish Commission (Phoenix) 

Kirk Emerson and Hal Movius 

Udall Center (Tucson) 

APPEARING AS 

Brady Euclid 

County Planner 

Gil Sinespina 

Rancher, La Rosita Ranch 

Joe Waterstone 

State Game and Fish Commission 

Corey Flintlock 

Save the Arid Grassland Environment 

Sydney Stone 

Developer, Sierra Grande 

Pat Wright 

District Ranger, San Cristobal National Forest 

Toby Nunn 

Rancher, Bar Nunn Ranch 

Facilitators 

380 
Brady Euclid, County Planner 

• Development needs to be on the west side--minimize traffic through town 

• How will improvements be financed? (e.g., help from developer?) 

• Access to forest should continue 

Corey Flintlock, Coordinator, Save the Arid Grassland Environment (SAGE) 

• Preserve riparian area 

• Maintain some flexibility 

• open spacers 

preservationists 

• Protect ranching 

Toby Nunn, Rancher 

• Increase the herd? 

Ensure financial security 

Gil Sinespina, Rancher 

Need to keep herd large; oppose allotment reduction 

• Increased taxes due to development? 

Conflict with recreationists? 

Sydney Stone, Developer 

Equitable and classy development (i.e., less densely zoned) 

• Encourage compatible growth (i.e., maintain open space) 

Make adequate profit for investors 

• Acquire zoning change 

Joe Watterston, Arizona Game and Fish Commission 

Implement multiple-use policy 

Protect Gray Hawk (e.g., via easement) 

Pat Wright, U.S. District Ranger 

Prevent overgrazing and other use of wash area 

Reduce allotment? (i.e., from 12 to 8) 

• Implement multiple-use policy 

• Work more closely with permittees 

Table 1. Summary of Character Interests 

1. What is the number and design of homes that will be built by the developer? 

2. How will the income and lifestyle of ranchers in Tortuga be preserved? 

3. Who will hold the X-Bar Ranch grazing permit? 

4. How can the relationship between the U.S. Forest Service and Tortuga residents be 

improved? 

5. How will adequate water flow for other water users be ensured by the developer? 

6. How can the present zoning issue be tied to a larger planning process in Tortuga? 

7. How will residents' property rights be protected? 

8. How will the Gray Hawk habitat be preserved and monitored? 

9. How will multiple-use-policy requirements be met? 

10. How will Tortuga create wise land-management practices, given probable future growth? 

11. How can "leapfrog" development practices be avoided? 

12. How will open spaces be preserved? 

13. How many head of cattle per acre will be allowed on U.S. Forest Service land? 

Table 2. Summary of Major Issues (Who?/What?/When?/How?) 

381 
Grassbanks 

Easements 

Setbacks 

Management plan--buyout option 

Purchase/lease of X-Bar Ranch grazing allotment 

Sydney Stone to lease/purchase Bar Nunn Ranch with easements 

Education 

Tax credits 

Water rights 

Offer to Toby Nunn 

Allotment reduction 

Zoning change (density) 

Heritage fund decisions 

Save the Arid Grassland Environment (SAGE) lawsuit 

Fencing costs/monitoring 

Table 3 Summary of Tools for Generating Solutions 

1. Stone buys Bar Nunn Ranch 

• maintains grazing on eastern portion 

• provides setback 

• requires assurance of no loss of future development 

• leases option on west side of X-Bar 

• maintains access to forest 

• fenced-in cluster 

• no fence on corridor 

Allotment reduction is decreased? 

Allotment is shared? 

Some infrastructure costs are shared (by developer) 

Table 4. Summary of Options 

Following the process, the participants were given a chance to describe their experience during 

the simulation. A panel discussion ensued on rangeland reform, chaired by Jim Walsh, a Phoenix 

attorney, mediator, and former Arizona state legislator. The following summaries encapsulate the 

reactions of the panelists to the simulation and key points made during their presentations. Written 

statements prepared by the several of the panelists are provided in the Appendix. 

Facilitator Kirk Emerson began by noting the complexity of grasslands disputes, emphasizing the 

interconnectedness of public and private lands and institutions. Her associate, Hal Movius, the 

session's other facilitator, described the facilitation. process, outlining the four steps of identifying 

interests, framing issues, generating tools and options, and bundling these tools and options into 

packages which would allow parties to make trade-offs across issues depending on their interests. 

Joe Parsons introduced himself as a rancher and said he could speak "from the heart" about 

many of the issues addressed in the simulation. He said he found it easy to play the role of a U.S. 

