Range Animal Science Department Sul Ross State University Alpine, Texas August, 1981

THE HISTORICAL VEGETATIVE ASPECT OF

FORT DAVIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

TEXAS

Prepared by:

Dr. James T. Nelson

Range Animal Science Department

Sul Ross State University Alpine, Texas August, 1981

~?; Wdlo, l5r*t DaY11 Nat10nal Hllto~10 Iitl

/ Abstract

As a basis for formulating a vegetative management program at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, a study was undertaken in the summer of 1981 to determine the historic vegetation scene of the mid to late 19th century period. The vegetative scene in 19 existing historic photographs was compared to that in modern photographs taken in the same locations. In addition to photographic analysis, use was made of botanical information in the historic literature, and data from on-site vegetation sampling was used to compare the present species composition with that of potential climax as described by the Soil Conservation Service range condition guidelines.

Present species composition indicates a moderate departure from climax due to an increase of blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and several brush species - mostly catclaw mimosa

(Himosa biuhicifera) . 60-70% of the species reported in the historical literature are listed today on the present species lists for Fort Davis National Historic Site and the Davis

Mountains State Park. Photographic analysis indicates that the basic distribution of major vegetatibn types today is very similar to that of 100 years ago, with some notable exceptions. Grassland areas have decreased by about 7% while brush areas have increased. Brush (catclaw) density has increased from light to heavy concentrations. Mesquite, not mentioned in the historic literature or noticable in historic photos, is prominent today. In some areas tree density (oak and juniper) has increased (on cliffs) while in others it has decreased (flat-lands). Several historic trees were identified.

Management recommendations were made to preserve historic trees and to selectively reduce brush by physical and/or chemical means.

.. ';;j' "

Table of Contents

Pg. No. Abs tract

Introduction...... , 1 The Area To day...... 2 Relief & Topography...... 2 Climate...... 2 Soils...... 2 Vegetation 4

I Methods...... 5 Paired Photographic Analysis...... 5 Review of Historic Literature. 6

I Vegetative Sampling 0 . . 0 . 0 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 .. 7 Vegetation Map...... 0.000.0.....0.0.0...... 0.O. 9 Results and Discussion.. .0 to, 0 . 000000000...... 0.0 9

On Site Vegetation Sampling 00.0.00...0...0.0000..0.0 9 I Loamy Site o. 0..0000..0...000..0.0.000000..0...... 0 10 Gravelly Site . 0 0 0 . . .0...... 0 . 0 0 . O...... 0 . . 00. 10 Draw Site. 00 o. 00.0 o' . . 0 0 to. 0 0 . . 0 . 00. . 0 . 0 ...... 0 o. 12 I I Igneous Hill and Mountain Range Sites.. . . . 0 . . . 0 . 0 0 12 Permanent Sampling Points 0"0", 0.000.0000 , 0 0" 13 Historical Literature 0 to O' '0 0'00 0'" o' 0"0 o. 0...0." I 14 Climate. .00...0.000.00.00..0....00.0.000...... 14 Vegetation 00....00.00.0.0000...0.000.0...000000... 15 I PhotographicAnalysis 0.0. 00"0"000' 0.00.0..0".0.0. 22 VegetativeType Distribution 0 0 "0 0 0.. 00 0 O. 65 Present Type Distribution 0 . . . . . 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 . . . .. 65 I Distribution of 1880 Period... 0..000...... 0..0..00 66

Conclusions 0.. 0.0...0...0..000..0...... 0...0..0 69 Management Recommendations.. 000.0.000...... 00...... 0 75 Literature Cited.. 000...0.0....0...... 00000...0..0.0.. 84 Appendix 00...00.000.00..0.....0..0..000.....0...... 86 -~

List of Tables

Pg. No. Table 1. Percent Frequency Composition of 4 Range Sites on the Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, June, 1981 11

Table 2. Plant Species Reported by Havard Around Fort Davis, Texas in 1885 '0' ' 17 Table 3. Plant Species Reported by Nealley Around Fort Davis, Texas in 1888 ... 20 Table 4. Percentage Area of Vegetation Types Today Compared with Area of Vegetation Types of the 1880-1900 Period, Fort Davis National Historic Si te, Texas. o. 0...... 0...... 68 Appendix

Table 1. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point #1, (Mu) , Loamy Site 87

Table 2. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation

Point #2 (SmB) , Gravelly Site 0 . . . 0.. 88 Table 3. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point #3 (Ga) , Draw Site. 0" 89

Table 4. Species, Diameter and Estimated Age From Core Borings of Historic Trees. . . .. 90

Table 5. Category 1 and 2 Species and Their Status at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas..,.,.., , 91

Table 6. Plant Species Found at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, W Previously not Documented. ...,.,., 92 ..-

List of Figures

Pg. No. Figure 1. Historic Photograph JB-42 (Late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 24

Figure 2. Historic Photograph JB-43 (Late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 26

Figure 3. Historic Photograph AB-6 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 28

Figure 4. Historic Photograph HG-4/6 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 30 Figure 5. Historic Photograph HG-3 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 32

Figure 6. Historic Photograph AB-15 (1889) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 34

Figure 7. Historic Photograph AB-11 (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 36

Figure 8. Historic Photograph BA-4 (1889) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 39

Figure 9. Historic Photograph HG-14 (1886) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 42 'I .. Figure 10. Historic Photograph HG-8 (1888) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas 44

Figure 11. Historic Photograph HG-10 (1871) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas 46

Figure 12. Historic Photograph HG-21 (1887) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas 48 t

Figure 13. Historic Photograph HC-27 (1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 51

Figure 14. Historic Photograph HG-16 (1887) and ~I its modern counterpart (June, 1981), 'I Fort Davis, Texas 53 Ii Figure 15. Historic Photograph AB-14 (1886) and 1(1 its modern counterpart (June, 1981), I," Fort Davis, Texas 55 I'; i Figure 16. Historic Photograph AB-16 (1891) and i.' Ili ii ! . its modern counterpart (June, 1981), " I Fort Davis, Texas 57 II:f:

~j '; Figure 17. Historic Photograph AB-18 (1880's) and ,' .I its modern counterpart (June, 1981), ~'I i III I Fort Davis, Texas 59 ,"I I ,~ Figure 18. Historic Photograph AB-4 (Hid 1880's) I t and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 61 111"I

['III: Figure 19. Historic Photograph HD-31 (1880's) and its modern.counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas, 63

Appendix

Figure 1. Range Soil Sites, F.D.N.H.S., TX.

Figure 2. Vegetation Types, 1981, F.D.N.H.S., TX.

Figure 3. Vegetation Types, 1880-1900, F.D.N.H.S., TX.

Figure 4. Historical Photo Point Locations, F.D.N.H.S., TX.

l1li "T'

~ I ~ Introduction

! I I I r',i Fort Davis National Historic Site was established by '.1 congress in 1961 to protect and preserve the historic

I ' resource existant in the ruins of Fort Davis, a U.S. Army I Ii' I' : post established in 1854 and abandoned in 1891. The post has been partially reconstructed by the National Park Service II' to present to the public an accurate historical view of the ji" fort as it existed in the 1880-1891 period - the height of I" l' wI' physical development of old Fort Davis. One important 111,t,

'L,h aspect of maintaining an accurate historical image is the ~.'1" maintenance of historically accurate surroundings- a part i~11 I~ I1 of which includes vegetation management. ', ~I, In many parts of Texas and the southwest vegetation . ~ii is believed to have changed drastically in the past century .

Grasslands have diminished while deserts, shrub-lands and ~II juniper woodlands have increased in area. Iii 1

I' The purpose of this investigation was to document the

I i~ historic (mid to late 19th century) vegetation of the monument and to make recommendations on how to best maintain n~

or restore the historic scene. Documentation was based on ! the use of paired historic and modern photographs, vegetation sampling, and a search of historic vegetational information

in literature.

------..- 2

The Area Today

Relief & Topography

Fort Davis lies in the Davis Mountains of Jeff Davis ft county, Texas at an elevation of 4,880 feet. The surrounding cliffs and hills rise to approximately 340 feet above the ~ " fort grounds (maximum elevation = 5220) and Limpia Creek

flows eastward and northward along the site's northern II boundary. IJ!n.II

II' Clima te , I II ! Climate of the Fort Davis area can be described as II )I I '" ,II: ; ! II' , generally dry and mild. Prolonged periods below freezing or ilill" . above lOOoF are rare. Winter mean daily minimum temperatures il! ' "'I

I average 370 while summer mean daily maximum temperatures ~ !,- : ,,,'

;1 t average 880. Relative humidity averages about 40% at mid-day. il'" ~ '! 1 il 1 Yearly precipitation averages 14,64 inches, almost 12 , 'I . inches of which may be expected to fall between May 1st and I ~ I' October 31st. February is the driest month (0.40 inches) and I Ii ,\ ,~

July is the wettest (2.58 inches). Summer precipitation is I

:1 in the form of intense, short duration thunder storms while spring or fall rains are more often less intense, 1 or 2 day rainy periods (U.S .D.A., S.C.S., 1977),

Soils

Four soil range sites have been mapped by the Soil

Conservation Service (U.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1977) on the Fort III II

,11 i~

Davis Monument (Fig. 1, App.) Most of the fort structure

lies on a deep upland (or loamy) range site. This site is defined as a flat to concave valley plane with a 0-3% slope.

Soils are predominantly of the Musquiz association, over 20"

deep with low erosion hazard and high water availability. I

Most of the hospital canyon floor lies in a draw range I !~ site. Soils here are deep, well drained non-calcareous loams

of the Gageby association. The canyon is long and narrow "~I

. !~;" 'il:

with run-in water from adjacent steep slopes providing soil !j

moisture and washing fine soil materials into the canyon !) i

l ',1 1 ;

,1 lll floor. . '' . . dl.

l At the foot of the canyon walls lies a narrow band I.tl:

of gravelly loam on gentle convex slopes of 1-5%. This zone i~II: is known as the gravelly range site and consists about half and half of Santo tomas gravelly loam and Medley loam. Fine material is washed out of these soils into the flats below.

Most of the higher canyon walls and hill-tops consist

of 50-90% rock outcrop and 10-40% Brewster association soils.

At the western edge of the monument property is a hill I consisting of rock outcrops, Mainstay and Livingston soils.

These areas are known as Igneous mountain range sites. The

soils range from very shallow to deep (pockets) and are gravelly to cobbelly in texture.

i. ~I:,

r "I "

i ,J I 8lJ 4

Vegetation

The vegetation of the Davis Mountains region has been variously described as the Pinyon/Juniper Ecosystem (U.S.F.S.,

1977), the Quercus/Juniperus Phytocoenose (Kuchler, 1964), the Woodland Climax and Desert Plains Climax (Clements, 1938) and the Encinal and Bouteloua gracilis Provinces (Daubenmire,

1978) . The U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service in Texas divides this area into two vegetative zones - the mountain grassland (or mixed prairie) and, in areas of more tree growth, the mountain savannah.

