reclamation and riparian: the odd couple?

Inside This IssuePresident’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . 5Species Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Meeting Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Noteworthy Publications . . . . . . . . 13

Volume 15, Number 1 February 2002

Reclamation and Riparian: The Odd Couple?Diane Laush, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix

Editors’ Note: This is the first in aprojected series of feature articlesto be contributed by representa-tives of state and federal agenciesthat are significant players in thearena of riparian conservationand restoration. While individualsmay be invited to prepare futuresubmissions, we also encouragevolunteers who wish to contributeto step forward in behalf of theiragency.

Istarted work at the Bureau ofReclamation in November 1988after having spent 10 years

working for a variety of Federaland State agencies as a fieldbiologist. I ended up at Reclama-tion as a result of a desperateattempt to get out of Iowa andback to Arizona. When I started Inever expected to still be workingthere 13 years later. But I foundout over time that Reclamationisn't always the evil agency it istypically perceived as. Like mostorganizations, it's as good as thepeople working there, and thereare some dedicated folks at thevarious Reclamation offices. (OK,I'll admit I'm probably biased afterall these years.)

This article is based solely onmy perspective as a wildlifebiologist and does not reflectofficial Reclamation policy. I willdeal primarily with activities in thePhoenix Area Office (Phoenix),but I have included a littleinformation from the Regionaloffice in Boulder City, Nevada.

There is little official coordinationand/or communication among thebiologists within the LowerColorado River Regional Officeand none between Regions. How-ever, this could be an artifact ofmy particular duties that onlyrevolve around projects done with-in the Phoenix office jurisdiction.

The majority of Phoenix's workin riparian habitat is mandated byrequirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act,Endangered Species Act, CleanWater Act, and other federalregulations. We have little fundingto just "do good things" forriparian habitat. The specialfunding we have is split amongprojects that the biologists believeare important and can thereforeinclude non-riparian issues such asmountain lion (Felis concolor)studies in Saguaro National Parkand Pima pineapple cactus(Coryphantha scheeri var.robustispima) surveys.

Reclamation's mission haschanged over the last few years, itis no longer a majorconstruction agency. This isevidenced by the fact thatwhen I was hired there werethree full-time biologistsand one supervisorybiologist needed to fulfillthe environmentalcompliance requirements forall the projects. For the lastthree years, I am the onlyfull time project biologist

and my supervisor works half-timeon projects. We do however, havetwo additional biologists who werehired strictly to implementrequirements under separateSection 7 Biological Opinions.

So, what is Reclamation actually doing now-a-days? Westill are constructing federallymandated projects that usuallyrequire some sort of mitigation. However, not all of our projectsoccur in riparian areas or requiremitigation of a riparian system.Although in some cases, we haveelected to mitigate upland impactsby acquisition of riparian habitat. Where once the major constructionactivity was building dams, likeNew Waddell, now the primaryconstruction projects are buildingfish barriers to protect nativespecies. Reclamation's engineersfind it ironic that they werecriticized for building big dams,but now it is environmentallyacceptable to build small dams(fish barriers). For the purposes of

Cont. Pg. 3...............Bureau

The Arizona Riparian Council 2 2002 Vol. 15 No. 1

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

It's that time again for theArizona Riparian CouncilAnnual Meeting. The theme for

this year is Water Resources andSustaining Riparian Areas. TheARC Board has come up with agroup of speakers for the morningsession to discuss groundwater lawand current issues. Recentdevelopments will be discussedsuch as the development of newpolicies by agencies to deal withlimited water resources anddilemmas facing cities and townsconfronted with meeting thedemands for water and sustainingriparian areas.

At the annual meeting we willalso be electing the offices of VicePresident and President. Yup, itsbeen three years since you electedJanet Johnson and myself. Janethas decided not to run and I wouldlike to give someone else theopportunity to be President of thisvery fine and honorableorganization.

The Arizona Riparian Councilbegan as an idea by Chuck Hunterand Duncan Patten to have anorganization whose purpose wasto provide the exchange of infor-mation on the status, protectionand management of ripariansystems in Arizona. The annualand fall meetings and the top-notch newsletter are testamentsthat this continues to be ourpurpose.

However, is the interest inriparian areas waning? Theemphasis on protecting andmaintaining riparian areas is notwhat is was in the early 1980's. Atthat time there was a nationalfocus from several federalagencies which fueled theenthusiasm. The Bureau of LandManagement formed the NationalRiparian Team to begin theiranalysis of “Proper Functional

Condition of Riparian Areas.” EPA and the Army Corps ofEngineers were told to reconsiderthe three parameter approach forthe identification of wetlands. And the Bureau of Reclamationwas changing the focus of theiragency from construction projectsto restoration. At the state level, in1985 riparian and in-stream flowissues were discussed by theGovernor's Task Force onRecreation on Federal Lands. In1988, the Commission of theArizona Environment compiledinformation on assessing thevalues and management of riparianresources. Also, in 1988 StateParks developed the ArizonaWetlands Priority and Plan. Andagain in 1989, State Parksprepared the Statewide Compre-hensive Outdoor Recreation Plansto determine the role of streamsand wetlands in meeting Arizona'sgrowing recreational needs. Governor Rose Mofford signedExecutive Order 89-16 in 1989,which mandated the formation ofthe Governor's Riparian HabitatTask Force. The Task Forceprovided a state definition forriparian areas, initiated aclassification system and prepareda draft Executive Order forprotection of riparian areas. In1991, Governor Mofford signedExecutive Order 91-6, Protectionof Riparian Areas whichestablished an interagencyRiparian Areas CoordinatingCouncil comprised of various stateagencies. This group wrotelegislation which passed in 1992forming the Riparian AreaAdvisory Committee. Comprisedof state and federal agencies,RAAC analyzed existing state andfederal regulatory and nonregula-tory programs for the purpose of

developing alternative strategiesfor protecting riparian areas. Atthe end of 1994, the recommenda-tions of RAAC were not incorpor-ated into any new rule making andwere shelved. A glimmer of lightwas shown in 1994 when theArizona Water ProtectionCommission was formed. I thinkwe have all seen that light growdimmer every year.

So is interest waning? Grantedwe don't have any Governor's TaskForce or Commissions. Federalagencies seem to be fighting offlaw suits and state agencies arefollowing knee-jerk reactions tothe “issue of the moment.” Myinterest in the Council has notwaned. I still feel the Council is aneffective organization. We needour members to be involved and tocommunicate the need to protectand maintain the valuable riparianareas in Arizona. If you are stillinterested then I ask you toparticipate in making the Councilmore active and effective. I plan todo a brainstorming session at theannual meeting and get your ideason where the Council is going,where it should go, and what thefuture holds.

I have been honored to be thePresident of the Council. I lookforward to continuing to workwith the Council as co-chair of theProtection and EnhancementCommittee. I know I will beexpressing my ideas on where Ithink the Council is going at theannual meeting. I hope you willexpress your ideas, too. I hope tosee you in April at the meeting inWickenburg.

Kris Randall, President


Bureau..........Cont. from pg. 1

this article, I will concentrate onReclamation activities that havesome impact on riparian habitat.

HABITAT RESTORATIONAlthough the Phoenix Office

has never planted cottonwoods(Populus spp.) and willows (Salixspp.), the Boulder City Office has. As part of the Lower ColoradoRiver Multi-Species HabitatConservation Plan, Boulder Cityhas been purchasing Fremontcottonwood (Populus fremontii),Goodding willow (Salixgooddingii), coyote willow (S.exigua), honey mesquite (Prosopisglandulosa), and Arizona ash(Fraxinus veluntia) for variousagencies (Arizona Game and FishDepartment, Bureau of LandManagement, and wildlife refuges)on the lower Colorado River overthe last three years.