Forest Service district ranger because he has worked with them and understands the pressures they 

face from their offices. He added, however, that he is regulated every day by nine different 

382 
agencies, and often has to wait to make even simple repairs on his own land until all of the 

paperwork has been completed which sometimes takes months. He described himself as an 

environmentalist who cared about doing the right thing and emphasized the need for 

communication and education between disputants, so that stereotypes are reduced. He 

complained that the media "tears us [ranchers] apart" leading to an impression among the public 

that all ranchers overgraze. According to statistics he presented, six percent of the country's 

population was involved in agriculture in 1980, whereas today that figure is less than two percent. 

He reiterated that communication and the development of one-to-one relationships is critical if 

rangeland conflict is to be reduced. 

Jeff Burgess, an environmentalist from the Phoenix area, agreed with Parsons that there is a 

need for communication, and for parties to "treat each other as people." He also cautioned that 

not all conflicts can have purely win-win solutions, and stated that in his view, some kind of reform 

was inevitable, and that it would mean "fewer cows in fewer places." He emphasized the need for 

equity in settling disputes with land owners, including ranchers, as part of a fair reform process. He 

then read aloud a proposed grazing-reform act that he had authored (see Appendix). 

Dave Walker, an Arizona Game and Fish Commission official, followed by saying that it had 

been difficult to step into unfamiliar shoes, and that he felt Jim Chilton had done very well playing a 

State Fish and Game Commission representative. He also described the powerlessness he felt 

playing a rancher (see Appendix for Walker's submitted statement). 

State Representative Becky Jordan mentioned the importance of conservation partnerships, 

adding that legislation to further them was badly needed. She also described the helplessness that 

environmentalists feel because of the funding shortages they face and competing constituencies 

they must serve (see Appendix for Jordan's submitted statement). 

Candace Allen, a district ranger with the U.S. Forest Service, recalled a real-life example of a 

five-million-dollar deal falling apart because of a lengthy regulatory process, and described the 

dilemma she feels every day "trying to decide which laws to obey" when not enough funding is 

being apportioned by Congress for enforcement. She said she had come to the session "with open 

ears, not solutions," and concurred that "personal integrity and communication are important" in 

building relationships that can generate short- and long-term solutions. 

Environmental advocate Rod Mandt described the need "for open places and a love of open 

places" in the lives of citizens. He described himself as "one of the chosen poor" who had grown 

up on a sugar-beet farm, and was as passionate as ranchers about preserving wildlands. He 

agreed with Joe Parsons that the media is a source of falsehoods and therefore a stumbling block 

to partnerships. He added that in his view, large-scale changes were inevitable because of 

geographic and historical trends. 

Jim Chilton began by stating that for a rancher, "every day is Earth Day." He described the 

wells, troughs, and salt licks that he had implemented on his ranch to promote wildlife development 

and preservation. He described overgrazing as "a cruel myth" and emphasized that both 

environmentalists and ranchers have a passion against "ranchetting." He noted that "cowboys are 

like bears and lions," needing a rangeland preserve. He showed dramatic photographs from 1959 

and 1996, illustrating in his view that "the Forest Service policy of range rotation works!" He closed 

by saying that if ranchers were forced to, they would sell their land for development, but that this 

was a last resort (see Appendix for Chilton's submitted statement). 

383 
LESSONS LEARNED 

It is hoped that Trouble in Tortuga! can be used in a variety of contexts with a variety of 

participants and audiences to illustrate the substantive issues and complex dynamics that 

characterize rangeland conflict and problem-solving. The designers of the simulation wish to make 

it clear that this is very much a work in progress, from which different lessons and ideas might be 

drawn in coming months and years. 

From the presentation at "The Future of Arid Grasslands" conference, several lessons emerged 

from both participant and audience comments about what might be done in the future to enhance 

the usefulness of the simulation exercise. 

First, it seemed that breaking the session into two parts, separated by a lunch break, 

diminished some of the momentum that had been generated by the first session. In the future the 

simulation probably should be played without a significant break in the action (i.e., two 90-minute 

sessions separated by a 15-minute break). 

Second, it is clear that while enacting an unfamiliar role is essential to the exercise, it can be a 

difficult task. This is especially the case when one's point-of-view actually clashes with the role one 

must enact, and when there is a large amount of technical information to be learned. Trouble in 

Tortuga! requires that participants have some familiarity with rangeland and planning issues in order 

to produce a more effective and realistic exercise. Participants should be encouraged to read 

through the materials in advance and to "inhabit" their roles as much as possible in preparation for 

the exercise, so that they can be both passionate and well-informed as participants. 