Tree growth consists of mixed stands of gray oak

(Quercus grisea), Emory oak (Quercus emoryi), alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana), and red-berry juniper (J1.!!liJ)erus

Einchot i) . Along creek banks, Rio Grande cottonwood (Populus wis1izenii) is cornmon. At high elevations ponderosa pine

(Pinus ponderosa) occurs, but is not present on the Fort

Davis Monument.

Common shrubs are the evergreen, littleleaf and skunkbush

sumacs (Rhus virens, ~. micr

Texas mountain laurel (Sophora secundiflora), catclaw (Mimosa biuncifera and Acacia spp,), Mormon tea (EEhedra trifurca), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and algarita (Berberis

trifoliata) . Threadleaf groundsel (Senecio longilobus) and

broom snakeweed (Xanthocephalum sarothrae), both half-shrubs,

are found scattered or in dense patches throughout the area.

I Ii a " 5

Sotol (Dasylirion wheeleri) occurs on rocky slopes and beargrass (Nolina erumpehs) is evident on hills. Various species t' I of pricklypear cactus (Q£~~tia spp.) are scattered on most .1 III ! topographic positions.

The most common grass present is blue grama (Bouteloua

gracilis) . Other gramas present include sideoats (~. curtipendula), black (B. eriopoda), hairy (~. hirsuta), and sprucetop (~. chondrosoides). Tall grasses such as cane bluestem (Bothriochloa barbinodis), little bluestem

(Sehizachyrium scoparium), bull muhly (Muhlenbhergia emerslyi), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), and tanglehead

(Hetero~on contorta) are found on well drained sites throughout the area. Several species of three-awns (Aristida I~ spp.) are found with gramas, and alkali sacaton (~orobolus \1 airoides) is found in creek bottoms. II:~ I Forbs are abundant and usually green up and flower in spring and late winter before the grass. The variety of topographic positions, and the mixture of desert, montane "i ~d grassland formations has produced a rich floral diversity in the Davis Mountains.

Methods

Paired Photographic Analysis

Documentation of historic vegetation and vegetation

changes was based primarily on the use of historic photographs 6 IId existing in the monument records. Photographs of the l875-~900 ~ period were seldom taken to document vegetation, but to \ I' I, document physical structures and people. For this study, 5 'I! I photographs were selected that showed vegetation in the foreground and/or background. The field locatiQn of the ~, photograph was identified by the shape of rocks and hills and I every effort was made to find its exact location and to I, ;~ r!'l frame the new photograph exactly as .the old. Black and t" , white and color photos were taken in the field, and a set 1 " ~. j\ \1: of color slides was copied from the color photos. New ,II: .' I' , prints were made of historic photos. Illin \,i Visual analysis of the paired photos indicated changes ~,[I 11 in brush density and distributien, general grass cover and tree growth patterns. In addition to photographs, some II: I,:

1 J l' general observations were made from a series of paintings 1 I" l of the first Fort Davis (1854-1860) done by Capt. Arthur T. !:i Lee, 8th U.S. Infantry (Thomas, 1976). I , I j ' " ! 'j " Review of Historic Literature I' ,,i I II Several references were found of early explorations and 'I .~ I,i I botanical studies in West Texas. , '. Emory (1857) made general 'i ( observations in the area during the boUndary survey. Havard !~~," 'j 'i i , ; (1885) and Nealley (1888) made specific botanical observations , I at Fort Davis and listed some of the most prevalent species. ,I~". Their observations are compared to present species lists for IIi

III

7 , II; ' i 'II Fort Davis National Historic Site and the Davis Mountains State

Park.

I Vegeta.tive Samplihg

One permanent vegetation sampling point was located in each of the three range sites occurring on the flat lands of the fort property (Draw, loamy and gravelly sites). Locations are indicated on the aerial photo in rear map

pocket. A bent iron bar was driven into the ground and marked tl

: Ij with an identification tag (a steel washer) marked F.D., 1981 III f II V (number). From this center stake 3-100 foot sample lines I:'!I~ were run in recorded directions. A large spike was driven ft into the ground at the 50 foot and 100 foot points on each i: :j line for future location. Line intercept of all shrubs

I I and cacti was recorded, and density of the same was counted

I 'Ii,! in a belt of 2% feet on each side of the line (500 square foot

, belt transect). A one foot by two foot quadrat was laid

I across the line at the loft, 25ft, 50ft, 70ft, and 95ft points, I quadrat numbers 1-5 on line 1, 6-10 on line 2, and 11-15 on

line 3.

Percent cover of all vegetation rooted within the I'll quadrat was estimated. A photograph .(slide) was taken of

each line at each site. Line compass directions are indi-

cated on data sheets (Tables 1-3, App.).

A frequency transect (200 points) was paced across each

, " ~u u_--~------" - 8

If of the 5 sites occurring on the Fort property. Percent II composition of grasses, shrubs and cacti was recorded by

species. Forbs were recorded as annual or perennial forb. I' Vegetation sampling was conducted not only to describe present species composition, but to indicate possible departure of the community from potential climax. As a

guide to measuring this departure, present species composition was compared with Soil ConservationService '1

I I range site (vegetation type) descriptions of excellent or climax conditIDons for each site. Under this rationale, 1(1 rangeland at or close to climax is considered to be in

excellent condition. Departure, or retrogression away from

I , climax brings the site into a poorer condition class. I;

I In many cases what is considered to be climax or II

:1 excellent condition may be biased by what is considered to be 'I I"1 I the best native forage plants. Only long term records of a I II vegetative stand can indicate true original vegetation.

i Nevertheless, certain species are known to be decreasers ., or increasers or invadersunder grazing pressure, and a scarcity of the former along with an overabundance of the " latter should indicate disturbance and probable departure I II from original vegetation. This analysis is not meant to be

a principle basis for describing vegetation change, but only to be used as supplementary information.

II1

'I,

,II

I -' --- . ~.- ,. ., . ---'_C--. -. .~._- ..----- . _. -~ t-

Vegetation Map

A map showing distribution of present vegetation was constructed from a field reconnaissance. Broad vegetative types were identified. A second map has been constructed to show the probable distribution of vegetation types during the 1880-1890 period, This map represents a synthesis of information derived from photographic analysis, literature review and range trend data. The maps are printed on clear " mylar and can be used in conjunction with the aerial photo in the back cover map pocket. "i

Results'and Discussion 1111

On Site Vegetation Sampling

Results of on site vegetation sampling will be considered 1 : i: by range site, results being compared to potential climax 'j. 1 ,. I as described by the Soil Conservation Service range site descriptions. Percent composition of climax vegetation is described by the S.C.S. in terms of weight of herbage present.

-I I, Tall grasses such as sideoats grama or the bluestems will weigh more per unit area on the ground than a low growing

species such as blue grama. Blue grama will be favored in

any sampling scheme other than weight estimation. Admittedly,

the pace transect favors blue grama against taller grass

forms, and this must be kept in mind when interpreting the

following results. Percent frequency of the tall grass

. . -- 'u n._.._------I!'.,. " I

I ill'l

10 I

forms should be weighted 2 or 3 times more heavily than ~ III i 11111 I indicated by simple point transect.

III 1

II II: Loamy Site

This site should consist of about 35% blue grama,

20% side-oats grama, 10% cane bluestem, 5% black grama, 5%

Arizona cottontop (Digitaria californica), about 19% other

perennial grasses, 5% forbs and 1% woody species. The ~: frequency sampling indicates a lack of species diversity

;1 ! ,. i . I and an overabundance of blue grama (76% composition) even . I if one considers the tendency of point sampling ~o favor

blue grama (Table 1). There is strong indication here of I' ; range deterioration (departure from climax) probably caused

by past over-use causing the increase in blue grama. "11 ,I

'II Gravelly Site I" I The climax plant community of the gravelly range

site should consist of about 15% side-oats grama, 15% black

grama, 15% blue grama, 10% cane bluestem, 10% perennial

three-awns, 25% other perennial grasses, 5% forbs, and 5%

woody vegetation. The point transect data again show a

predominance of blue grama, but not nearly. as extreme as

on the loamy site (Table 1). Species diversity is higher

and the general indication is that the community has regressed

from its climax condition only moderately. 11

Percent Frequency Composition of 4 Range Sites on the Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, June, 1981.

Percent Frequency Composition by Site

Igneous Hill -Draw Loamy Gravelly & Mountain Mbe--RoF blue grama 61 76 56 4 13 black gr ama 10 21 13 sideoats grama 5 10 18 L:. cane bluestem 5 9 4 9 Wrights three-awn 2 red three-awn 1 1 vine mes qui te 1 alkali sacaton 1 tanglehead 9 woolspike balsamscale 6 10 bull muhly 2 1 little bluestem 7 pine 0 muhly 2 leatherleafcroton 10 1 other perennial forb 15 12 8 12 11 threadleaf groundsel 1 3 2 7 5 honey mesquite 6 5 catclaw mimosa 1 12 bricklebush 2 broom snakeweed 1 2 little leaf sumac 1 trumpet flower 2 nolina 3 4 soapweedyucca 2 Engleman prickly pear 1 1 1 sotol 1 netleaf hackberry 1 gray oak 1 red berry juniper 1

.-- 12 I i I

II! I Draw Site

:1 I I The climax plant community of this site should be I

I I I grasses with an intermittent overs tory of shrubs and trees.

Composition should be 20% side-oats grama, 20% cane bluestem, 12% vine mesquite, 5% green sprangletop, 5% blue grama, 14% other grasses, 4% forbs and 20 % woody vegetation. Sampling indicates an overabundance of blue grama (Table

1) : Blue grama, side-oats grama and cane bluestem make up ~! the bulk of the grasses, but the former has increased at the "d j ' expense of the latter. Again, moderate departure from climax I ~ '1 I i .1I ~hl I is indicated. II'PI Mesquite is present on all sites, but most abundant ~I in the gravelly and draw sites. This sDecies is not mentioned by Lee, Emory, Havard or Neally as being present around Fort , Davis. The latter three authors do mention it as a major 'r part of the flora further east and south in Texas, however. I

The historical information tends to support the S.C.S.

~ I view that mesquite is an invader in the Davis Mountains.