Besides supplying trees toagencies, the Boulder City Officehas also planted several restorationsites. Twelve acres of riparianhabitat were planted on an agricul-tural lease in coordination with alocal farmer. A 40-acre site(former cornfield) on CibolaNational Wildlife Refuge (NWR)was planted with 13,000 cotton-wood, willow, and mesquite trees. On Imperial NWR, 18,000 treeswere planted on a demonstrationsite. Unfortunately, tree survivalon the Imperial site was poor,presumably from high salinitylevels in the soil. This type offunding is expected to continueover the next few years.

In the early years, most of thePhoenix Office’s restorationprojects dealt with small (10-15acres) plantings of mesquite. Butthe proposed modification toRoosevelt Dam providedReclamation with the opportunityto improve habitat along TontoCreek by providing funding to theForest Service. The raising ofRoosevelt Dam's crest by 77 feetwould result in increased storagecapacity within the reservoir and

the loss of approximately 80 acresof riparian habitat located at themouth of Tonto Creek.

Reclamation provided fundingto the Tonto National Forest tobuild fences along Tonto Creekand implement a grazing programthat would result in significantimprovement in the condition ofriparian habitat. The Tonto CreekRiparian Unit, completed in 1995,encompasses 18 miles of TontoCreek upstream from RooseveltLake and measures 9,483 acres. Grazing was limited to betweenJanuary 1 and March 1, withcomplete rest every third year. Prior grazing management hadbeen year round.

Results of the monitoring study(in-house report, August 2001)indicated that the grazing strategywas successful and Reclamation'smitigation commitment wasfulfilled. Unfortunately, the studyalso found that the upstreamwatershed was in an unsatisfactorycondition and scouring floodswould likely remove thevegetation on a periodic basis.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTIVITIES

Both Boulder City and Phoenixoffices are engaged in numerousactivities associated with thefederally endangered southwesternwillow flycatcher (Empidonaxtraillii extimus), as a result ofEndangered Species Act require-ments. Boulder City and Phoenixboth received jeopardy opinionsfrom the Fish and Wildlife Servicefor loss of flycatcher habitat inLake Mead and Roosevelt Lake,respectively. (No habitat has yetbeen lost in Roosevelt due to lowwater levels in the lake.) Actionstaken to benefit the southwesternwillow flycatcher may eitherdirectly or indirectly benefitriparian habitat.

Boulder City is required toevaluate and document existingthreats at southwestern willowflycatcher nest sites and developand implement managementstrategies to alleviate those threats.

Actions taken to alleviate over-grazing by livestock, recreationalimpacts, inundation of habitat ordesiccation of habitat willultimately benefit riparian habitat.

Brown-headed cowbird(Molothrus ater) trapping isanother requirement that bothoffices must implement. Cowbirdtrapping indirectly benefits ripar-ian habitat occupants by poten-tially reducing parasitism in thewillow flycatcher as well as otherneotropical migrants. However, itshould be noted that in recentyears the Arizona Game and FishDepartment has found depredationto have greater impacts onsouthwestern willow flycatcherthan parasitism at Roosevelt Lakeand the San Pedro River(Paradzick et al. 2000, Paradzicket al. 2001, Arizona Game andFish Department unpubl.).

HABITAT ACQUISITIONHabitat acquisition is another

mitigation tool that Reclamationutilizes. Reclamation providedfunds to The Nature Conservancy to purchase 820 acres of riparianhabitat along the San Pedro Rivernear Dudleyville, Arizona,pursuant to requirements of theBiological Opinion for ModifiedRoosevelt Dam (Roosevelt Opin-ion). The Dudleyville Preservewas purchased in 1996 and ismanaged by The Nature Conser-vancy for the benefit of thesouthwestern willow flycatcher. Construction of boundary fences,elimination of cattle grazing andrestriction of off-road vehicle usehave all combined to improveriparian habitat quality on theproperty.

The Roosevelt Opinion alsorequired the establishment of a$1.25 million management fundto benefit the southwestern willowflycatcher. Reclamation is plan-ning on using the money for acqui-sition of additional riparian habitatthat is either currently or poten-tially suitable for the flycatcher.

Similarly, the BiologicalOpinion on the Transportation and


Aerial view of Cook’s Lake.

Delivery of Central ArizonaProject Water to the Gila Basin(Gila Opinion) established a fundtransfer from Reclamation to theFish and Wildlife Service in theamount of $500,000 for 25 years. These funds are to be used forconservation actions (recovery andprotection) for the spikedace(Meda fulgida), loach minnow(Tiaroga cobitis), Gila topminnow(Poeciliopsis occidentalis),razorback sucker (Xyrauchentexanus) or other listed orcandidate fish species in the GilaBasin, and to control non-nativefishes. Portions of this fund can beutilized to acquire parcels and/oreasements for native fish protec-tion and enhancement. Anyacquisition for protection orenhancement of fish habitat woulddirectly benefit the adjacent ripar-ian habitat. To date, no parcels oreasements have been acquired.

Habitat acquisition remains mypersonal choice of mitigation. I amfamiliar with the labor intensiveprocess involved in setting up andrunning a revegetation site as Ihave personally worked on tworevegetation sites along the lowerColorado River. Revegetation sitesare expensive to maintain over thelong term and frequently theresults are less than hoped for. Iprefer to purchase replacementhabitat which I believe in the longrun provides better habitat valuefor the money expended. Thefollowing two land acquisitionexamples were not requiredpursuant to ESA requirements, butwere carried out pursuant toNational Environmental PolicyAct compliance.

Construction of New WaddellDam in 1992 and the modificationof Camp Dyer Dam on the AguaFria River northwest of Phoenix,resulted in the loss of 22 acres ofcattail (Typha spp.) wetlandhabitat. Reclamation acquired 80acres of wooded wetland, knownas Cook's Lake, as mitigation forthis loss. Cook's Lake is locatedalong the San Pedro Riverapproximately 2 milesdownstream from the confluence

of Aravaipa Creek. In addition tothe 80 acre parcel, Reclamationacquired an additional 70 acres offloodplain habitat as buffer.

Management of this parcel hasbeen a continuing challenge forReclamation. Land managementresponsibility is not part ofReclamation's mandate and we areinadequately staffed to provide thenecessary oversight required toprotect the site. As a result of thelack of onsite management, tres-pass cattle have been a continuingproblem at Cook’s Lake. Reclama-tion hopes to contract out themanagement responsibility forCook's Lake this year and providebetter protection for this valuableriparian habitat.

In September 2001, Reclama-tion purchased 160 acres of habitatalong Posta Quemada Wash nearColossal Cave Park, Pima County,Arizona as mitigation for subjuga-tion of approximately 1,584 acresof land on the Fort McDowellIndian Community (FMIC). Theoriginal mitigation (implementedin 1992) was the establishment ofa preserve within the FMICreservation. In April 2000 FMICasked the Secretary of the Interior(SOI) to move the mitigation off-reservation. The farm project waspart of FMIC’s water settlementact legislation and they believedthat, as such, they should not beresponsible for mitigation. TheSOI complied with the request and

Reclamation was placed in theposition of looking for replace-ment habitat.