Third, modeling both conflict and the resolution of conflict can be competing aims when time is 

limited. The scenario could be used effectively for either, but perhaps not both aims. Because the 

scenario does not clearly specify negotiation parameters (such as issues, options, and alternatives 

to agreement for each party), the simulation is perhaps most useful as a tool for introducing 

participants to issues and conflicts relating to western development: ranching, planning, multiple 

land-use policies, and environmental protection. Uncovering the interdependence of these issues is 

a major lesson that should be emphasized during debriefing. 

Fourth, it is important to carefully explain the process that will be used during the simulation to 

both participants and audiences. Modeling a complex conflict and describing tools for its possible 

resolution are challenging tasks, made even more difficult when there are significant time 

constraints. Having a clear procedural template to work from can illustrate for participants and 

audiences where the process is at any point, and where it might go as discussion develops. 

Finally, it is clear that more dialogue is needed between the "real-life" participants in rangeland 

conflict, all of whom in their own words lamented the absence of opportunities for face-to-face 

communication in a neutral setting regarding the difficult issues which comprise "rangeland 

conflict." In the future, perhaps simulations like Trouble in Tortuga! can be used as training 

exercises in the context of longer interventions that are designed to help different western 

constituencies to grapple with and resolve the choices they collectively face. 

384 
Appendix 

Conference Participants 

Rena Ann Abolt 

The Nature Conservancy 

27 Ramsey Canyon Rd. 

Hereford, AZ 

85615 

Evelyn Allegretto 

Arizona State University 

13821 N. 41st Pl. 

Phoenix AZ 85032 

Larry Allen 

Coronado National Forest 

300 W. Congress 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

Candace Allen 

Nogales Ranger District 

303 Old Tucson Rd 

Nogales 

AZ 85621 

Walt Anderson 

Prescott College 

220 Grove Avenue 

Prescott, AZ 86301 

Judy Anderson 

Cochise County Planning Dept. 

612 Melody Land Bldg. B 

Bisbee, AZ 85603 

Bryce Appleton 

Research Ranch Foundation 

3260 Raven Drive 

Sierra Vista AZ 85635 

Ariel Appleton 

The Research Ranch 

3325 E. 2nd St. 

Tucson AZ 85 716 

Jennifer Atchley 

The Nature Conservancy of New 

Mexico 

15000 Dripping Springs Rd #6 

Las Cruces NM 88001 

Clark Atkinson 

Pima County Adult Education 

HC 2 Box 7253 

Tucson AZ 85735 

Kurt Bahti 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. 

555 N. Greasewood 

Tucson AZ 85745 

Malchus Baker 

Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station 

2500 S. Pine Knoll Road 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

Steven Bates 

New Mexico Dept. of Game & Fish 

P.O. Box 1145 

Raton, NM 87740 

John F. Batzer 

National Park Service 

P.O. Box 40 

Capulin, NM 88414 

Carol Beardmore 

Partners in Flight 

2221 W. Greenway Road 

Phoenix, AZ 85023 

Michael Benedict 

3058 Braemar Dr. 

Santa Barbara CA 93109 

Chris Benesh 

Field Guides, Inc. 

4308 E. Poe 

Tucson AZ 85711 

Stu Bengson 

ASARCO Mining Company 

1150 N. 7th Ave. 

Tucson AZ 85705 

Susan Bernal 

Bureau of Land Management 

12661 E Broadway 

Tucson AZ 85748 

Duncan Blair 

Rancho el Roblar 

P.O. Box 547 

Los Alamos, CA 93440 

385 

Carl Bock 

University of Colorado 

Box 334, Department of EPO 

Bolder, CO 80309-0334 

Jane Bock 

University of Colorado 

Box 334, Department of EPO 

Bolder, CO 80309-0334 

Bill Branan 

The Research Ranch 

HC 1 Box 44 

Elgin AZ 85611 

Laura Nell Branan 

The Research Ranch 

HC 1 Box 44 

Elgin AZ 85611 

Susie Brandes 

Sky Island Alliance 

1639 E First Street 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Bill Brannan 

The Research Ranch 

HC 1 Box 44 

Elgin AZ 85611 

Mark Briggs 

The Sonoran Institute 

7650 E. Broadway #203 

Tucson AZ 85710 

John Brock 

Arizona State University 

Planning & Landscape 

Architecture Dept. 