Igenous Hill and Mountain Range Sites

Two of these sites exist on the monument - one (RoF)

in the mixed prairie or mountain grasslantl vegetation zone,

~d one (MbE) in the mountain savannah vegetation zone

(U. S .D. A., S. C .S ., 1977). The mountain savannah vegetative

zone is broken out on the basis of elevation (over 5,000 feet)

I' I~ ,If' ill I!I I 13 1,/ l 'li' 11i

I and the presence of a more uniform growth of oak and pinyon d

11 pine. This site (tfuE) , at the northwest end of the fort I property, does lie above 5,000 feet, but is not covered with oak or pine. In fact its aspect is more of a grassland type than is that of its counterpart (RoF) which is supposed to be in the mountain grassland zone. Hence, interpretation on the basis of S.C.S. criteria is more difficult.

Both of these sites should have a stronger percentage ~ of the mid and tall grasses than of blue grama, and sampling ~III; indicates that this is true (Table 1). Blue grama constitutes only 4 and 13 percent of the MbE and RoF sites respectively. II The major difference between the two areas is in the amount of catclaw present. 111' A uniform moderate cover of this species j! II exists on the RoF site (12 percent composition) but is almost ; i; , :~ absent from the MbE site. This indicates further departure I ,~ from climax on the former than on the latter site.

Permanent Sampling Points p

Raw and summarized data from the three permanent Ii I " . i I;' sampling points are presented in Tables.. 1, 2 and 3 in the '01 1 I1 III , I appendix. 111 11 The data generally support the conclusions drawn Iii i!1 from point sampling concerning species composition and Iii' I I relation of the sites to climax, i.e., the predominance of I I blue grama in the community. The sampling point in the Ga site however was located in a relatively open area, and II lil"l Ii I il', i1" .. J I

,'"

recorded densities and percent cover for brush are probably low for the site as a whole. Photographic evidence (slides~

of each line on each site, along with plot by plot percent

coyer records should proyide a baseline for future changes.

I' III Historical Literature

Climate

I~;III Palmer (1929) provides a summary of climatic data I fill. at Fort Davis from 1854-1920. Climatic data was recorded

at the post for the U.S. Weather Bureau. There were gaps vIII!

i in the available records, but indications are that from 1855 Irr" ,,".Ii

to 1887 average rainfall was 19.60 inches and 17.17 for the ~ ; 1

I 11 , , ,111 period 1855-1920 - several inches higher than that of today. /

1 13 I . ,':11 I Great variation in precipitation was evident. The year 'I, I,

1871 received only 6.78 inches while 27.54 inches fell iU

during 1881.

III A difference of 2 or 3 inches of precipitation per year

over a prolonged period of time could change the nature of I ~ vegetati ve cover. The desert scrub zone in Brewster County lies in the 8 inch zone, the desert grassland in the 11 inch ,,Iii ~pi ~ zone and the mixed prairie region within the 14 inch zone I I II , 1111 ro.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1977). ~ I I Long-time residents of the Fort Davis area state that

the Limpia ran much fuller years ago than it does today, III i! Iii ~d Havard (1888) described it as the major stream between i ~Ii \11

~Su. f/)\)~ ~hA~~;\t. - c..\~-.~ II~- N".."'n'LI-'O-\+h ,,, '1.1-1\-' iI r' ....

II !'

I I 15

I the Pecos River and El Paso, with clear swift brooks running

I into it. Capt. Arthur Lee (1855) described tulegrass lakes

) of the surrounding prairies, hatching places for waterfowl. These were probably wet playas and the tulegrass may have been alkali sacaton.

Vegetation 'I IIII Several descriptions of the vegetation around Fort

Davis from 1857 to 1888 are available. Capt. A. T. Lee,

looking back on his years at the post (prior to the civil i

I war) gives us a perhaps romanticized view of "a wide deep !

III, ~ i (canyon) carpeted with the richest verdure, overshadowed by I l I

I:j! ,r ,

'I live oak, its lofty and precipitous sides festooned with "; II 'r perennial vines, and mantled with moss and flowers..."

(Thomas, 1976). ~I 111 i:1, Emory (1857) describes the area between mountain ranges

J I; f as a dreary tract of dry prairies with innutritious grass

and dotted with yucca. ;Il' His chief botanist (Parry, C.C., 1859) II

mentioned emory oak and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) with an I;

I understory of wild grape (Vitis spp.) in the mountains, and

III

cottonwood and willow along the streams. 1.1

Havard (1885) gives a clearer description of the

vegetation around Fort Davis, Along the Limpia he reported

groves of cottonwood, willows (Salix spp.), oak and

hackberry (~el tis spp.). On the grounds at Fort Davis he " II: I! !II

I I [ specifically mentions desert willo\v (Chilopsis linearis) all II 1..1 ii' I 1[,

I:'

16 Ii growing around the parade ground. In the canyons and on the cliffs were frijolillo, or Texas mountain laurel, juniper, chokecherry (Pruhus spp.), madrone, thyrreleaf (Philadelphus serpyllifolius), cliff fenderbush (Fehdlera rupicola), littleleaf and skunkbush sumac, Gregg's acacia (Acacia greggii) and catclaw mimosa. Of 43 species listed by Havard,

29 species are reported today on either the Fort Davis National

Historic Site or on the adjoining Davis Mountains State Park

(Table 2). Several species listed by Havard are listed by Correll and Johnson for east Texas only, and might represent i~ mis-identification by Havard. Common also were the emory ili~ 'j and gray oak, in some places forming the ".. .main features '''I of the sylva." I! II

In 1888/ Nealley reported on the grasses of West Texas.

: I~ I:

Along the creeks alkali sacaton was abundant. All the I ill I creek valleys by this time were used as pasture, and he !I 1' ' reported large numbers of goats browsing on the cliffs and Ii It.1 'I " ' i hill-sides.

I II June must have been dry in 1888, as Nealley stated that I~ "The country all around Fort Davis looked very brown in I:

June; the high prairie almost destitute of vegetation, and on the steep slopes of the hills, no grass at all among the timber growths."

Nealley makes special mention of locoweed and its

II negative effect on livestock. , I

IiI~ I, Table 2. Plant Species Reported by Havard Around Fort Davis, Texas in 1885.

Known to be Present Today Family Species Fort Davis NHS Davis State Park Anacardaceae Rhus trilobata 1 (R. aromatica)~'" yes no Rhus virens yes yes Asclepiadaceae Asclepias longicornu yes (A. oenertheroides) Asclepias nummularia yesl Asclepias tuber osa nonOl yeslno Asclepias verticillata nol nol

Bigoniaceae Tecoma stans yes yes Boraginaceae Lithospermum cobrense nol nol Lithospermum multiflorum nol nol Cucurbitacea Cucurbita perennis (C. foetidissima) yes yes Ericaceae l1adrone (Arbutus texana) yes no Euphorbiaceae Croton spp. yes yes Fagaceae Quercus grisea yes yes Quercus emoryi yes yes Hydrophyllaceae Phacelia spp. yes yes

I--'

-....J

= =, == -~~=~-~--- """""-4 ~- -. .-. - ..- '- - =~- t --.;4A c------,- -,."-~. ~ -. ..=---=-=--- II ---~~ u~- ---~ 4 g

Leguminosaea (Fabaceae) Mimosa biuncifera yes yes Sophora secundiflora yes yes Acacia greggii no2 no2 Astragalus mollissimus yes yeT Astragalus nuttallianus nol no Chilopsis saligna (C. linearis) yes yes Colognia longilolia (C. angustifolia) nol yes Dalea aurea nol yes Dalea pogonathera nol nol Sophora secundiflora yes yes Liliaceae Nolina erumpens yes yes Loasaceae Mentzelia wrightii (11. reverchonii) nol nol

Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia spp. yes yes

Onagraceae Oenothera speciosa nol nol Oenothera triloba nol nol Oenothera primaveras nol nol

Pinaceae Juniperus occidental is (now recognized as J. pinchoti in Davis Mts.) yes yes Polemoniaceae Phlox nana nol nol

Rhamnaceae Adolphia infesta no yes

Rosaceae Prunus spp. yes yes

t-' 00

___0' ~- - =- - === =------~ -~-~ -~"'= -~~~- = --;..=.~- =-=. --- ~ ~ ~-- - ~ --~--- ~------""' - ...;: ;:;;==--- - -~ -- ~ Rubiaceae Bouvairdia hirtella (B. ternifolia) yes yes Rutaceae Thamnosa texana yes yes Saxifragaceae Fend1era rupico1a yes yes Phi1ade1phus serpy11ifo1ius no no

Scrophu1ariaceae Penstemon barbatus yes yes Penstemon fend1eri no1 yes Penstemon glaber no1 no1

Ulmaceae Celtis spp. yes yes

* Parenthesis indicates modern synonym (Correll and Johnson, 1970) 1 Indicates other species of genera listed.

2 Acacia greggii, listed by Havard, is not documented today on the National Monument or the State Park. Disappearance of this shrub does not seem logical. Misidentifica- tion by Havard is a possibility.

~ ~

---~. ~. "~~OO~~~-~~.~-~.- ~,--~ ~"'-_:':L-'- - ~--.=---=-:;--~~ -::::;;;.. ------..,.,. m_- - - - rr- I II II I

I ~r I 20 II

Table 3. Plant Species Reported by Nealley Around Fort Davis, Texas in 1888,

Known to be Present Today - Species Fort Davis NHS Davis State Pk II

~~dropogon cirratus (Schizachyrium cirratum)*,l no no

Andropogon hirtiflorus I (Schizachyrium hirtiflorum)1 no no Ii

Ii Andropogon saccharoides I Ii (Bothriochloa saccharoidesl barbinodis) yes yes

Astragalus mollissimus yes yes

Bouteloua eriopoda yes yes

Bouteloua havardii (Bouteloua chondrosoides) yes yes

Bouteloua hirsuta no yes

Bouteloua oligostachya iil1j (Bouteloua gracilis) yes yes w~ Bouteloua racemosa (Bouteloua curtipendula) yes yes

Chloris elegans (Chloris virgata) yes yes

Cynodon dactylon2 yes yes

Diplachne dubia (Leptochloa dubia) yes yes Elionurus candid us . (Elyonurus spp., barbiculmis) yes yes

I: " Epicampes distichophylla (Muhlenbergia longiligula) no no I~q ,.. Eragrostis lugens no no i. ...1 Eragrostis mexicanal no no !' I \I

i ~ [lr 111'1IiI l ~

I.L, 21

~:I ' yes yes I~i . 11 Heteropogon contortus 1 I! 1 !1 11 1\1 ' yes yes . ,1 m Muhlenbergia monticola ~' ' . '. I .tI. ;~t '..I Oryzopsis fimbriatis no jl. (Piptochaetium fibriatum)3 no il"

J?anicum bulbosum no no l

Panicum colonum " f11101 (Echinoch~oa colonum) yes yes Panicum obtusum yes yes

Poa andina (Poa arida) no no

Scleropogon karwinskianus (Scleropogon brevifolius) no no

Sorghum halapense2 yes yes

Sporobolus airoides yes no

Sporobolus cryptandrus yes yes

* Parentheses indicates new synonym (Hitchcock, 1950).