The original mitigation prop-erty consisted of approximately300 acres (½ mesquite and ½upland Sonoran Desert scrubhabitat). I originally wanted toreplace the mitigation withacquisition of cactus ferruginouspygmy-owl (Glaucidiumbrasilianum) habitat. I met withFederal and County biologistsfrom Tucson to inquire (1) if therewere parcels of land for sale thatmet my mitigation needs and (2)would one of the agencies bewilling to manage the property, atno cost, for Reclamation. Duringthe meeting, the parcel on PostaQuemada Wash was mentioned. Itwas a high priority acquisition forPima County due to its value as awildlife corridor.

The parcel and the surroundingarea had been identified by mem-bers of the Science TechnicalAdvisory Team for the SonoranDesert Conservation Plan as an area with high biodiversity. Threeimportant habitat elements werepresent in the area (1) limestonehabitat that supports unique andrare caves as well as endangered orsensitive cacti,(2) riparian vegeta-tion that provides importanthabitat for migratory songbirds,and (3) a large block of unfrag-mented habitat that serves as animportant corridor for plants and


Fish barrier at Aravaipa Creek

animals. Based on the opinion ofthese local experts, I believed thatthe habitat values provided by thePosta Quemada Wash parcel weregreater than the value of theoriginal mitigation site. Recla-mation was able to negotiate thepurchase of the property from theprivate landowner and PimaCounty will be responsible for theday-to-day land managementduties.

In these changing times ofsmaller government and reducedfunding levels, it is sometimesdifficult to provide high qualitymitigation. Reclamation (at leastPhoenix) is moving away fromsmall, isolated mitigation parcelsand trying to develop mitigationopportunities in concert with otherorganizations or that complementexisting preserves. In that respect,I have one final mitigation storythat, as of yet, has no ending.

As I mentioned at the beginningof this article, the Phoenix Officewill be constructing approximatelynine fish barriers over the next 15years. The fish barriers are requir-ed pursuant to an ESA reconsulta-tion on the Gila Opinion. Despitethe fact that the fish barriers them-selves are a sort of "mitigation" forimpacts to native fish; constructionof the barriers will result in habitatimpacts which Reclamationbelieves should also be mitigated. Impacts from these barriers rangefrom less than one acre to 20 acres. I believe it would be a waste offederal money and time to providemitigation at each barrier site. So Ihave proposed that all the mitiga-tion be combined and performed

in one locationwithin the Gila Riverdrainage basin. Reclamation islooking to acquire orplace conservationeasements onapproximately 160acres of riparianhabitat as mitigationfor construction ofthe fish barriers. Weintend to completethis mitigation priorto December 2002.The mitigation willbe implementedprior to construction of any of thebarriers (with exception ofAravaipa Creek, which iscompleted). This is a new step forReclamation’s Phoenix Office. We have never mitigated a project sofar in advance of the construction.However, we believe that thepreservation of such a large parcelof land will provide much greaterbenefits than several smaller iso-lated mitigation projects. In addi-tion, we hope that the one-timeacquisition will also provide somecost savings to the Government.

Reclamation has been viewedas being primarily responsible formuch of the losses to riparian habi-tat due to dam construction. Theagency is currently expendinglarge sums of money to implementthe requirements in biologicalopinions on native fish and thesouthwestern willow flycatcher.Reclamation’s biologists areworking hard to see that the moneyis spent on productive mitigationefforts. Only time will tell.

REFERENCESParadzick, C. E., T. D. McCarthey,

R. F. Davidson, J. W. Rourke, M. W. Sumner, and A.B.Smith. 2001. Southwesternwillow flycatcher 2000 surveyand nest monitoring report. Nongame and EndangeredWildlife Program TechnicalReport 175. AGFD. Phoenix,Arizona

Paradzick, C. E., R. F. Davidson,J. W. Rourke, M. W. Sumner,A. M. Wartell and T.D. McCarthey. 2000.Southwestern willow flycatcher1999 survey and nestmonitoring report. Nongameand Endangered WildlifeProgram Technical Report 151. AGFD. Phoenix, Arizona.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN THE GRAND CANYON ECOREGIONJoel C. Barnes, Faculty, Prescott College

WHY DESIGNATE GRANDCANYON'S WATERS WILDAND SCENIC?

For those who experience theGrand Canyon intimately, theriver and its tributaries come

to represent the heart and soul of

the place. These waterways arelargely responsible for carving theCanyon's magnificent landscapeover millions of years and, like akeystone species, these ripariancorridors have evolved into atextbook example of a keystonehabitat in that they support an

unusually high percentage of theCanyon's biological diversity(Stevens et al. 1999). We alsoknow that these waters have had aformative influence on the cultureswho have explored the Canyon,from prehistoric hunter gatherersto hikers and boaters of the new


Photograph by Giancarlo Sadoti

millennium. With estimates ofArizona's remaining healthy ripar-ian habitat being low (Ohmart andAnderson 1986), Grand Canyon'swaterways represent an extensiveand relatively intact system ofaridland riparian habitat. A livingvestige of our Southwest naturaland cultural heritage, they areprime candidates for Wild andScenic River (WSR) designation.

That the Colorado River and itstributaries in and around the GrandCanyon have yet to be honoredwith WSR designation comes as asurprise to many, even thoseactively involved in river conser-vation. One could easily assumethat the spectacular Grand CanyonEcoregion contains the Southwes-tern gems of the National Wild andScenic River System (NWSRS). Infact, WSR designation has eludeda number of our most notablewildland river systems here in thearid Southwest including the SanPedro, Agua Fria, Hassayampaand yes, the Grand Canyon's shareof the Colorado. A glance at thecontinental distribution of theNWSRS reveals that the north-western states, including Alaska,account for nearly half of the WSRrivers, many of which were beingdammed, dredged, diked, divertedand degraded at an alarming ratethroughout the mid-1900's. Tolend balance to this history of useand abuse of our waterways,Congress created the NWSRS. InOctober of 1968, the freshlypenned Wild and Scenic RiversAct (henceforth, "the Act")pronounced,

It is hereby declared to bethe policy of the UnitedStates that certain selectedrivers of the Nation which,with their immediate envir-onments, possess outstand-ingly remarkable scenic,recreational, geologic, fishand wildlife, historic, cul-tural or other similar values,shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and thatthey and their immediateenvironments shall be pro-

tected for the benefit andenjoyment of present andfuture generations. TheCongress declares that theestablished national policyof dams and other construc-tion at appropriate sectionsof the rivers of the UnitedStates needs to be comple-mented by a policy thatwould preserve otherselected rivers or sectionsthereof in their free-flowingcondition to protect thewater quality of such riversand to fulfill other vitalnational conservationpurposes. (IWSRCC 1999)

The fact that the Colorado Riverand its tributaries in Grand Canyonare already protected by theirnational park status is cited bymanagers and conservationistsalike as reasonable cause for notpursuing WSR designation to date. However, increasing pressures onthe biological and social resourcesof our national parks have promp-ted a search for new strategies toprotect and conserve federal riversand streams. Several aridlandnational park units – Zion andBryce National Parks and NaturalBridges National Monument –have recognized WSR designationas a viable conservation strategy

for protecting their waterresources, and have initiated WSRstudies for selected waterways(USDI 1996, 2000). Indeed, theAct is potentially as significant tothe water resources of parks as theWilderness Act is to our landresources, and provides the mostcomprehensive legal protectionavailable for the instream valuesof rivers.