Tempe AZ 85287 

David Brown 

Arizona State University 

3118 W. Mclellan Blvd. 

Phoenix, AZ 85017 

Ben Brown 

The Animas Foundation 

HC65, Box 179B 

Animas, NM 88020 
Ed Brunson 

Arizona Nature Conservancy 

300 E. University 

Tucson AZ. 85705 

Tony Burgess 

Biosphere II 

2602 W. Calle Paraiso 

Tucson AZ. 857 45 

Martha Ames Burgess 

Ames Burgess Ranch 

2602 W. Calle Paraiso 

Tucson, AZ 857 45 

Jeff Burgess 

1922 E Orion 

Tempe AZ. 85283 

Alberto Burquez-Montijo 

Centro de Ecologia UNAM 

Estacion Regional Noroeste 

Hermosillo, Sonora Mexico 

83000 

Charles Buxbaum 

Univ. of New Mexico, Dept. of 

Biology 

Castetter Hall 

Alburquerque, NM 87131 

Ann B. Carr 

The Imprinting Foundation 

1616 E. Lind Road 

Tucson, AZ 85719 

Robert M. Chew 

P.O. Box 306 

Portal AZ 85632 

Jim Chilton 

Chilton Ranch 

17500 W. Chilton Ranch Road 

Arivaca AZ. 85601 

Sue Chilton 

Chilton Ranch 

P.O. Box 423 

Arivaca, AZ. 85601 

Bonnie Colby 

Agricultural Economics - UA 

University of Arizona 

Tucson, AZ. 85721 

Tom Collazo 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

300 E. Univresity 

Tucson, AZ. 85705 

Christy Collins 

Center for Latin American Studies 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Arlan Colton 

Tucson State Land Department 

1616 W. Adams St. 

Phoenix AZ 85007 

Les Corey 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

300 E. University Blvd. #300 

Tucson AZ. 85705 

Lane and Linda Coulston 

American Conservation Real 

Estate 

2 N. Last Chance Gulch 

Helena MT 59601 

L.A. Cowles 

Udall Center for Public Policy 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ. 85721 

Jerry Cox 

Agricultural Research Service, 

Texas A & M 

P.O. Box 1658 

Vernon, TX 76385 

Tom Davis 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1816 W. Verde Lane 

Phoenix AZ. 85015 

Leonard DeBano 

Renewable Natural Resources - UA 

5189 W. Aquamarine St 

Tucson AZ 85741 

Carrie Dennett 

Chiricahua National Monument 

HCR 2 Box 6500 

Willcox AZ. 85643 

Robert M. Dixon 

The Imprinting Foundation 

1231 E. Big Rock Road 

Tucson, AZ 85718 

386 

Mac Donaldson 

Empire Cienega Conservation Area 

778 W Fawn Lane 

Huachuca City AZ. 85616 

Grant Drenen 

Bureau of Land Management 

12661 E Broadway 

Tucson AZ. 857 48 

Garri Dryden 

Udall Center for Public Policy -

UofA 

2201 E. Cerrada Bala 

Tucson, AZ. 85718 

Paula Dupee 

Coronado National Forest 

300 W. Congress 

Tucson AZ. 85701 

Judy Edison 

Tucson Audubon Society 

300 E. University Blvd 

Tucson AZ 85705 

Carl Edminster 

Rocky Mountain Research Station 

2500 S. Pine Knoll Rd. 

Flagstaff AZ. 86001 

Kristin Egen 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Sells AZ 85635 

Linda Kennedy Elliott 

Arizona State University 

Dept. of Biology Box 1601 

Tempe, AZ 85287 

Kirk Emerson 

Udall Center for Public Policy 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ. 85721 

Mirna Falk 

Coronado National Forest 

300 E. Congress 

Tucson AZ. 85701 

Richard Felger 

Drylands Institute 

2020 E. Kleindale 

Tucson AZ. 85719 
Nancy Ferguson 

Saguaro Juniper Project 

2018 W. Los Reales 

Tucson AZ 85706 

Peter Ffolliott 

University of Arizona 

2107 Calle de Ia Cienega 

Tucson AZ 85715 

Deborah Finch 

Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station 

2205 Columbia SE 

Albuquerque NM 87106 

Aaron Flesch 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

Paulette Ford 

Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station 

2205 Columbia SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87111 

Doug Forester 

Research Ranch Foundation 

4325 N. Fernhill Dr 

Tucson AZ 85718 

Delbert Francisco 

Tohono O'odham Nation 

Sells AZ 85634 

Raymond Franson 

Viceroy Gold Company 

Searchlight NV 89046 

Glenn Frederick 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. 