1 Indicates infrequent occurance in Trans-Pecos today (Correll and Johnson, 1970).

III 2 Indicates a naturalized species at Fort Davis in 1880's (Neal ley, 1888). 3 Indicates common occurance at high elevations in Davis Mountains (Warnock, 1977). I

ii 111," II 111I1

III "I saw in the Limpia region several specimens of the

remarkable loco weed (Astragalus mollissimus) . It appeared " much more common on the broad valleys than on the hill-sides.

Its direful effect on cattle and horses who taste it are

we 11 known. I heard of its having caused also the death of

many sheep, but no reports of goats being seriously affected. Ii I

It may be that they entirely avoid it. It is worth mentioning III

: Ii~

here that donkeys (Mexican burros) feed on the loco without jlll1i

any inj ury to them." ill;11Ii I On Nealley's return trip from El Paso in September, he !I III I ' i ~ ~ III, remarked on the greenness of the country, and decided that d I,j. ~ September was the best time to collect grasses here. Of n!lli 27 species reported by Nealley, 18 species were reported I " ;,' l today on either the Fort Davis Monument or the Davis 110untains Ij ;I J, ! i

State Park (Table 3). ~ ii' II' I

No plant species listed in the historic literature or II

II on present day species lists of Fort Davis National Historic II Site or Davis Mountains State Park is listed as rare or

endangered on the Federal Register (A.S.C., 1980). However,

one species occurring on the monument property, Bahia bigelovii

(Asteraceae), is listed by the U.S. Fish apd Wildlife Service I'"

as a category 2 plant, and several category 1 species are 111111:

II I i known from the Davis Mountains region but have not been docu- hi: " lii mented on the Historic Site. . Neither category at this time i

1 i

requires legal protection, but category 1 plants will be i:1 I i I

IH I' 111 Ii

II I I

H II

, I : I ., ' .1,I 23 P

listed as threatened/endangered in the future, and category 2 I I plants will undergo review (Table 5, App.).

Photographic Analysis j' iill i

Paired photos (1880's and 1980) are presented as a

figure with analysis and descriptions on the facing page.

Numbers referring to the historic photograph correspond to

the photo index at Fort Davis National Historic Site. ,. Information concerning the photographs (such as dates taken, ill: :11 source, etc.) are on record at Fort Davis. Comments on the I i I original photo are presented under "A", comments on the . '! I'; contemporary counterpart under "B". I!~ I :j 'I : ~ I Illi I : Locations of historic photograph points are indicated ..r I in Figure 4 of the Appendix. , ~ ifr.

II tlli

'I.

I .J IJit

II:! IIIM I! ! i Ii I H iIiI ~Ii !I Iii I

:1 ,1 1:, I, ,ii

I!!

Figure 1. Historic photograph JB-42 (late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas.

' 1 1 11"11

'f: I:

...... ~!t7,~ -~:r- -, '. ;;;; '" j-' -- -7---'\1'~-~ . ~ .,~. - <- ~' ~ '. .. -'. ~,;:;j' ~"" ~.II' ,.,. { ," !:\.~.,,:, " '"' .,~ .~ .~.:';;, '. I" ~ " '~',' or )«.,'l',j! . ...';; ~~ "',Ii. '" '" '~.~ " ~ ~ "",oa; .. i>c"" ~, '" .. ,i.Y"t' 'it"f'/:' " ~." I' . ~~\. ~.~ . f

l j~ ..

-= .",..-~ --- ~

- !ijIL

,I\ "

! I

,i I

Iii Figure 1. Historic photograph JB-42 (late 1890's) and. its modern counte~part (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas.

11\\ I This photo was taken from east of the present highway - II shortly after abandonment (late 1890's) and faces west

toward the fort. I

I'll

A) The foreground of this photo is clear, showing j,I a stand of mixed grasses and forbs. The growth pattern of grasses indicate a good deal of blue grama. The cottonwood i~1 i I ' ,I stand is full and mature, and one can see a wet site ~ 1 i I The I; \ extending north from the trees (center of photo). ' :; , 'j I~ I distant knob hill (arrow) located on the Fort property :'i !i, I' I'

! i 1'\ (MbE site) is clear with a ring of brush and/or trees around :1 II

I the top. I rI. 1,1:. B) The foreground today is an ungrazed mix of forbs, I , 11 I' sideoats grama, bluest em, blue grama and other grasses. An I \1 infestation of mesquite is evident just uphill from the I I r, house and the ornamental trees. The cottonwoods appear as an old, full stand. The knob-hill still appears basically

I\il clear on its side slope, but trees have moved up-slope and the 111,1 \ I ring of brush and trees around the top appear heavier. The I I, ' number of trees has increased, but the pattern on that hill Ii' , I' appears very similar to what it was in the 1890's. \ ; '\. n I I .

\II Il I' \I II

26 Iii!

, ~

iI~: !

Figure 2. Historic photograph JB-43 (late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June. 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. I

~ Ir n I['! I,:

II; I ! III i ILiI I

I Ii

:1 - I] 1 ]i i I

, II !II," ,~ I

"I, i' ~

J !!- ' '" ~- ,'''' c', ., .,.; it! " Y ,; '" ' ' ~- .i'." "'1:!'< ~, ~ ., ,", ~ ','"JoIt', -" 'f", . ftaij, , Iio., ;f.- i'~'~'~;'~ Ji..tt., ""S~j-:- ';"~ ;i' . .~ ~'... , q. >ij~,~~~;",,: :.>~ \< " ,i'I' ""~ ~., ". ,:m~,<; ;; . Ii, " ., "'.\ .. .. .~ . .."

I'''''~'~i'-, '''' '".- ...... , , "'~"-~"""~ ..,ii! ~~';l;;~~~--~: ';" ,,~ C"~' "'~ i '1'",,",,,~ ~," ~:L , , ,, ,, *s.;.~ ',:c:";",, , """", - ",--0.-:--,.., ",~-(O<"~ ~ , , ~:n i:!a~,'" '~. -- , .0' ''', '-' .. a" " "', . ~ €I

\ '

, ,I:! -- ,-- ---~-- j

- ~--

---" ~" ,- -- -~--- II

,1 1 'I

Figure 2. Historic photographJB...43 (late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas. :J

This photo was taken from about 200 feet north of the previous one at about the same period (late 1890's).

A) The appearance of the foreground is that of heavily grazed grama sod. There are scattered plants about a foot h' tall (also evident in JB-42) that have not been grazed down. ,U: " ""

These might be threadleaf groundsel. In this photo, a I.

I', distant, sloping and pointed hill (arrow) appears that was hidden by Sleeping Lion Mountain in JB-42. The hill has perhaps 5 trees visable while the adjacent open ridge to

the right has about 10 trees along its top. 1 Ii!

1 ~ I! B) The foreground with mesquite, and the cottonwood trees appear as in Figure 1. The top of the distant pointed hill is covered today with an open stand of trees (oak and

juniper) . The adjacent ridge still shows a line of trees along the top, but numbers have at least doubled. The general appearance of the hill and ridge is similar to what it was in the 1890's, but tree growth has definitely !II!:t IIII II increased. II ~I" it l }

i 1\ . ij "III

I; !

! ~I' IiI II:, ,I"~ IiIII,I J ! I

t,!Iii,

i I! I il ij I i Figure 3. Historic photographAB-6 (1875) .,l'. i and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) !" ,i ! '. Fort Davis, Texas. ,II

, ~

~. k I' ,

1111lilt --~ .~ ~ ~ -- -

,- ",---- - ."'< .

~I ' ~ II \'" .I ' :1

Figure 3. Historic photograph AB~6 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photograph was taken in 1875, and its counterpart I

,I shows the parking lot in the place where the horses were in

I: I

formation, I ,

A) The foreground shows a gra?ed grama sod and a

lone yucca plant at the lower right. The background of this photo is not clear enough to interpret. B) The foreground appears similar to that in the original photo - grazed grama sod.

If ',i "I

[I \ ~" I II r II

I I I I' Iii I \1 i III 1\

III

I i

!IW 30

:11 ~I ! i Figure 4. Historic photograph HG-4j6 (1875) 1 r'I .., and its modern counterpart (June. 1981) . Fort Davis. Texas. ~ III [. J :ti~' " ',P,

III I

II I'

I Iii

~1\1, :~ I!

I' 'I It "Ii ~ a I, .~~._~...... - ~ i

,i!

I I ! j J I

~. " '/;

1~! .~

t 31

Figure 4. Historic photograph HG-4/6 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

1~'11 This photograph was taken in~75 from the edge of the parade ground looking northwest. r. A) The parade ground is clear, and newly planted trees are evident in front Qf the officers' quarters. The hill in the background appears relatively clear of brush, and a ~

~ cluster of about 9 trees (oak and juniper?) are evident I ~

;! high on the convex slope in the center of the photograph.

I Note a distinctive oak tree on the sky line (arrow), and ( a very clear patch of ground at the base of the cliff at the right edge of the photo (circle).

B) The parade ground is clear and trees are tall in hont of the officers' quarters. Note that the first building in the original photo corresponds to the stucco (pink) 11

r building in' the new one. . l~n I 10 \! /" 1&7-S: tI.. There are fewer trees on the convex slope than in /'

il ~

I '; but brush (catclaw and sumac) has incrp.ased considerably. I

half of the slope is still relatively clear, but a II II!, II distinct band of brush covers the top of the s lope along I .q the cliff base. I This base widens out on the lower slope 1'1

,III' to the left (south) and fills a concave slope to the right fi

(north) . Just above this brush a small clear area is

circled corresponding to the circled bare ground in the original

photo. Note the distinctive oak tree on the skyline (arrow). 32

I .

:! I: I~

ill I I'r

illl

:i Figure 5. Historic photograph HG-3 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

~ I; \1 II I '''I I" - -~ ~~ --- --

. ~:"', I ... oi!"" .- "~'Z-~ ,,;; '''''' - ., ,.,. Jo '" ' '~":>''''''''' 011- ," :." , , " .. " ' ;~... " ..,:'J?', ... '\ ': ',' "~ . ..L. --- - . - -- --'

-~ \\11

\~h' Figure 5. Historic photograph HG-3 (~875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo is similar to HG-4/6, but taken from a \~\\ greater distance. The date taken is~15. A) The background is similar to that of HG-4/6, I,,I but scattered trees are evident on the cliffs (arrow) at the right side of the photo. Note the distinctive trees

(oak) on the center skyline, present, but blurred, in HG-4/6.