Unfortunately, our very ownGrand Canyon tributaries havejoined the list of examples of parkresources threatened by develop-ment beyond park boundaries. Impacts on these desert riparianjewels from regional groundwaterpumping has been acknowledgedby geohydrology experts, anddespite commendable efforts tomitigate them, these threats arestill very real (Barnes 1999). Thedelicate hydrologic regimes ofthese seeps, springs and low baseflow tributaries will be compro-mised, as will the stability of therich biological diversity theysustain. Increasing negativeimpacts on southwestern ripariansystems from groundwater pump-ing are inevitable unless watershedscale conservation strategies aredeveloped to mitigate them. In thislight, WSR designation would adda critical layer of legal protectionfocused specifically on the waterresources of Grand CanyonNational Park (GCNP).

Over the past three decades,southwestern riparian systemshave been identified time andagain as an endangered ecosystemof North America (Ohmart and Anderson 1986, Noss 1997).These riparian ecosystems havecontinually suffered as waterdemands increase. This situationcalls for a regional and systemsapproach to water resource conser-vation, one that recognizes theinterconnections between arid landriver systems and their surround-ing watersheds. Thus, a successfulconservation strategy for thewaterways of GCNP shouldembrace a regional river systemand watershed based approach toWSR designation, as opposed to


the segment-by-segment approachadopted in most WSR proposals.The segment-by-segmentapproach has proved to be a pain-fully slow political process, andoverlooks the central ecologicalfunction of rivers in aridland eco-systems. A Grand Canyon Eco-region WSR omnibus bill wouldprotect a contiguous portion of theColorado River system, dramatic-ally increase protection of theregion's biodiversity, and placethese aridland waters at the heartof a regional conservationstrategy. Such WSR omnibus billshave been successfully passed intolaw in Michigan, Oregon andAlaska (Raffensperger 1993).

WHAT WOULDWSR DESIGNATION DO FOR THE ECOREGION?

WSR designation in GCNPwould mandate protection for theexceptional natural and culturalvalues of the Colorado River mainstem and tributaries, particularlythose “outstandingly remarkablevalues” (ORVs) identified in theeligibility and suitability steps ofthe WSR Study Process. The Actalso recognizes preexisting typesand levels of river recreationwhere they do not conflict with theexisting goals of river manage-ment. However, the Act does notfreeze the status quo in a rivercorridor when it is designated. Rather, the Act codifies a “nonde-gradation and enhancement pol-icy” for all designated river areas,regardless of classification. Thesedetails are mentioned here to eluci-date important differences andsimilarities between the ColoradoRiver main stem and the tributariesin terms of the biopolitics of WSRdesignation and management.

For example, by identifyingORVs along the tributaries that aredirectly dependent upon existingbase flows (e.g., riparian vegeta-tion, wildlife and fish), the WSRstudy process could help set a legalstage for protecting future in-stream flows of the seeps, springsand tributaries in and around

Grand Canyon. Since the Actacknowledges existing river man-agement goals, designation wouldnot impose any significant influ-ence on the scheduled flows(essentially Glen Canyon Damreleases) of the Colorado River. The existence of Glen CanyonDam would not violate the “freeflowing” criterion of the Act (itisn't all that uncommon, particu-larly in the east, for dams to be justup or downstream of a WSR seg-ment). More importantly, in regardto the Colorado River main stem,designation would finally put torest any of the dam proposals thatstill roam the halls of Congress.The Act would provide the highestlevel of legal protection availableto ensure that no dam projectsfrom Washington would material-ize in the Grand Canyon.

The Act's allowance of pre-existing types and levels of riverrecreation where they do not con-flict with the existing goals of therivers management, could be inter-preted to be in support the contro-versial status quo of commercialuse on the river (including largemotorized trips). However, pop-ular interpretation of the Act statesthat WSRs are managed primarilyfor the values for which they weredesignated (IWSRCC 1999). Add-itionally, the Act codifies a non-degradation and enhancementpolicy for designated rivers, anddirects administering agencies toimprove conditions in river corri-dors where necessary. Therefore,identifying (in the WSR StudyProcess) the unique wildernessvalues that enhance river recrea-tion on the Colorado Riverthrough Grand Canyon wouldestablish important legislative andmanagement connections betweenthe park's (currently proposed)Wilderness and its Wild andScenic Rivers.

THE WSR STUDY PROCESSThe WSR Study Process

involves three steps – eligibility,classification, and suitability. For awaterway to be eligible for WSR

designation it must be free flowingand exhibit one or more "outstand-ingly remarkable values" as des-cribed in the Act. Once a river orstream segment is determined tobe eligible, it is then given a tenta-tive classification of either "wild,""scenic," or "recreational." Thesecategories reflect levels of devel-opment and natural conditionsalong a river segment. Finally, thesuitability step evaluates the con-sequences of designation and themanageability of the river if it isdesignated, which would considerbiological, political and economicfactors.

COORDINATION,COOPERATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The collaborative process ofWSR designation will encourageregional coordination and helpbuild partnerships among federaland state agencies, tribal nations,NGOs, and commercial and pri-vate river users in the interest ofthe protecting the waterways ofthe Grand Canyon Ecoregion. TheWSR study process also includesopportunities for public reviewand input on preliminary findingsand decisions. During the eligi-bility step, any group or individualcan submit nominations for riversto be considered, as well as anyinformation that would help inevaluating rivers already beingstudied. The Grand Canyon Eco-region WSR preliminary findingsof eligibility and classificationwill be presented to federalagencies and state, tribal and localgovernments, conservation anduser groups, and the interestedpublic for review and comments.Although no official time framehas been adopted by GCNP forthis WSR Project, preliminaryfindings may be completed asearly as Spring 2002.

AT WHAT STAGE IS THEGCNP WSR PROJECT?

The bulk of the ResearchPartnership thus far has focused on


eligibility of the tributaries. SinceSeptember 1998, Prescott Collegehas coordinated with GCNPresource staff to conduct fourriver-based and three land-basedresearch trips to assess theresource values of selected tribu-taries. The overall research designand methods are based on existingWSR research and guidelinesestablished by the InteragencyWSR Coordinating Council. Theobjective of our field work is toconduct systematic qualitativeassessments of the main stem andselected tributaries. These assess-ments use specific criteria toevaluate the resource values putforth in the Act. Each riverresearch trip enlists 12 advancedundergraduate Prescott Collegestudents as research assistantsorganized into three researchteams. One team evaluates thegeology, geomorphology, andhydrology, another team evaluatesthe wildlife, vegetation andecology, and the third evaluatesthe recreational, scenic, andcultural values of each tributary.Our river trips have embraced adual agenda of conservationresearch and education. Visitingscientists and park resource staffpresent lectures on topics thatinform our field work, and helpstudents consider the biological,management, political and socialimplications of the project.

Exemplary students from pastriver research trips have beenselected to conduct land basedresearch trips of tributaries moreaccessible by foot trail. Three ofthese land-based trips have beencompleted thus far (October of1999, March of 2000, and Marchof 2001). These trips employedessentially the same field researchmethods that were used in the riverresearch. A series of week-longbackpacking itineraries weredeveloped to survey selected trib-utaries. The land-based researchhas made major contributions tothe project, nearly doubling thetotal number of tributaries sur-veyed. The land and river fieldwork has been supplemented by

interviews with experts in relevantfields, as well as literature and GISbased research; much more workremains to be done in these areas. It is estimated that one or twomore river research trips, andperhaps one more land based tripwill complete the field work forthe eligibility step of the WSRStudy Process.