555 N Greasewood Rd 

Tucson AZ 85745 

Ed Fredrickson 

Jornada Experimental Range 

Box 3000 B, Dept 35ER, NMSU 

Las Cruces NM 88003 

Brian Friedman 

Planning & Zoning Dept., Santa 

Cruz County 

P.O. Box 1150 

Nogales, AZ 85628 

Kelly Fuhrmann 

Prescott College 

1719 Ramsgate 

Prescott AZ 86301 

Dave Fuller 

Venture Catalyst 

2245 E. 7th St. 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Greg Gadarian 

Attorney 

2200 E. River Rd. 

Tucson AZ 85718 

Kirk Gadzia 

Resource Management Services 

P.O. Box 1285 

Bernalillo NM 87004 

Sally Gall 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

Susannah Galloway 

699 W. McGee Road Apt 15202 

Tucson AZ 85704 

Steve Gatewood 

Wildlands Project 

1955 W. Grant #148 

Tucson, AZ 85745 

Joe Giron 

USDA Forest Service 

517 Gold Ave., SW 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

Mike Goddard 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

David Goodrich 

USDA - Agricultural Research 

Service 

2000 E ALLEN RD 

Tucson AZ 85 719 

Tresa Goseyon 

San Carlos Indian Reservation 

Box 209 

San Carlos AZ 85550 

387 

Gerald Gottfried 

Tonto National Forest 

2324 E. McDowell 

Phoenix AZ 85004 

Diana Hadley 

Arizona State Museum 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Sarah Hadley 

5329 E. Ft. Lowell Rd 

Tucson AZ 85712 

Bob Hamre 

Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station 

240 West Prospect 

Fort Collins, CO 80526 

Roseann Hansen 

Buenos Aires Natural History 

Association 

HCR 1, Box 95A3 

Tucson, AZ 85736 

Dave Harris 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

300 E. University Blvd. 

Tucson AZ 85705 

Lisa Harris 

Harris Environmental Group 

17 49 E. 10th St. 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Robert Harrison 

University of New Mexico 

700 Roehl Road NW 

Albuquerque, NM 87107 

Valerie Havstad 

USDA-ARS-Jornada Experimental 

Range 

Box 30003, Dept. 3JER NM8U 

Las Cruces NM 88003 

Kris Havstad 

USDA-ARS-Jornada Experimental 

Range 

Box 30003, Dept. 3JER NM8U 

Las Cruces NM 88003 

Earnest Hearn 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Box 578 

Sells AZ 85634 
Chris Helms 

The Udall Foundation 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Carl Hess 

712 Stagecoach Dr. 

Las Cruces NM 88011 

Jennifer Hickman 

Arizona State University 

1219 S. Farmer Ave #B 

Tempe AZ 85281 

Tom Hildebrand 

Tucson Film Office 

32 N. Stone # 100 

Tucson AZ 85701 

David Hodges 

Southwest Center for Biological 

Diversity 

P.O. Box 17839 

Tucson AZ 87531 

Larry Howery 

9236 E. Wild Wash Dr 

Tucson AZ 85 7 4 7 

Mac Hudson 

1132 W. Alameda St 

Tucson AZ 85745 

Ron Hummel 

P.O. Box 748 

Sonoita AZ 8562 7 

Mrs. Hummel 

P.O. Box 748 

Sonoita AZ 85637 

Barbara Hutchinson 

Arid Lands Studies - UofA 

1955 E Sixth Street 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Chuck Hutchison 

Office of Arid Land Studies 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Wes Jackson 

Land Institute 

2440 E Water Well Road 

Salina KS 67 401 

Dan James 

Western Sod/Western Sere 

P.O. Box 10610 

Casa Grande AZ 85230 

Fritz Jandrey 

Arizona State Museum 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Rukin Jelks 

Jelks Ranch 

Elgin AZ 85611 

Roy Jemison 

Rocky Mountain Forest & 

Range Experiment Station 

2205 Columbia SE 

Albuquerque NM 87106 

Steve Johnson 

Humane Society of the U.S. 

13 795 N Como Drive 

Tucson AZ 85 7 42 

Guy Jantz 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

Becky Jordon 

Arizona House of Representatives 

1700 W Washington 

Phoenix AZ 85007 

John Donaldson, Jr. 