~ (The skylined tree clear in HG-4/6 is blurred in this photo). ~ " I: I Ii The foreground shows grass and low brush around the n rocks.

B) The background shows a tree pattern on the cliffs ~.I i at the right side of the photo similar to that in 1~75. The II 'II

nlliOOerof trees in that location seem to have increased. : '! I Note the distinctive oak trees on the center skyline. Other I ; I,

comments on the background are the same as for HG-4/6.

In the foreground there.is a good cover of blue grama

and cane bluestem. . Catclaw and mesquite have become

obvious (arrows 1 & 2) and sumac has half obscured. the !I III,

large rock in the lower left foreground.

I~ 'I

I: I

r 34

I t

1 f I I sJ

I ' Figure 6. Historic photograph AB-1S (1889) . \ il " and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) ~ . I, ,II I Fort Davis, Texas. q I .

'~;j .ilL I; I i

I I,: lIt!

I,,I i ' i I !

I ! ' ------\

III ... I ji I -. '''. - ,;I: ..- '" '-" """'~\- -- -.i - -~------~

II "'I

~ ~ :11 !

!! ,r. :;:

'" ~ ~ '-, ,~-" ' '~ , " , , ' .""'".,~~'- '0:'.;',-'- ';;;, " 0:;." ',. ', ~~~, ' ", u-..,.' ,. '~"\t ",;: .i,-.' ~ -::", ""~-." ,.' ,..;. ,-"" ' ; ...4

Figure 6. Historic photograph AB-15 (1889)and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photograph was taken in 1889 from between HB-22 and HB-23 and looks west across the parade ground. A) In the background the slope at the base of the cliff appears clear of brush. A large number of oak trees however are evident at the cliff base and among the cliff 'rocks. The skyline trees visible in HG-3 and HG-4/6 are 'I

blurred in this ryhoto.'- I B) The convex slope still appears clear of brush except along the cliff base. Here the band of brush mentioned under figures 4 and 5 is evidentQ The lower concave slope near the center (partially hidden by buildings) appears more brush infested than in 1889. The patch of oaks behind HB-1O

I is taller and thicker than in the original photo, but the I

!'j , tree pattern appears quite similar to that in the original I photo .

The tree in front of HB-1O is probablynot original - it appears more in the center of the building today. ,Ii The parade ground shows more growth of low forbs than in 1889. i i 36

il I

I II, I I

I "I

]

,11 .,il

Figure 7. Historic photograph AB-11 (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. 111:ld

Iii, !i: I[ Ii !i

:I 1 I

~;I

III I : 11 I

.~~ , .. --.. ""C'"'... -..,~'...-- - ..:... / ~ -.t "' ."--'-- '-~ -- ,-r-~ ~~:IIiI&- ~~ .-:::_~~ L"---=- - ~~ nL.- - . . - - - 3L !.~'--: ~ . - - I~ ...... ~~~~: -

1111!!1 I I I I

[ I ~-

" I Ii"

II ::H ,', - --- I!:r :...... ,- """'... ~~o1t..,i' .$ '""c--'''~.