The classification step of theWSR Study Process should berelatively straight forward. Sincethe Colorado River and nearly allof the tributaries under study arewithin park boundaries and thushave little or no developmentalong their shores, they will likelybe classified as “wild.”

After the eligibility and classi-fication steps have been com-pleted, a suitability analysis willbe conducted in coordination withGCNP resource staff, federal andstate agencies, and others to con-sider the implications of WSRdesignation from environmental,economic and managementperspectives.

Documentation of the threesteps of the WSR study processwill comprise the GCNP WSRStudy Report, which will likely bereviewed by NPS administrationand the Secretary of Interior. Asconsideration for WSR designa-tion in the Grand Canyon Eco-region moves into the politicalarenas, public involvement willagain be critical. The publicsupport for Arizona Wild andScenic Rivers that was generatedfrom the statewide meetings heldduring January of 1993 is a fineexample of the how public inputcan inform and influence thepolitical process. Guided by soundscience and open minds, the WSRdesignation process will help us allenvision the future for one of themost extensive and relatively pris-tine, intact systems of arid landriparian habitat in the AmericanSouthwest.

REFERENCESBarnes, J. 1999. Seeps, Springs

and Tusayan Growth. In:

Boatman's Quarterly Review.12 (4). Winter 1999. Flagstaff,AZ.

IWSRCC. 1999. Wild & ScenicRivers Reference Guide.Interagency Wild and ScenicRivers Coordinating Council.Washington D.C.

Noss, R. 1997. Endangered MajorEcosystems of the UnitedStates. In: Wild Earth. 7 (2).Summer 1997. Richmond, VT.

Ohmart, R. D., and B. W.Anderson. 1986. Riparianhabitat. Pages 169-201 in A. Y.Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart, eds., Inventory andmonitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of LandManagement Service Center,Denver, CO. 858 pp.

Raffensperger, C. 1993. The Wildand Scenic Rivers Act.Problems and Successes InPromoting Biodiversity. In:Wild Earth. 3 (3). Fall 1993.Richmond, VT.

Stevens, L, K. Burke, and K.Crumbo. 1999. State of theGrand Canyon Ecoregion. In:Wild Earth. 9 (3). Fall 1999.Richmond, VT.

USDI, 1996. Wild and ScenicRiver Review In The State OfUtah. Process and Criteria forInteragency Use. USFS, NPS &BLM. Washington, D.C.

USDI. 2000. Grand Staircase/Escalante National MonumentManagement Plan. Bureau ofLand Management. Cedar City,UT.

Editors’ Note: This article isadapted from the RiverManagement Society newsletter.


Canyon treefrog photo and U.S.distribution map are from the USGS’sOnline Checklist of Amphibians andIdentification Guide found athttp://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/.

SPECIES PROFILE

CANYON TREEFROGby Mike Demlong, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix

You’re hiking in pristineriparian habitat in centralArizona, suddenly, you see

a small rock jump! A rock jump? Itcan’t be! Upon closer inspectionyou discover it’s not a rock, but afrog! But not just any frog, it’s acanyon treefrog (Hyla arenicolor)or in Spanish, ranita de canon.

Canyon treefrogs are one of themost commonly encounteredamphibians in riparian habitats,and one of the most widelydistributed amphibians in Arizona.They inhabit pinon-juniper andpine-oak forests, deserts, andsemi-arid grassland ecosystemsthroughout Arizona. They rangefrom the bottom of the GrandCanyon in the north, to theHuachuca Mountains in the south,and most everywhere in-between.Outside Arizona they can be foundin western Colorado, southernUtah, western New Mexico, westTexas, and south into Mexico.

Arizona is home to manycryptically colored amphibians, sohow can a nonherpetologistpositively identify a canyontreefrog in the field or describe itto others? “It looks like a rock” is asuspicious and inadequatedescription, nor does it do justiceto this splendid frog. Adult canyontreefrogs are relatively small,approximately 1 to 2 inches fromthe tip of their snout to their ventopening. They are one of thesmaller species of amphibiansnative to Arizona. For those whoare poor estimators of size, thelargest canyon treefrog you mightencounter is smaller than the widthof a credit card.

Although they are commonlyknown as “frogs,” the skin on theirback (the dorsal surface) is mostlyrough and “warty” like a toad,perhaps explaining why they arealso referred to as treetoads. Skin

color varies greatly betweenindividuals and geographicalpopulations. Dorsal colors rangefrom brown, grayish, cream,olive-gray, sometimes even a littlepinkish, and closely resemble thecolors of the nearby rockformation. The specific epithet(Latin species name) for thecanyon treefrog translates to “sandcolor” (arenicolor; arena=sand,color=color or tone). In addition totheir cryptic ground color, theyusually have irregularly shaped,darker colored blotches on theirdorsal surface. Occasionally someindividuals or entire populationsmay have no blotches. The under-side (ventral surface) of canyontreefrogs, and many other amphib-ians, is light in color (white orcream). But the light ventralcoloration in canyon treefrogsgradually transitions to brightyellow or orange on the hind legs,colors only visible when theymove or jump. Adult males andfemales are similar in color andpattern, with the exception thatmales have a darkly colored (e.g.,gray, black, or brown) throat area. Still not sure if you have acanyon treefrog? Take a closerlook at its feet. Like many other

frogs and toads, canyon treefrogshave webbing between the toes ontheir hind feet but no significantwebbing on their front feet. Thedefinitive identification character-istic of canyon treefrogs is thelarge circular pads on the end ofeach toe. Humans with a vividimagination claim the feet are“gremlin-like.” These circular,adhesive pads allow them to climbvertical surfaces (e.g., bouldersand trees). A useful adaptation forescaping potential predators,searching for prey or finding theoptimal calling location.

Canyon treefrogs are riparianobligate species, never far fromthe vicinity of water. They livealong temporary, intermittent, andpermanent streams, springs,arroyos, rocky canyons, and tinajapools. If water, large boulders, andbedrock pools are present, canyontreefrogs are likely living nearby.But to find one you’ll have to beobservant. In riparian areas they’reoften found clinging to the verticalface of a boulder, tucked inside arock crevice, or on a tree trunk or


limb, often within an arm’s length.You practically have to put yourfoot or hand on them before theymove, relying on their stealthcoloration to avoid detection bypredators.

On more than one occasionwhile hiking the appropriatehabitat, I usually hear the male(s)calling before I see them. Malesreadily call during the day fromrock crevices surrounding a poolof water. Listen for a series ofabrupt short notes, described bysome as sounding like the ba-a-aof a hoarse lamb or goat, the quackof a duck, or a single-pitchedwhirring sound. The call is oftenamplified and reflected by theacoustics of surrounding bouldersor deep crevice the frog is hiddenwithin. If you find a calling male,keep looking, other treefrogs ofboth sexes are likely nearby.

Canyon treefrogs are usuallyactive from February or March toOctober or November, dependingon air temperature and elevation.Air temperature, elevation, andprecipitation events also stimulatethe onset of their breeding season.Canyon treefrogs breed primarilyduring the monsoon season (Julyto September), but have beenknown to breed in the early spring(March). After attracting areceptive female with his adver-tisement or mating call, the malegrasps her in amplexus, thenfertilizes the female’s eggs as theyare released from her vent openinginto the water. Females may lay100 or more eggs in a single mass,which may be attached to sub-merged vegetation or debris, orfloat on the water surface. Eachegg is composed of a clear jellycoat, surrounding a black embryosuspended in the center.