Empire Ranch LLC 

3573 E. Sunrise Dr. #215 

Tucson AZ 85718 

Irwin Juan 

Tohono O'odham Nation 

Sells AZ 85634 

Jesse Juen 

Bureau of Land Management 

12661 E Broadway 

Tucson AZ 85748 

Mark Kaib 

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

388 

Dale Keyes 

Consensus Mediation Services 

6845 N. Cocopas 

Tucson AZ 85718 

Barb Koenig 

Tucson Audubon Society 

300 E. University Blvd. 

Tucson AZ 85705 

Doug Koppinger 

Arizona Open Land Trust 

6737 E. Opatas 

Tucson AZ 85715 

Bill Kuvlesky 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

Cynthia Lindquist 

Tucson Audubon Society 

2300W Adams 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Diana Liverman 

Center for Latin American Studies 

- UA 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Margaret Livingston 

Landscape Architecture - UA 

3955 E. Calle de Jardin 

Tucson AZ 85711 

Gonzalo Luna 

Centro de Ecologia UNAM 

Estacion Regional Noroeste 

Hermosillo, Sonora Mexico 

83000 

Bill MacDonald 

Malpai Borderlands Group 

P.O. Box 3536 

Douglas AZ 85608 

Douglas MacPhee 

Prescott National Forest 

P.O. Box 670 

Camp Verde, AZ 86322 

Rees Madsen 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 
John Malechek 

2717 N. 1250 East 

Logan UT 84321 

Homer Marks 

Tohono O'odham Nation 

Sells AZ 85634 

Paul Martin 

420 E. 18th Street 

Tucson AZ 85701 

S. Clark Martin 

Santa Rita Experimental Range 

P.O. Box 21043 

Tucson AZ 85 720 

Joe McAuliffe 

Desert Botanical Garden 

1201 N Galvin Pkwy 

Phoenix Az 85008 

Mitch McClaran 

Renewable Natural Resources 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Patty McCleary 

Trust for Public Lands 

418 Montezuma 

Santa Fe NM 87501 

Sonny and Nancy McCuistion 

P,O, Box807 

Patagonia AZ 85724 

Lawrence McHargue 

S. California College, 

Biology Dept. 

55 Fair Dr 

Costa Mesa CA 92626 

Kim McReynolds 

Cooperative Extension 

450 S. Haskell 

Willcox AZ 85643 

AI Medina 

Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station 

2500 S. Pine Knoll Dr 

Flagstaff AZ 86001 

Mohammud Mehramiz 

Renewable Natural Resources -

University of Arizona 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

Bob Meredith 

Udall Center for Public Policy 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Frances K. Meyer 

Winkelman NRCD 

Box 714 

Winkelman AZ 85292 

W. Walter Meyer 

Winkelman NRCD 

Box 714 

Winkelman AZ 85292 

Maggie Milinovitch 

Connection Newspaper 

P.O. Box 393 

Arivaca AZ 85601 

Mark E. Miller 

University of Colorado Campus 

Box 260 

Boulder, CO 80309 

Jay Miller 

2822 N. Sparkman 

Tucson AZ 85716 

Scott Momaday 

English Department 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Rod Mondt 

The Wildlands Project 

2955 W. Grant Road #148 

Tucson AZ 85 7 45 

Ann Moote 

Water Resources Research Center 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Deborah Moroney 

Santa Maria Mountains Group 

Rt. 30 Box 1060 

Prescott AZ 86301 

Dennis Moroney 

Santa Maria Mountains Group 

Rt. 30 Box 1060 

Prescott AZ 86301 

389 

Hal Movius 

Udall Center for Public Policy 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Joaquin Murietta 

The Sonoran Institute 

7290 E. Broadway #M 

Tucson AZ 85 710 

Gary Nabhan 

Arizona Sonora Desert Museum 

2021 Kinney Rd. 

Tucson AZ 85 7 43 

Elsie Nez 

BIA Navajo Partitioned Land 

P.O. Box 1060 

Gallup NM 87305 

Richard Ockenfels 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept 

2221 W Greenway Road 

Phoenix AZ 85023 

Phil Ogden 

Range Management 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Madelene Orton 

College of Education 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Tom Orum 