,,' :.' -"' -' . ~~~=,"~~,~,.~-ff"Z:.: ~ "-,, ~ J£:-' "";,L">O';:::Lc-- .. -. ~~ " -- .. ~""..;;:j.

~~~~~~~:~~~~~~{ ~ i \]

37 i II

Figure 7. Historic photograph AB-ll (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo was taken in the 1880's and looks southeast across the east half of the fort.

A) In the foreground any grass cover there appears very sparce and short, The rocks are clear of brush with only one

shrub evident at the center/right (algarita?). Note the

flat rock with the raised-rounded tip at the center bottom ':11

of the photo.

In the background, the flats appear clear, no shrubs

evident. The cottonwoods (spring and tank) appear as a

mature stand. Note the dark appearance (woody growth) of II!

the tops of 2 low hills (left, top) and a ridge (right, top). i' .' III!

I Only scattered trees are visible in the area of the present

town (then called Chihuahua).

B) The foreground shows a good grass cover (side oats

and blue grama, cane bluestem) intermixed with a moderately

heavy growth of shrubs (sumac and algarita). The open area

in which the nearer group of soldiers was standing is half obscured by the large algarita plant which completely covers the large flat rock seen in the original photo. Note the

black, dead stems behind the algarita bush at the right. These are in the exact location of the bush seen in the ' 1'1 original photo. New shoots are sprouting from the base. f ,III

; II!

.. 38

The flat land still appears open, however today there is a large area of scattered shrubs around HB's 19, 24 and 25

II I and extending north and east.

Note the dark, shrubby growth on top of the 2 low hills and on the ridge mentioned under "A" above.

'iii, l II mII, II 39

. "I

I ,. I I

.,~

,. II I Figure 8. Historic photograph BA-4 (1889) 'I If I II and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) ,IIII I: II Ii Fort Davis, Texas. I

I I' II

!' i

I .I[ I i I 1

.~ ill

';'.' . _~:,.i;~., " ... h -. . . . ~. ,'i". ~, ;,A~:~~~. iP ~ 1Jf"~i ~- II!!" . I'"

iilJ,1 " I' "Jil (

::,1: ~ II

III I!

I 40

Figure 8. Historic photograph BA-4 (1889) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

il I

This photograph, taken in 1889, looks south across the west half of the fort toward Sleeping Lion Hountain.

A) The foreground appears clear of brush and the grass present is sparse and short. A few brush plants are 1111' evident along the bases of some of the rocks.

The slope of the hill (right side) shows that scattered

trees and shrub cover, if any, is light. In Hospital Canyon, a pair of oak trees is visible. On Sleeping Lion Mountain

(lower slope) the shrub cover also appears light. Note the

clear area just below the knob or head of the mountain

(circle) .

B) Today there is a heavy grass cover in the foreground. I ~

A large sumac is at the lower right, and dense catclaw III

obscures many of the rocks. Catclaw now engulfs the, ~rocks

Ii on which the ladies were sitting in 1889, and a large sumac

now stands where the helmeted officer stood in the original illl!

i.' ,.I photo.

The slope (right side) is more densely covered with

brush. Fewer rocks are visible (estimate' a 100% increase).

The oak tree visible in Hospital Canyon may be the right hand tree of the pair seen above.

On Sleeping Lion Mountain, the tree density has increased p by 100%. Rocks are shaded out by tree and shrubs. Note the ,-

I:" 41 I

clear area still visible at the base of the knob. One large ! 1' ' tree is present in that area. . ii, "1

'1 iji I !, 1 i I I

II I

Figure 9. Historic photograph HG-14 (1886) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) ; II f Fort Davis, Texas.

: II:

I!II

J I r - ~ - -~- r - ~-

."..

------

------~

::1:

~~+,~':t;~":" ~ '.*""'..

I I' I'

--- 43

Figure 9. Historic photograph HG-14 (1886) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo was taken in 1886 from just south of the point from which BA-4 was taken. The view is very similar. \ I

.A) The background in this photo is the same as in

BA-4, and the same comments apply here. Newly planted trees between HB 15 and 16 are more obvious in this photo, and one can see clear open ground between HB 16 and the chapel. The foreground is clear, and only 2 small shrubs

(catclaw?) are visible at the base of the boulders (lower

. II left) .

B) Today a large algarita plant dominates the lower !I

center of the photo. There has been a 4 or 5 fold increase

of brush (sumac, catclaw and algarita) around the rocks, and

the flat ground between HB 16 and the chapel is dotted with

brush (see AB-ll).

;ili:

i i I I 44

Figure 10. Historic photograph HG-8 (1888) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

-- II11 I

- r ~

I ~-

,~~~~-<': ~ I =--:,. -:"'. c-;'"'" -'-.= .... ~ II

il~ I~r.

- ---

II ".11 - -

:1::

!I 45

Figure 10. Historic photograph HG-8 (1888) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo, taken in 1888 from the cliffs on Sleeping

Lion Mountain, shows a bird's eye view of the east half of the fort toward the north east.

A) In the background and middle of the photo, the hills and fort grounds appear clear of woody vegetation. Along the base of the hills, clumps of large cottonwoods can be seen along Limpia Creek (arrows), and a new tree is planted in front of HB-21. In the foreground the rocks are very clear with only scattered brush around them. Grass on the lower

slope appears well grazed down. Part of an oak tree is ," 'I visible in the lower left corner. I

B) Today the hills appear relatively clear, and cottonwoods can be seen along the Limpia. More trees are 'q

visible around the houses (off the fort) to the northeast. I' " The fort grounds are clear except for the brush behind the

commissary (see AB-ll and HG-14). The original photo ended

(right side) at the corner of the cavalry corrals. If the i..'"

cottonwood visible in today's photo was there, one cannot

tell from HG-8 (see AB-ll).

In the foreground several new oak trees are visible,

and there has been a 3 or 4 fold increase in brush density . .I (sumac, and catcla-tv). II I 46

Figure 11. Historic photograph HG-10 (1871) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) !II: Fort Davis, Texas. I! i Ii; :Ii

il:II

GI e:P :r

II'

-I'I I II i

i ,I , ti -- -

'I ,i!I '.,' I,'. j" ]". ,I. ,:1"[ .

,""" if

~ ~;r ~ I 47

Figure 11. Historic photograph HG-IO (1871) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. ,

" i This 1871 photograph is the earliest one available showing vegetation. The view is along the old overland trail into the north end of the parade ground. The building at left is the Adjudant's Office, HB-29. Hhen the chapel was built, the road was moved.

A) The main feature of the foreground is the heavy and uniform growth of beargrass (Nolina erumpens). A low grama sod grows underneath, but nolina appears to be the only brushy plant. (Note AB-ll and HG-14. By the mid 1880's

the nolina was gone from this area and a clear grass cover

exis ted) .

B) No trace of this old road can be seen today at this location (traces have been found a few hundred yards north). The area now supports a grass cover of blue grama and a

medium stand of mixed brush and cactus I such as mesquite, I

mormon tea, prickly pear and soapweed yucca (total density of I': I:

I about 2, 000 plants per acre).

1:11

I"' I

iI \ II I !I 48

Iii II.

[ j

..Ii Figure 12. Historic photograph HG-21 (1887) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

'II

,.: I I ,I

. Ii !II. 11 i .... " I IH

II ! I

'iii

-'"

,il ~m 'Co " ~ " , -<- ~ . :~r ' ;1!tl11 ~'.' , , ". " ~. j. ", ."~" >~:" ";", ,

~II tL ------~ I I: . ,II rillI

;1"",

{,,"'I ~ -~~ if ' II :1: . IJ. i" St

II III I

,IIII 49

Figure 12~ Historic photograph HG-2l (1887) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. '-

:1 I This photograph was taken between 1887 and 1890 from

just just south and west of officers' row looking northwest

toward the hospital. Ii I A) Tile foreground ShovlS one brush plant behind otherwise

clear rocks. The canyon flats appear to be grazed grass with an open oak overs tory (oak savannah). ']):'ees appear evenly

spread across the entire width of the canyon. II The footslopes behind the hospital appear relatively clear of brush, but with a distinctive pattern of tree [' Ii growth (0 ak) . Note a large clump of oaks directlybehind

the hospital, a line of oaks along the cliff base, and a

small group of oaks to the north and south. Oaks also dot the cliff skyline.

B) The foreground shows grass and an increased growth

of shrubs (sumac, algarita, yucca). The single shrub behind the rock in 1887 is now a tree. 'I Ii

The canyon flats are grazed today, and the south half

: II a (left side of ditch) supports an oak savannah of approximate original density. The north half however is almost devoid of oaks.

Many of the oaks now growing in these flats can be identified in the original photo. These are indicated by 50

numberedarrows in the photo, and are marked in the field as historic trees. I I

The footslopes are now well covered with brush - mostly catclaw. It is especially dense in the concave slope behind \11 the hospital (see AB-14 and AB-16). The pattern of tree growth at the cliff base is very similar to the original (wedge shaped clump behind hospital) and the skyline appears the same.

III I I, Ii

---" ~

Figure 13. Historic photograph HC-27 (1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. !I:~~ ,I:i

" ' ' '" I"1 1

I 'I ~:: !Ii,:!I!I " ~'"~ I ,, , ' ., 'I" i ~ .

11111,1

- -

'II 52

Figure 13. Historic photograph HC-27 (1890' s)~ and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo was taken in the late 1890's, shortly after ~andonment of the post. The view is similar to that in HG-2l, but from more distance.

A) A small oak tree is plainly visible between 2 rocks in the foreground. The oak savannah is clearly seen in the I flats, and a very clear view of the oak pattern at the base ~ Ii' -of the cliffs is presented. Oaks can also be seen up among the cliff rocks (unclear in HG-2l).

B) Today the small oak in the foreground has become quite large (Historic tree #10)0 All but one of the original

oaks is gone from the north half of the flats. In the background one again can see the very similar growth pattern of oaks. Individual clumps and lines of trees are identifiable in both old and new photos. The wedge shaped clump behind the hospital has increased in area while fue arc of trees to the north (right) in the original photo illl

has thinned out today.

t i II 53

Figure 11.. Historic photograph HG-16 (1887) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. a : 1,111

II I I 'I

, il\~',

,~.

,,',' -- -- I",:,1 J II 1'" I:'I

'1'"1 :1'1

:1[1 \ ~--- ~- = --- - ~-- ~~~. ""'= =

, ,ill I I II I

il! 54

Figure 14. Historic photograph HG-16 (1887) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photograph was taken in 1887 behind the hospital.

A) Grazed grama appears in the foreground with a pair

of yuccas (elata?) at center left. Directly behind the

hospital is a pair of young oak trees.

The hill in the background appears clear of brush, and

there are distinctive trees on the skyline.

B) Today in the foreground is a mixture of blue grama,

t side-oats grama and broomweed (not visible in the original). I.

I~ The pair of oaks behind the hospital are apparently

the same trees visible in 1887 (numbered H.T. 5 & 6) The

hill in the background still appears relatively clear of

brush, although there is some increase near the base, and

only brush appears on the skyline instead of trees.

JaIl_111 Iia'~-,oJlI;L.~.'om lID 55 I II I

III

:'I!

II I

Figure 15. Historic photograph AB-14 (1886) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. ...;-

' II! lit: Ii, I 11 11 ,I: ~ -. ;11 - 'j -.---'-"" :; -~-~ ' ~ \ '~ . II ,J :~11

I'"

11 I

U~f!1 j I

! Ii II I

!,II " 56

Figure 15. Historic photograph AB~14 (1886) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This much publicized photo was taken in 1886. The . location is in a small canyon just behind the hospital. The photographer stood about 75 feet north or northeast of the powder magazine (see HG~21 and HC~27).

A) Over 40 men appear in this ffiffiallareaamong the

rocks. A few catclaw plants are visible in the foreground, I but the ground and rocks are remarkably clear of brush.

A good stand of oaks grows against the background cliff. (Note the distinctive rocks indicated by XIS).

B) A very drastic change appears today. The whole scene is choked by catclaw, whitebrush and sumac with an

estimated combined density of 5,000 plants per acre. The rocks with the line of holes in the foreground is covered with brush, the large half~dome is nearly covered and the large slanting rock is barely visible, as is the large rock with a horizontal split behind the men in the

original photo.

, I[ lI 57

'II :1

II' I ,II

Figure 16. Historic photograph AB-16 (1891) and its modern counterpart (June. 1931) Fort Davis. Texas.

". - i' i'I r .~,. , ~. r ~ J . ;:;;-... - ..~"'"' '~"'J

11~ II il" ' I II"!I ,I" 1,.

ill i

":iJ j ,I' III Jiil!l

1,:11111 jl

:1,

;;","

tH1 ~~J

~ I

, " 1 II il'

.1 JI. . ti , 11.,

Iii

,. 58

Figure 16. Historic photograph AB-16 (1891) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo was taken in 1891 behind the powder magazine, in the same area as AB-14.

A) 22 men and boys are sitting among the rocks which are very clear of vegetation. A few small catclaw plants

are scattered among the rocks, two yucca plants (torryi) are

clear behind the men, and a catclaw clump appears in the upper left. (Note distinctive step-shaped flat topped rock in

rear, and a sharp edged boulder to the right of it). 'II B) Again, as in AB-14, a drastic change is evident. II The whole scene is choked with catclaw, whitebrush and sumac ~ at an estimated combined density of 5,000 plants per acre. All the rocks in the foreground are covered. The distinctive flat rock in the background is 3/4 covered, and only the tip of the sharp edged boulder to the right shows behind

the sumac.

. 59

Figure 17. Historic photograph AB-lS (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas. ~

I ~, -/~

""''' .,. ~ --d., '~ ...,-;;;~..~

I'I. :11" 'ft " ill:1 .3 J" 60