Depending on the watertemperature in the pool, fertilizedeggs hatch in less than two weeks,

and tadpoles metamorphose intofroglets in less than 2 months. Incolor and shape, juvenile canyontreefrogs look like miniatureadults. Juvenile and adults frogsare much easier to identify ascanyon treefrogs than their larvae(tadpoles). Differentiatingbetween the larvae of frog andtoad species is difficult without theaid of a good field guide andmagnifying glass to examine theirminute mouth parts. If you dis-cover a pool of water withtadpoles in a boulder strewnstream or rocky canyon pool, thereis a pretty good chance they arecanyon treefrogs. Tadpoles fromeggs laid late in the season maydelay metamorphosis, overwinter-ing as larvae and completing theirlife cycle the next spring. Canyontreefrog larvae are primarilyherbivores, sometimes observedactively “grazing” on algaecovered rocks or detritus at thebottom of the pool. Once theymetamorphose into frogs, theybecome carnivores, feeding on avariety of terrestrial and wingedinsects and other invertebrates.

Although no specific studieshave been conducted in Arizona,incidental observations suggestcanyon treefrog populations arestable in Arizona. However, theirconservation status could quicklychange as they are susceptible tothe same factors causing amphib-ian populations to decline world-wide (e.g., ozone layer depletion,pollution, chytrid fungus, habitatloss and degradation, introductionof non-native species). They arenot federally listed as threatenedor endangered, nor do they receivespecial conservation status fromthe Arizona Game and FishDepartment. However, like otheramphibians in Arizona, canyontreefrogs are offered some pro-tection by Arizona Game and Fish

Commission Order 41 (amphib-ians). Commercial trade in thisspecies is prohibited in Arizona,but individuals with a valid fishingor combination license may collectup to 10 per year, or have a total of10 in their possession for personaluse. Canyon treefrogs are oftenkept as pets or used for education-al purposes in schools, zoos, ormuseums. When properly housedand cared for these common frogslive for many years in captivity.

We can all help ensure canyontreefrogs remain commonthroughout their range, by contin-uing to advocate for healthy andnaturally functioning riparianecosystems.

LITERATURE REFERENCEDBeltz,E.1995.Citations for the

original descriptions of NorthAmerican amphibians andreptiles. SSAR HerpetologicalCircular 24:i-iv+1-44 pp.

Liner, E. A. 1994. Standardcommon and current scientificnames for the amphibians andreptiles of Mexico in Englishand Spanish. SSAR Herpeto-logical Circular 23:i-vi+1-113.

Colorado River Wildlife Council.1982. Endemic amphibians andreptiles of the Colorado RiverSystem, a status report. 43 p.

Conant, R., and J. Collins. 1991. AField Guide to Reptiles andAmphibians of Eastern andCentral North America. ThirdEdition. Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston New York.450 p.

Stebbins, R. 1985. A Field Guideto Western Reptiles andAmphibians.Second EditionRevised. Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston. 336 p.


WATER RESOURCES AND SUSTAINING RIPARIAN AREAS

16th Annual Meeting, April 26-27, 2002 Rancho de los Caballeros

1551 S. Vulture Mine RoadWickenburg, Arizona 85390

This year’s annual meeting will be held inWickenburg at the Rancho de los Caballeros(http://www.sunc.com/). The theme is Water

Resources and Sustaining Riparian Areas.

i Rich Campbell will cover some of Arizona’s basicwater law and its history;

i Some policies set by various agencies torecognize the connection between surface andgroundwater, e.g., one developed by the TontoNational Forest that is now being implementedregionally and may become national ForestService policy;

i John Munderloh will speak about the Prescottarea and Verde River issues;

i This plenary session will be followed by thegeneral session of contributed papers and posters;

i We are planning dinner for Friday evening at theHassayampa Preserve;

i There will be field trips in the Wickenburg areaon Saturday.

We have requested a block of rooms at the BestWestern Rancho Grande, 293 E. Wickenburg Way,Wickenburg, AZ 85390. The cost is $68 per personfor a single or $78 for a double, plus tax. They'llhold the rooms at that rate until April 4th. Their toll-free number is 1-800-854-7235.

The Call for Papers is on our web site athttp://aztec.asu.edu/ARC/2002Call.pdf to print outand submit or just submit online athttp://aztec.asu.edu/ARC/2002call.htm Registrationinformation will be sent out soon and will also beonline as a pdf to print out and submit.

Hope to see you there!

ISSUES TO VOTE ON AT THE MEETING

At the 16th Annual Meeting ofthe Arizona RiparianCouncil we are to elect anew President and Vice

President as Kris Randall stated inher President’s Message (pg. 2).We also, after many years, have todecide on a dues increase andchange in structure from just anindividual membership to includean institutional membership thatwill allow an agency or business todesignate specific individuals asmembers.

This increase in dues request isbecause of increases in the cost ofthe publication of this newsletter.Paper costs and postage have risenquite a bit since we raised our duesback in 1988 to $15. I know that

people read it and enjoy it andwant to keep publishing it, but.....

We are still one of the fewpurely volunteer organizations anddo not receive any outsidefunding. Our only source of fundsis through membership dues andmeeting registrations. The Centerfor Environmental Studiesprovides a lot of my time that isdevoted to the Council and that isgreatly appreciated. All of thefunds that we do receive are usedto produce the newsletters and factsheets, and conduct the AnnualMeeting and the Fall CampoutGet-Together.

Since we will be raising thedues it is an ideal time to pleaserenew at the $15 rate before it

increases. Also, if dues are notpaid this year you will no longerreceive this newsletter. So checkyour address on the newsletter. Ifit says Please Renew, 12/2001, oranything other than 12/2002,12/2003, etc., you need to renew.Send your check made out to theArizona Riparian Council to CindyZisner (address at end of news-letter). Please include your name,address, phone, fax, email, andhow you can help the Council. Ifthere isn’t any designation pleasecontact me at (480) 965-2490 [email protected] and I’llcheck the records for you.


LEGAL ISSUES OF CONCERNRichard Tiburcio Campbell, Law Offices of Withey, Tobin, Anderson & Morris, Phoenix

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF SUSTAINABLE RANGE STEWARDSHIP

On November 21, 2001, theArizona Supreme Courtheld that the Arizona State

Land Department (the Depart-ment) must consider restoration ofrange land as a legitimate use ofArizona school trust grazing land. Forest Guardians v. Wells, 34P.3d 364; 2001 Ariz. LEXIS 206(2001). As a result, State LandCommissioner Michael Anablemust now determine whetherForest Guardians’ highbids for a number of leaseson thousands of acres ofschool trust grazing land,made for the express purposeof rangeland restoration, are thebest use of the lands in regard tothe school trust and its benefic-iaries. If so, the Commissionermust accept the bids and issue theleases to Forest Guardians.