Saguaro Juniper Project 

2018 W. Las Reales 

Tucson AZ 85706 

Carolyn Painter 

Center for Environmental Studies 

Arizona State University Box 

873211 

Tempe AZ 85287-3211 

Joe Parsons 

Parsons Steel Company 

4580 N Highway Dr. 

Tucson AZ 85705 

Ann Patton 

Lone Mountain Ranch 

HCR 2 Box 9 

Patagonia AZ 85624 
Peter Van Peenen 

University of Arizona 

1221 N. Mountain Ave 

Tucson, AZ 85719 

David Peria 

Centro de Ecologia UNAM 

Estacion Regional Noroeste 

Hermosillo, Sonora Mexico 

83000 

Jeanne Pfander 

University of Arizona Library 

P.O. Box 210054 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Luther Propst 

Sonoran Institute 

7290 E Broadway #M 

Tucson AZ 85710 

Dan Reinking 

Sutton Avian Research Center 

P.O. Box 2007 

Bartlesville OK 7 4005 

Ken Renard 

Southwest Research Center 

2000 E Allen Rd 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Terry Rich 

Bureau of Land Management 

3380 Americana Terrace 

Boise ID 83706-2500 

Kevin Rich 

University of New Mexico 

Dept. of Biology 

Albuquerque NM 87131 

Lynn Richards 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

300 E. University Blvd. #230 

Tucson, AZ 85705 

Dan Robinett 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

2000 E. Allen Road, Bldg. 320 

Tucson, AZ 85719 

Dr. Hector Arias Rojo 

Dir. Recursos Naturales, IMADES 

Teyes Y Aguascalientes, Esq. 

Hermosillo, Sonora MX 83190 

Tricia Roller 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2321 W. Royal Palm Road #103 

Phoenix, AZ 85021 

Liz Rosan 

The Sonoran Institute 

7290 E. Broadway #M 

Tucson AZ 85710 

Phil Rosen 

Renewable Natural Resources 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Ruth Russell 

National Audubon Society 

2850 Camino de Oeste 

Tucson, AZ 85745 

Sherry Ruther 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. 

555 N Greasewood Road 

Tucson AZ 85745 

Jennifer Ruyle 

Coronado National Forest 

300 E. Congress 

Tucson AZ 85701 

George Ruyle 

Range Management 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Joe Sacco 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. 

P.O. Box 1243 

Sonoita AZ 8563 7 

Sarah Palmer 

University of Arizona 

2521 E. 7th St. 

Tucson AZ 85716 

Lucia Sayre 

HC 1 Box 95A2 

Tucson AZ 85 736 

Nathan Sayre 

HC 1, Box 95A2 

Tucson, AZ 85736 

Wayne Schifflett 

Buenos Aires Nat. Wildlife Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

390 

Paula Schmidt 

USDA - Coconino National Forest 

2323 E. Greenlawn Lane 

Flagstaff, AZ 86004 

Larry Schmidt 

Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station 

240 W. Prospect 

Fort Collins CO 80526 

Edmund Schott 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

Cecil Schwalbe 

Renewable Natural Resources 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Eric Schwennesen 

Star Route Box 3567 

Winkleman AZ 85292 

Sherry Scofield 

Arizona State University 

548 S. Wilson 

Tempe AZ 85281 

Mike Seidman 

6236 S. 10th Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85040 

John Shepard 

Sonoran Institute 

7290 E. Broadway #M 

Tucson AZ 85710 

Tom Sheridan 

Arizona State Museum 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Jeff Sims 

Bureau of Land Management 

12661 E. Broadway 

Tucson AZ 85748 

Karen Sims 

Bureau of Land Management 

12661 E. Broadway 

Tucson AZ 857 48 
Tom Skinner 

Coronado National Forest 

300 E. Congress 

Tucson AZ 85701 

Michael Smith 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

P.O. Box 10 

Phoenix AZ 85001 

Lamar Smith 

HCR 1 Box391 

University of Arizona 

Benson AZ 85602 

Steven Smith 

Plant Sciences Department 

University of Arizona 

Tucson, Arizona 85721 

Kirith Snyder 

Sonoran Institute 

7290 E. Broadway #M 

Tucson AZ 85 710 

Robert R. Sotomayor 

Gila River Indian Community 

2812 W. Rudasill Road 

Tucson, AZ 857 41 

Emily Stevens 

San Antonio Ranch 

Box 568 

Patagonia, AZ 85624 

Charles Stockton 

Tree Ring Laboratory 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Sheridan Stone 