Figure 17. Historic photograph AB-18 (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

This photo was taken in the 1880's at the rear and south end of Hospital Canyon.

A) The foreground is flat, rocky and clear of vegetation. A very short, grazed appearance of sparse grasses is evident. A good stand of oak trees and shrubs are growing against the cliff in the background. Note a large, slanting flat faced boulder behind the rider 2nd from left (arrow #1) and distinctive rocks on the skyline (arrows #2 & 3).

B) Grass cover is sparce, but tall, and brush cover I' , has increased considerably. Two large clumps of prickly pear and 6-8 large catclaw plants are visible in the flat foreground area. A heavy stand of catcalw grows in the right~enter background. The trees have increased in n~~ber and height, and fewer rocks are visible. Arrows indicate the rocks shown in the original photo, and one can see that only the tip of the large flat rock is now visible behind a tree (arrow #1)

The basic distribution of trees in the photo is the same as in the original. 61

Figure 18. Historic photograph AB-4 (Mid 1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

~, j ..... I --"" ",", c:. ""'" 1 I . ~ ~... ~ ~ 1

II I . II,~

II -.J~Jl ~~ ~.",. ~ II 1 ~ II I f,i; " ... ~ r-ID II I '-" ~ ~.,," II ,@1.~ ~}~~~ ~ -...,)( ~'" '-t~ "f~ ,- .':'~~~,,~ I , 'f \ . .~ ~~ {~:~~ ~ .:!j" "''''"'''''' "'" ..,.., ~ ... ~~ '.'" '~W I "'''''-. '- I. .'i , '.',L x !It!' :".~ ... ~,; \t IIi I Ii! ...,.'''.. ~ .. II. 01!1:... ill " '; ...... ~

.\IIi"1/ I:~ \ ' ' ,I :[.j " '~

~1;;:1 I "1. I ~~-

;1 d .' \

iI!11 62

Figure 18. Historic photograph AB-4 (Mid 1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas.

. A) This photograph was taken about 200 feet uphill (west)

of one of the 2-story officers' quarters (HB-16), and shows several of the Fort NCQ's with families. The view is quite open with very little grass cover evident. The small tree in the center and the cluster of shrubby trees at the left are

. probably oaks. Some small pricklypear cactus are evident in the lower left foreground. In the background scattered

brush is evident around the edge of the clearing. B) Because of the increased vegetation, the angle of the new photo is slightly different from the original, and two

photos had to be taken to show both foreground and background.

The mixture of grasses in the foreground consists of blue

grama, sideoats grama and cane bluestem. The abundant tall

forbs are Wright's thelypody (~~~lypodium wrightii). Shrubby vegetation nearly obscures the rocks in the foreground and center except for the distinctive rock on which commissary

Sargeant Forsyth was sitting (lower right) . The brush consists

of catclaw, Texas mountain laurel, Wright's aloysia (Aloysia

wrightii), and mariola (Parthenium incahum), and a large gray

oak is in the spot where the cluster of shrubby (oaks?) stand in

the original photo. Brush has increased in the background several-

fold to almost choke the clearing. Arrows in both original and

new photos mark the distinctive background rocks and xIs mark those in the foreground. 1

Figure 19. Historic photograph HD-31 (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981). Fort Davis. Texas.

~ I,. I I' ,. I ' i I ~ ~~~- I

'I.I~I il\! 'Ii! ... '!iP 1,1 ~ , j ~ !Ii,

'~ ,. II I if,\ .~ II "' II :~I ,-' :, --- -~~ ' .:/i I ;1,1 I 'i'' ,I , . il, I , I ' I II 11,,'1

i1111:

~ ~ - ~-.- ~ II' ",,' Iii ., f , IS ,,.;- ''21 ,~ - " ill D ,.' OJ!1I'fI~ ~ If' il ~ I~ ~ :0 " If '" III III ~ !.I n. f ""- II ~ .", lI\'!~ ~~~ ~! " 'j,i!iI'~ ~~' III ' " . - iIIlf~, ..1 "'''~ '<4'1 i$ .~ dlJ ~ 'II t ",1',11" I D" ~!\ ~ 1 .;.; t 1'> :i:"- ---- .i ,.-A ,,~l? L 64

Figure 19. Historic photograph HD-3l (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June1 1981)1 Fort Dayis1 Texas.

A) This photo was taken of the hospital from northeast of1 and about half way between officers' row and the hospital.

The foreground consists of closely grazed grama grasses and an open oak overstory. In the background 1 the high slopes on Sleeping Lion Mountain appear evenly covered with an open growth of trees (oak and juniper).

B) The foreground consists of mowed grama grasses 1 however all but one of the oaks is gone. The arrow (both photos) points to a distinctive 3-trunked gray oak still present (historical tree #71 Table 41 App.) In the center- left1 several large oaks remain (note size difference between those present today and those in the original photo). The high slopes of Sleeping Lion mountain still support an open

(but slightly heavier) growth of oak and juniper. 65

In addition to the photographs just described, a number of published paintings and sketches of old Fort Davis were examined. These were originally done during the 1850's by

Capt. A. T. Lee, 8th U.S. Infantry (Thomas, 1976). It is difficult to draw conclusions from a sketch or painting because one does not know how much artistic license was taken in its construction. A number of paintings however tended to corroborate information in the historical photos. The observations are as follows:

1) cottonwoods along the Limpia,

2) slopes and hills with less apparent brush than today (also with less grass, but Lee did not seem to paint in a grass cover. He simply indicated it here and there. He mentions a good deal of grass in his writing).

3) shrubs and trees growing among the rocks and cliffs

in his more close views of these, and, importantly,

4) the hospital canyon area is a very defin~te oak

savannah.

Vegetative Type Distribution

Present Type Distribution

Present distribution of vegetation types was determined from aerial photographs and field reconnaissance

(Figure 2, App.) 66

The mixed brush area occurs mostly on the igneous hill

and mountain sites (RoF, Fig. 1, App.) and consists of

scattered oak and juniper, and medium to heavy densities

of catclaw and sumacs with an understory of grasses (Table 1).

This type encompasses approximately 51% of the total area.

Several pockets of heavy density (B-3) mixed brush are

indicated.

The grassland occurs on the flats (draw, loamy and

gravelly sites) and at high elevations on part of the

igneous hill and mountain site (MbE). The former consists mostly of blue grama while the latter contains more of

a mixture of mid and tall grasses (Table 1). Total grass-

lands comprise about 43% of the total area (10% and 33% for hill and flatland grasslands respectively). . . The area designated as cactus (2-3% of total area) is i

a mixture of mesquite, mormon tea, pricklypear and yucca. I It differs from the mixed brush area in the relative absence of catclaw and sumac.

The oak savannah consists of a grass understory and an

open overhead story of gray and emory oaks.

Distribution of 1880 Period

The distribution of vegetative types postulated

for the 1880 period is presented in Figure 3 of the appendix. This distribution pattern was derived from photographic

.. 67

evidence, historical literature review and surmized from

a comparison of present species composition with that described

as potential climax by S.C.S. guidelines. In other words, the map represents a synthesis of all the evidence previously presented, and is based on conclusions derived from that

evidence.

The overall pattern of vegetation types postulated for

the 1880-1900 period appears very similar to that of today.

Basically, the major brush areas now were brush areas then,

and the major grassland areas now were grassland areas then.

There are some notable changes however.

First, there are several pockets of very dense brush

(B-3) today that pictorial evidence indicates were very

light density in the 1880's. These pockets represent about 2-3% of the total fort area. The rest of the mixed ~

brush area indicated as medium density today was probably

light density in 1880. Second, the total grassland area has decreased from

about 50% in 1880 to about 43% today (Table 4). Half of these decreases occurred on the igneous hill and mountain

sites where mixed brush of light densi~y has invaded. Some grassland area in hospital canyon has been lost to mixed - brush, and some has been lost just north of the parade

ground to mormon tea, mesquite and yucca.

Third, the oak savannah in Hospital Canyon has decreased

by about one-half of that present in the 1880's.

. - .. '"

Table 4. Percentage Area of Vegetation Types Today Compared with Area of Vegetation Types of the 1880-1900 period, Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas.

Era and Percentage of Total Area Vegetation Type . 1981 . l880~1900 Mixed brush heavy density 3% 0 medium density 42% light density 6% 44%* total brush 51% 44%

, Grassland 43% 50% Cactus 3% 0% Cottonwood 1% 1% Oak Savannah 2% 4%

*It is impossible to determine from available information the relative amounts of medium and light densities of brush in historic times. Most of the brush area probably tended toward light density however. ,

Conclusions

Conclusions are based on a synthesis of all the

evidence examined and previously presented. That is, observations of historic photographs, information from written historic descriptions of vegetati-onand information

derived from a comparison of present species composition with that of the potential climax as described by the U.S.D.A. S,C.S, range site descriptions, Conclusions are as follows:

1) The historical literature describes a general

scene much like that today - cliffs and hills with trees

and brush, flatlands covered with grass, and streams

supporting cottonwood trees.

2) Between 60 and 70 percent of the species listed in

the historical literature are present at Fort Davis today. ~ Desert willow (Chilopsis li~earis), a native, was evidentally

planted in front of the officers' quarters (".. .on the

parade ground. ") (Havard, 1885), and is found on the fort

property today. Johnsongrass (introduced) was also

abundant (Neal ley , 1888) and is present today.

3) On-site vegetation sampling indicates a ~oderate

departure from climax as identified by S.C.S. technical

, guidelines. Most of this departure in grassland area is

due to an increase in blue grama (known to increase under

continuous grazing) and in the mountain sites by an increase

~ 70

or invasion of catclaw.

4) Pictorial evidence indicates that:

a) In some areas of the flatlands (grasslands) mormon tea, yucca and mesquite has increased since the J1880's.

One of these areas (Fig. 11) was dominated by beargrass in

the 1870's.

Indications are that the total grassland area has decreased from 50% to 43% from 1880 to 1981, and that the area of brush and cactus has increased from 44% in 1880

to 54% today (Table 4). b) The overall distribution of trees is similar

today to what it was in the 1880's. The cottonwood stand

(historic spring or seep, now a picnic area) is much as

it was (but drier), and oak trees are seen today in the

same general areas as they were seen 100 years ago. Specific

groups and even individual trees, can be identified in the pairs of modern and historic photographs. Tree density however has in some cases increased and in some cases

decreased (Figs. 12 and 13).

c) One notable change in tree distribution is the reduced area of oak savannah in hospital canyon

especially between officers' row and the hospital. Only one or two oaks are seen today on the north side of the ditch area where ten or a dozen were seen in the 1880's (Figs. 12

and 13, text and Figs. 2 and 3, App,) To the south of the

- ---- . .-- - ..m.._.. ~ - ~ 71

ditch however several historical trees have been identified.

Historic trees have been identified in the field by a ground stake and tag bearing letters F.D. 1981 HT # (Table 4, App.).

d) The density of brush on the foots lopes and on

the mountains has increased, in some cases severely so (Figs. 15 and 16). The major brush species concerned is catclaw, but sumacs and algarita have also increased. Brush

density in historic times was probably very light over most

\I areas. Today it is of medium to heavy density, with pockets of very heavy impenetrable thickets.

e) Grass cover appears better today than 100 years ago. The grounds today are only lightly grazed by the Park Service's two cavalry horses. All historic photos

of the fort show a closely grazed condition (probably by

many cavalry horses). Nealley (1888) mentions large numbers ) of goats browsing on the hillsides and among the cliffs at ~ Fort Davis in 1887.

The changes in vegetation at Fort Davis during the past 100 years are consistent with findings of similar studies

done in the southwest. Ames (1976) compared scenes taken

in 1892 with contemporary ones along the Arizona/Nexico

boundary and found that brush had increased moderately, but that grass cover had improved under controlled grazing

I management practices.

Hastings and Turner (1965), in a comprehensive pictorial

I j - 72

study of vegetation change in Arizona found a wide variety

of changes. In the desert grassland, shrubs such as mesquite,

catclaw and creosote (Larreatridehtata) has increased, in

some cases turning former grassland into desert. The oak

woodland was found to have lost some of its former range, and in some cases, has receeded up-slope up to 1,000 feet in elevation.

Basically, three theories exist to explain the loss

II \ of grassland area and the increase of brush in the southwest

(Hastings and Turner, 1965). These are 1) overgrazing by livestock, 2) lack of vvildfireand 3) a changing climate gradually favoring desert species. No one theory seems to be able to explain all the vegetation change in every

situation, and a complete discussion on the pros and cons

of each theory concerning vegetation change in the southwest ""

is beyond the scope of this work. However, some speculation if limited to Fort Davis may be appropriate.

Records indicate that total rainfall has decreased

several (4 or 5) inches in the past 100 years. The decrease

has apparantly been gradual. A decrease in rainfall might explain an invasion of such desert shrubs as creosote bush,

but such desert shrubs are not present at Fort Davis. An increase in density of shrubs, most of which were recorded

present in 1880, has been observed, not an invasion of the

desert into the grass/woodland ecosystem. The abundance 0 f