The events leading up to thisdecision involved ForestGuardians’ 1997 application for10-year leases of school trustgrazing land in Coconino County,Santa Cruz County, and PinalCounty. In Coconino County, onerancher applied to renew a lease tograze 85 head of cattle on 5,000acres for $2,150. ForestGuardians’s bid offer was nearlytwice the amount.1 In Santa CruzCounty, Forest Guardians’ bid wasfive times as high as the renewalbidder’s offer of $50.16 per yearfor 162 acres of State-classifiedgrazing land.2 At no time didForest Guardian express an intentto actually graze livestock on anyof the state trust grazing lands. Rather, Forest Guardians proposedto “rest” the property from what itclaimed was overgrazing, “thusmaking it more valuable for futuregrazing.” Relying on the state andfederal statutes controllingadministration of the trust, theDepartment rejected the bidsbecause they failed to demonstratean intent to use the lands for the

purpose for which they wereclassified. The Departmentadvised Forest Guardians to applyfor a reclassification of the landsto “commercial use” (the Depart-ment argued commercial useencompassed restoration use) andthen bid for them. Forest Guard-ians refused to do so, citing thehigher cost of leasing commercialuse lands, and the case ultimately

ended up before theSupreme Court onappeal, with ForestGuardians repre-

sented by the ArizonaCenter for Law in the

Public Interest.The Court’s resolution of

the issue required a review ofthe federal and state statutes

controlling administration of theschool trust. The federal Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act (theEnabling Act), passed byCongress in 1910, authorized theformation of state governments inthe Arizona and New Mexicoterritories. By the Enabling Act,Congress granted Arizona 10million acres of land to be held intrust for the support of the State’sschools.3 Thus, the Departmentholds title to such lands as aTrustee. The Arizona ConstitutionArticle X, §§ 1-11 incorporates theEnabling Act into state law.

The Enabling Act requires thatall dispositions of trust land (bysale or lease) be made for not lessthan fair value. Trust lands may beleased for a 10-year term withoutprior advertisement and publicauction pursuant to a 1950 amend-ment to the Arizona Constitution. However, all leases of trustland require that anapplication be filed.4Once the application isreceived, theDepartment reviewswhether the propertyhas been classified for a

use consistent with the application.If not, the application is rejected,which is what the Department didwith Forest Guardian’s applicationafter deciding that its bid for “non-use” of the land was inconsistentwith the land’s classification asgrazing land.5

The Supreme Court disagreedwith the Department’s decision fora number of reasons. First, theCourt found that Forest Guardianswas not seeking to change thelong-term use of the land fromgrazing to commercial use, thus itsapplication was not inconsistentwith the Department’s classifica-tion of the lands in question forgrazing purposes. The Court alsofound that conservation andrestoration did not conflict withgrazing use in general. Particularlypersuasive to the Court was ForestGuardians’ testimony and photo-graphs of over-grazed school trustland (referred to as “moonscapes”by Forest Guardians). The evi-dence appeared to convince theCourt that resting this land for aperiod of years, coupled withrestoration activity (i.e., fencingoff the land to livestock, humanaccess, tree planting), was to thelong-term benefit of future grazinglessees.6

The Department countered thatForest Guardians was simplytrying to obtain the land at agrazing rate when non-use couldcommand a higher rate if leased atcommercial rates.7 However, theCourt found this argument incon-sistent with the Department’sadoption of regulations permittinga grazing lessee to apply for a non-

use permit in order to restthe land.8 Moreover, theCourt found nothing inthe Department’s

definition of commercial useto suggest it encompassedconservation and restoration Cont. pg. 14 . . . . . . . . . Legal


NOTEWORTHY PUBLICATIONSJere Boudell, Department of Plant Biology, Arizona State University

Horton, J. L., Kolb, T. E., and S.C. Hart. 2001. Physiologicalresponse to groundwaterdepth varies among speciesand with river flow regulation.Ecological Applications11(4):1046-1059.Woody species in Southwestern

riparian ecosystems are oftenphreatophytic. Trees such asPopulus fremontii and Salixgooddingii need to stay in contactwith groundwater or suffer die-back and eventual death. To main-tain communities containing thesetrees, depth to groundwater mustnot exceed root depth. The inva-sive exotic Tamarix chinensis hasbeen described as drought tolerantbecause it is able to exist in areaswith greater depth to groundwater.This exotic has been found toestablish in riparian areas thathave experienced a disturbance inthe natural hydrologic regime.

Horton et al. investigated thephysiological condition of P.fremontii, S. gooddingii, and T.chinensis at sites along a watergradient of the dam-regulated BillWilliams River at the BillWilliams River National WildlifeRefuge in La Paz County andalong the Hassayampa River at theHassayampa River Preserve inMaricopa County. They selectedseven transect sites along a losingreach at each river with site con-ditions ranging from perennial toephemeral flow. Physiologicalmeasurements were collectedmonthly from June-August in1997. Shoot water potential ofterminal twigs was measuredbefore dawn, at mid-morning, andat mid-afternoon. Leaf gasexchange of water vapor and CO2was measured at mid-morning andmid-afternoon. Before leafsenescence occurred, crowndieback was measured. Thephysiological characteristics ofleaves and the canopy condition of

each species were related to depthto groundwater (DGW).

Extremely dry conditionsoccurred during the summer thephysiological measurements werecollected. However, a markeddifference in DGW and surfaceflow occurred at each site. Adecrease in groundwater led to adecrease in water potential thatultimately led to increased canopydieback and mortality in both P.fremontii and S. gooddingii. Thismortality occurred when DGWincreased above the 2.5-3 m range. However, T. chinensis did notexperience mortality, but somewater stress was detected. P.fremontii was more tolerant than S.gooddingii to increased DGW. Horton et al. were not able todetect differences between riversin tree tolerance to increasedDGW due to the presence ofconsistently shallow groundwaterat the Bill Williams River duringthe time of study.

Horton et al. discuss the man-agement implications of the resultsof their investigation. Altering theflow regime so that is out of syncwith the timing of P. fremontiidispersal and in sync with thedispersal characteristics of T.chinensis supports the establish-ment of T. chinensis in alteredriparian ecosystems. Due to char-acteristics of T. chinensis such asthe ability to tolerate greater DGWit will become more competitivethan P. fremontii and S.gooddingii in these altered sys-tems. Horton et al. suggest thatalthough river impoundment bydams does change the hydrologicregime of a river, perhaps it is thetiming of flow releases from thedam that contributes to the degrad-ation of riparian ecosystems.

George, T. L., and S. Zack. 2001.Spatial and temporal consider-ations in restoring habitat for

wildlife. Restoration Ecology9(3):272-279.

Spatial hierarchal scalesinfluence habitat selection. Often,investigations focus on the smallerscale habitat characteristics ratherthan the larger characteristics. Both the larger and smaller scalehabitat characteristics affecthabitat selection by wildlife. Tosuccessfully restore wildlife habi-tat it is necessary to be mindful ofthis hierarchy.

George and Zack discuss hier-archal theory and habitat selectionin their paper. The four mainscales that affect habitat selectionare regional, landscape, micro-,and macrohabitat scales. Habitatselection may vary both spatiallyand temporally. For example, in arelatively short time habitatselection may change in responseto food availability, but regionalselection is relatively stable overtime. The larger-scale factors suchas region or landscape limit thelower-scale factors such asforaging site. If the landscapescale is not appropriate, then theanimal will not select a foragingsite within the landscape even ifthe appropriate food is present. The authors suggest that restora-tion planners keep these rules inmind when planning a project.

Regional factors such as habitatloss and fragmentation will affectthe distribution of wildlife. As anexample, the authors discuss whywolves are not found in areas withhigher road densities, but arefound in areas with lower roaddensities. Landscape characteris-tics such as size, shape, and juxta-position of patches also affect thedistribution and abundance ofwildlife. George and Zack discussthe habitat selection preferences ofbirds such as Seiurus aurocapillus,which are not found in habitatssmaller than 3 ha. Macro- andmicrohabitat characteristics affect


habitat selection. It is at this scalethat many habitat selection investi-gations have been conducted.Characteristics such as vegetationstructure and composition, topo-graphic features, and specifichabitat elements of particular

species are known to affect habitatselection. Finally, the authorsmention that restored habitatsmust be self-sustaining forlong-term restoration of wildlife.