Ft. Huachuca Wildlife Office 

USAG/ATZ5-EHB 

Ft. Huachuca AZ 85613 

Jean Stutz 

Arizona State University 

Dept. of Biology Box 1601 

Tempe, AZ 85287 

Judith Talbot 

University of Arizona 

P.O. Box 41843 

Tucson AZ 85717 

Harrison Taiga 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Box 209 

San Carlos AZ 85550 

Mills Tandy 

Fort Huachuca 

201 Highland Dr. 

Sierra Vista AZ 85635 

Cliff Taylor 

Arizona Dept. of Transportation 

206 S. 17th Ave 

Phoenix AZ 85007 

Barbara Tellman 

Water Resources Research Center 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Cindy Ticer 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept 

2221 W Greenway Road 

Phoenix AZ 85023 

Ron Tiller 

Center for Environmental 

Studies-ASU 

Box873211 

Tempe AZ 85287 

Myles Traphagen 

San Bernardino National Wildlife 

Refuge 

1408 10th St. 

Douglas AZ 85607 

Joan and Robert Tweit 

Tucson Audubon Society 

3116 N Willow Creek Dr. 

Tucson AZ 85 712 

Laura Tyler 

Colorado State University 

1600 W. Plum #25-B 

Ft. Collins, CO 80521 

Thea Ulen 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge 

P.O. Box 109 

Sasabe AZ 85633 

Thomas Valone 

California State University 

Northridge 

Northridge CA 91330 

391 

Robert Varady 

Udall Center for Public Policy 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Nina Varady 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Hope Vislick-Greenwell 

University of Arizona 

2509 N. Campbell #192 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Jeanne Wade 

Coronado National Forest 

5990 S Highway 92 

Hereford AZ 85615 

Dave Walker 

Arizona Game & Fish Commission 

2221 W Greenway Road 

Phoenix AZ 85023 

Jim Walsh 

2633 E Indian School Road 

#300 

Phoenix AZ 85016 

Peter Warren 

The Nature Conservancy 

300 E. University Blvd 

Tucson AZ 85705 

Peter Warshall 

Warshall & Associates 

4500 W Speedway #45 

Tucson AZ 85 7 45 

Mary Carolyn Watson 

1114 E. Alta Vista 

Tucson AZ 85719 

Jake Weltzin 

School of Renewable Natural 

Resources 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Peggy Wenrick 

Tucson Audubon Society 

5898 N. Misty Ridge Drive 

Tucson, AZ 85718 
Catherine Wertz 

Arizona Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box387 

Willcox AZ 85644 

Terry Wheeler 

Wheeler & Associates 

P.O. Box 2792 

Globe AZ 85502 

Jack Whetstone 

Bureau of Land Management 

1763 Paseo San Luis 

Sierra Vista AZ 85635 

MaxWhitkin 

Bureau of Land Management 

12661 E. Broadway 

Tucson AZ 85748 

Bill Wilcox 

Coronado National Forest 

300 E. Congress 

Tucson AZ 85701 

EdWilk 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

P.O. Box815 

Patagonia, AZ 85624 

Jeff Williamson 

The Phoenix Zoo 

455 N. Galvin Pky 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

Jan Wilson 

Southern Arizona Cattle Protective 

Association 

HCR 3 Box 13 

Tucson AZ 85739 

Jim Winder 

HC 66 Box 38 

Deming NM 88030 

392 

Ulla Yandell 

University of Nevada, Dept. of 

Biology 

Dept. of Biology 314, UNR 

Reno, NV 89506 

David Yetman 

Southwest Center 

University of Arizona 

Tucson AZ 85721 

Richard Young 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

300 E. University Blvd. #230 

Tucson, AZ 85705 

Nancy Zierenberg 

Wildlife Damage Review 

P.O. Box 85218 

Tucson AZ 85745 
I~ 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION 

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of forests 

and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of National 

Forest managers·, federal and state agencies, public and private 

orQanizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving .ecosystems, 

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land 

reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, 

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and 

diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications can be 

found worldwide. 

Research Locations 

Flagstaff, Arizona 

Fort Collins, Colorado* 

Boise, Idaho 

Moscow, Idaho 

Bozeman, Montana 

Missoula, Montana 

Lincoln, Nebraska 

Reno, Nevada 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Rapid City, South Dakota 

Logan, Utah 

Ogden, Utah 

Provo, Utah 

Laramie, Wyoming 

* Station Headquarters, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and actiyities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD).' 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

F,\ights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice orTDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on ~ recycled paper 
• j 

".;;