In conclusion, George and Zacksuggest that restoration practi-

tioners be mindful of the inter-action of regional and landscapecharacteristics as well as micro-and macrohabitat characteristicsfor successful long-term restora-tion of wildlife.

Legal . . . . . . . Cont. from pg. 12

uses, which brought into doubt theDepartment’s advice to ForestGuardians to request areclassification of the lands inquestion.9 Furthermore, the Courtopenly questioned the policywisdom of reclassifying thegrazing lands for commercial use. “[T]he lands in question are farfrom having any use as sites for aNeiman-Marcus, a Wal-Mart, or aski resort.”10

Significantly, the Court notedthat its decision only required theDepartment, pursuant to itsfiduciary duty to the Trust, to“consider” the Plaintiffs bids.11 “We are mindful that the high bidis not necessarily the best bid.”12 However, in the Court’s opinion,the Department’s “refusal to evenconsider whether Plaintiffs’ offerswere in the best interests of thetrust was a clear violation of thefiduciary duties imposed by thestate constitution.”13

This case is significant for anumber of reasons, not least ofwhich is the fact that many of thegrazing leases that the Depart-ment’s Natural ResourcesDivision’s Range Section admin-isters are expiring, and grazingleases account for 7,433,000 acresof school trust land in Arizona.14 (The date and location of expiringgrazing leases can be viewed on aCounty-by-County basis on theDepartment’s website athttp://www.land.state.az.us). Byone estimate, 497 grazing leases inPima County covering 205,068acres will expire in 2002.15 ForestGuardians reportedly has $50,000committed toward leasing statetrust grazing lands that encompass“biological hot spots.”16 Moreover,

the case comes on the heels ofsimilar attempts by conservationgroups to bid for grazing leases onstate lands in other Western states,including New Mexico17 andIdaho18. Whether thesecircumstances could influencefederal public lands grazingpolicy, where no auctions are heldand fees are uniform, is an openquestion.

LITERATURE CITED1.2001 Ariz. LEXIS 206 at *3.2.Id. at *4.3. Today the Trust controls

approximately 9.4 millionacres which represents thirteenpercent of all the land inArizona according to theArizona State LandDepartment website:http://www.land.state.az.us/asld/htmls/aboutsld.html.

4. Arizona Revised StatuteSection 37-281.

5. 2001 Ariz. LEXIS at *16.6. Id. at *17-18.7. Id. at *18-19.8. Id. at *18, citing Arizona

Administrative Code R12-5-70(O).

9. Id. at *17.10. Id. at *17.11. Id. at *27.12. Id., citing Havasu Heights

Ranch & Dev. Corps. v. DesertValley Wood Prod., Inc., 167Ariz. 383, 392, 807 P.2d 1119,1128 (App. 1990)(“The ‘bestinterest’ standard does notrequire blind adherence.”).

13. 2001 Ariz. LEXIS at *24.14. Arizona State Land

Department 1999-2000 annualreport, cited in the ArizonaEducation Association’s amicusbrief in this case.

15. Mitch Tobin, “Giving Cattlethe Boot,” Arizona Daily Star(December 14, 2001).

16. Id.17. In New Mexico, Forest

Guardians also attempted tolease school trust grazing lands,as well as challenge the NewMexico State Land Depart-ment’s administration of thetrust. In Forest Guardians v.Powell, 24 P.3d 803 (App.2001), the state court held thatonly the state’s AttorneyGeneral, or the federal AttorneyGeneral, had the “standing” tochallenge the enforcement of thetrust. Thus, plaintiffs (ForestGuardians and individual NewMexico schoolchildren) attemptto sue to enforce the Trust in amore environmentally friendlymanner was denied. Moreover,unlike in Arizona, the plaintiffsfailed to appeal the denial ofNew Mexico State Land Depart-ment’s lease applications.

18. Idaho Watersheds Project v.State Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 128Idaho 761 (1996).


The Arizona Riparian Council (ARC) wasformed in 1986 as a result of the increasingconcern over the alarming rate of loss ofArizona’s riparian areas. It is estimated that<10% of Arizona’s original riparian acreageremains in its natural form. These habitats areconsidered Arizona’s most rare naturalcommunities.

The purpose of the Council is to provide forthe exchange of information on the status,protection, and management of riparian systemsin Arizona. The term “riparian” is intended toinclude vegetation, habitats, or ecosystems thatare associated with bodies of water (streams orlakes) or are dependent on the existence ofperennial or ephemeral surface or subsurfacewater drainage. Any person or organizationinterested in the management, protection, orscientific study of riparian systems, or somerelated phase of riparian conservation is eligiblefor membership. Annual dues (January-December) are $15. Additional contributions aregratefully accepted.

This newsletter is published three times a yearto communicate current events, issues,problems, and progress involving ripariansystems, to inform members about Councilbusiness, and to provide a forum for you toexpress your views or news about ripariantopics. The next issue will be mailed in May, thedeadline for submittal of articles is April15,2002. Please call or write with suggestions,publications for review, announcements,articles, and/or illustrations.

Paul C. MarshDepartment of Biology

Arizona State UniversityPO Box 871501

Tempe, AZ 85287-1501(480) 965-2977; FAX (480) 965-2519

[email protected]

Cindy D. ZisnerCenter for Environmental Studies

Arizona State UniversityPO Box 873211

Tempe AZ 85287-3211(480) 965-2490; FAX (480) 965-8087

[email protected]

The Arizona Riparian Council

OfficersKris Randall, President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 207-4509

[email protected] Johnson, Vice President . . . . . . . . . . (602) 225-5255

jjohnson/[email protected] Zisner, Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (480) 965-2490

[email protected] Pinto, Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 506-8127

[email protected]

At-Large Board Members

Matt Chew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] Fonseca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (520) 740-6350

[email protected] Held . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 417-2400 X7012

[email protected]

Committee Chairs

Classification/InventoryRoy Jemison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (505) 766-2017

[email protected]

Cindy Zisner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (480) 965-2490Land Use

Marty Jakle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 640-2720Protection/Enhancement

Kris Randall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 207-4509Bill Werner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 789-3607

[email protected] Resources

Julie Stromberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (480) [email protected]


CALENDAR

Water Resources and Sustaining Riparian Areas, April 26-27, 2002, Wickenburg,AZ. Arizona Riparian Council 16th Annual Meeting. Call for papers deadline March 22,2002. Contact Cindy Zisner, (480) 965-2490 or [email protected] for moreinformation.

Incredible Rivers, Incredible Demands, May 1-4, 2002, Boise, ID. RiverManagement Society meeting. Contact (406) 549-0514 or [email protected] more information.

Meeting Resource Management Needs, Fourth Conference on Research andResource Management in the Southwestern Deserts, May 15-17, 2002, Tucson, AZ. Call for papers deadline January 14, 2002. Contact Bill Halvorson, (520) 670-6885 [email protected] for more information.

Scientific Issues Related to Management of Landfills in Arid and Semi-AridRegions, June 7, 2002, Tucson, AZ. Meeting of the Arizona Hydrological Society.Call for abstracts. Visit their website for more information at www.azhyydrosoc.org.

BT5 1005Center for Environmental StudiesArizona Riparian CouncilArizona State UniversityPO Box 873211Tempe, AZ 85287-3211

Printed on recycled paper

reclamation and riparian: the odd couple?

Documents