1 ...... ;r """

native perennial grasses, and the excellent grass cover, con-

flicts with the idea that lower rainfall has triggered the

vegetation changes at the Fort Davis monument.

Wildfire is suppressed, as much as possible, in the Fort Davis area. Repeated fire can limit the abundance of

brush species, even sprouting species like catclaw and mesquite if fire occurs often enough to top kill new sprouts. The

other half of the question is whether there is actually less fire present now than in historic times. No direct evidence

is readily available to determine the frequency of wildfire

in historic times, but, given the frequency of fires today

(mostly man-caused), and the ability with present resources

to put them out, it is difficult to assume that wildfire

is actually less prevalent today than before settlement. I

\ Nevertheless, the fort area has not been burned in many years, ! if at all since 1867. Lack of fire may be a factor in f brush increase at Fort Davis, but it cannot be pointed to as the definite cause.

Livestock grazing is a relatively recent practice in

the Fort Davis region (since the Civil War). Buffalo did

not extend into the Trans-pecos, and th~ first large herbivores

were livestock introduced in the late 1860's and early 1870's. f Heavy stocking of the range probably did not occur until the

1880's, but continued into the 1900's. Today, recommended

rates are about 25-30 animals per section.

11' ~ :.&.i 74

Cattle grazing cannot adequately explain the brush

increase on the steep, rocky hillsides of Fort Davis while, with some exceptions, the grassland flats remain relatively

open. In the normal progression of range deterioration, the most accessible sites are usually the first to go, the hills last. The grassland areas at Fort Davis show only

moderate change - an increase in blue;grama - while the

, steep slopes show the most drastic brush increase.

Goats are browsing animals particularly adapted to

rocky, steep sites. They can be used as a tool to control

brush. Since they prefer browse to grass, under careful

management, bru&h can be defoliated by goats, and the grass left intact. It is doubtful that the early Fort Davis goat raisers had any such plan in mind when they stocked the hills

with them. Uncontrolled goat browsing can result in a very denuded landscape, and vegetation in some of the historical I photos examined showed the aspect of having been used by the large numbers of goats reported by Nealley. Catclaw is not a browse plant easily consumed by deer

or goats. Its spines are too numerous and foliage to small

for aIlimals to consume without consuming thorns as well.

Catclaw is a likely shrub to increase under heavy goat use, thus heavy goat stocking may have been a major causitive factor in catclaw increase at Fort Davis. 75

Management Recommendations

Management recommendations are presented, based on conclusions of the investigation, to restore and or preserve the historic vegetation scene~

1) To protect existing grass cover, grazing should be

light. The present use by two cavalry horses on the 150 or so

ac!es of grassland in the flats is well within safe limits. Vehicle use should be confined to established roads and visitors

should be discouraged from walking off the trails. No

attempt should be made to eradicate the small amount of Johnsongrass (eventhough it is non-native) as it was reported abundant at the fort in the 1880's. Bermuda grass should be

encouraged in lawns around the officers' quarters (Nealley,

1888). \ 1 2) Brush that has increased significantly should be

thinned out or removed from certain highly visible areas. r In order of priority, I would suggest: a) the area of cactus and mormon tea infestation

north of the parade ground,

b) the catclaw infested draw behind the hospital and powder magazine,

c) other areas marked "B-3" on the vegetation map, ~d

d) the mesquite infestation in hospital canyon.

T . ~ ~~--,~-~~~ ------" -- iiiiiiiiiiiiiii .

As an on-going measure, I suggest continued removal of mesquite

(and other) brush seedlings from the parade ground. To

more fully duplicate the historic scene, forbs now abundant

on the parade ground'should be controlled.

3) Trees that have been identified as historic, that is,

identified in period photos, should be protected (Table 4,

App.). All oaks should be protected in the hospital canyon

- (gray and emory oak savannah area in Fig. 3, App.)

4) Very careful, selective thinning of oaks and junipers is recommended in two locations:

a) the north foots lope of Sleeping Lion Mountain

(Figs. 8 and 9) where tree density has increased, and

b) the portion of hospital canyon where photo AB-18

was taken (Fig. 17). Alligator juniper (J. deppean,a) should

not be cut however, as this desirable species is relatively

scarce around Fort Davis.

1 5) The practice of planting and caring for trees in front of the officers' quarters should be continued, as many cottonwoods were present here in the 1880's period. Some

desert willow planted in the same area would fit into the historic scene very well. The large hi~toric cottonwood

which recently had to be removed from in front of HB 21 should be replaced with a sapling.

6) The cottonwood area (historic seep or spring, now a

picnic area), should continue to be managed to encourage

T - -~------.-.-- ~ . --- -.- .-- -.., -.., ,,"-'-"-'---'--'-"~ _.- -

growth of replacement trees. A few healthy saplings should be planted in the area every 10 years or so, and should be

protected by a wire fence or cage. In areas selected for brush removal or control (item

2 above), several methods are feasible, In general they

are hand or machine grubbing, other mechanical removal, use

of selective chemicals, and use of prescribed fire. Grubbing can be used with any species and is the safest for associated vegetation. It is labor intensive, therefore

expensive, and adapted to light, early, or small infestations.

The area mentioned north of the parade ground could be grubbed over a gradual period of time, Brush such as mesquite,

algarita, catclaw and sumac should be dug out to a depth of at least 8-10 inches. Debris should be piled and burned,

( with cactus piled on top of brush. i

Mechanical control other than individual plant grubbing

I is possible. A drawback is the disturbance to soil and

associated vegetation. The cactus area north of the parade

ground could be dragged with 3 sets of railroad rail. Dragging would have to be repeated 2 or 3 times, the debris raked,

and the piles of cactus burned. This prQcedure would have

to be followed by reseeding however, and in this instance I would not recommend it very highly, since it would be difficult

to reseed to a completely natural condition.

Repeated use (every 3-5 years) of controlled fire may

T - ~. - 78

gradually reduce brush density, but this is a long term measure. Use of fire might be a possible means of maintaining a low

brush density in already clear areas or areas cleared by other means.

Controlled burning requires precautions to prevent escape

of the fire. Chemical fire retardant (such as Phoschek)

can be used where physical fire lines are impractical.

Burning for brush control requires a hot fire, usually

during the summer or late spring. Grasses however should be

dormant to prevent excessive damage to them. Temperature

should be above 600, relative humidity below 50%, and winds

light (5-12 mph). Fi~e dry fuel should be accumulated under

the brush (at least 2,000 Ibs. per acre) for a good burn.

Catclaw and mesquite are usually top-killed by fire. 10-20

percent of catclaw can be expected to be completely killed

by an average fire. Dead brush will eventually deteriorate leaving a more open aspect, or can be physically removed. Chemical control can be used on brush infested areas,

but the dead brush will be left standing and still appear inconsistant with the historic scene. A combination of

m~chanical and chemical procedures might be the best alternative for killing the brush root systems and removing above-ground stems.

Chemical control can be followed by physical cutting and

removal. Plants killed by chemicals become brittle and easier

~ 79

to cut or break, Additional chemical follow-up treatments

could be used to control residual sprouting. Caution should be exercised in the use of chemicals in

areas where trees are desired. Oaks and cottonwoods are

vulnerable to damage by brush-killing herbicides.

Pelleted formulations are designed to be broadcast on the ground over the root zone, leached into the soil and

absorbed by the roots~ Pellets should not be applied near the root zone of desirable trees (probably no closer than 100 feet),

Chemical sprays are designed to be absorbed through

leaves and translocated throughout the plant. Nevertheless,

use of sprays under the canopy of desirable trees should be

avoided. Some chemicals (picloram) remain active in the

soil for extended periods and can be picked up by root

systems of susceptible species. I would not recommend use

of pelleted formulations or foliar sprays in the oak savannah

vegetation type. Technical recommendations for control of individual

species are taken from S.C.S. (1977 and 1980) and Texas A&M

. (McCully, 1973) guidelines for the Tran$-Pecos area.

~ -~- ---

Mesquite

Individual Plant Grubbing

Individual plants should be grubbed to a depth of

14 inches, and can be done at any season of the year.

Chemical

2,4,5-T can be mixed at a rate of 3 pounds per 100 gallons of water with 16 ounces of surfactant (tryad or deter- gent). A mixture of 2,4,5,-T and picloram (Tordon 225) in a 1:1 ratio can be used at a rate of 2 quarts of Tordon 225

to 20-25 gallons of water with 4 ounces of Tryad. This

amount should cover 1 acre. Use a portable sprayer with a nozzle pressure of 40 p.s.i., and thoroughly wet the foliage.

Soil temperatures at a depth of 12-14" should be 750F or more, and the plant should be actively growing. Spray between 40 and 90 days after new leaves have appeared.

Catclaw

Individual Plant Grubbing

Individual plants can be grubbed to a depth of 8-10

inches at any season,

Chemical

Foliar sprays mentioned for mesquite can be used on

catclaw, but at any time during the growing season (rainy

season) or in early fall (September) if adequate soil moisture ..'"

81 exists (15-20%).

Pelleted formulations of Picloram (Tordon 10K pellets) can be applied to catclaw just prior to the season of expected rainfall. Rate of application should be 30 pounds per acre or 1 ounce per 100 square feet in individual plant treatment.

Hhitebrush

Individual Plant Grub bing

Individual plants can be grubbed at any season at a depth of 8-10 inches.

Chemical

Same as for catclaw, but pelleted 20% Tebuthiuron

(Gras Ian 20 P) can be used at 10-15 pounds per acre or 1/2 ounce per 100 square feet. Tebuthiuron may work on catclaw as well, but is not officially recommended yet.

Sumac

IndiVidual Plant Grubbing

Individual plants can be grubbed at any season at a depth of 8-10 inches.

Chemical

Same as for catclaw, but picloraw pellets must be applied at 40 pounds per acre or 1.5 ounces per 100 square feet,

I Ii ~ ~ ~ or--

Pricklypear

Individual Plant Grubbing Individual plants can be uprooted, piled on cut

brush and burned, or the piles can be sprayed with 2,4,S,-T and diesel oil.

Chemical

Four pounds active ingredient of 2,4,S,-T with

50 gallons of diesel oil is recommended. vIet all parts of

the plant, and spray when temperature is above 6SoF. Night

spraying (when stomata are open) will result in a quicker kill.

Yucca

Individual Plant Grubbing

Individual plant grubbing is not officially

recommended for yuccas.

Chemical

Eight pounds of 2,4,S,-T (a.i.) per 100 gallons

of diesel is recommended. Soak plant well and allow liquid

to run down to ground line.

Algarita

Grubbing and chemical treatment same as for catclaw. 83

A word of caution should be reiterated concerning the use of herbicides in areas where trees are to be protected. Hospital Canyon serves as a watershed from which runoff is channeled into the area of historic cottonwoods. Here the water spreads out and soaks into the ground. Pelleted formulation especially, if applied just prior to a heavy rain, could be carried into the root zone of these trees with possible devastating results.

I would recommend that herbicides, pellets or sprays, used on the Hospital Canyon floor or its slopes, be applied only on very small areas at one time (between substantial rains) such as a quarter or half acre.

One plant has been documented on the monument (and others may exist) which has been considered for protected status

(Bahia bigelovii - Table 5, App.). A thorough search for category 1 and 2 species should be made on each area considered for herbicide application prior to such application. Presence of these speies in an area targeted for brush removal would allow only individual brush plant grubbing as a control method.

I would also suggest that an E.P.A. or state approved chemical applicator be consulted, as some of the herbicides . are or may soon be approved for application only by them.

-- --~ ------84

Literature Cited

Ames, C. R. 1976. Surveying the International Boundary. Rangeman's Journal. 3(3):87-89.

A.S.C. 1980. (Association of Systemics Collections). Directory of Federally Controlled Species.

Clements, F. E. and J. E. Weaver. 1938. Plant Ecology. 2nd Edition, McGraw~Hill.

Correll, D. S. and M. C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation.

Daubenmire, R. 1978. Plant Geography With Special Reference to North America. Academic Press.

Emory, W. H. 1857. Report of the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey. Pt. I, Vol, I, Ch. 5.

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

Havard, V. 1885. Report on the flora of western and southern Texas. Proc. of U.S. National Museum. Vol. VIII(29): 449-533.

Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. 2nd. ed. U.S.G.P.O. (Dover Publ., 1971).

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. Am. Geog. Soc. Spcl. Pub. #36.

McCully, W. G. 1973. Mesquite - Growth and Development, Management, Economics, Control, Uses. Texas A&M, Ag. Exp. Sta. R.M. #1.

Neally, G. C. 1888. Report of an Investigation of the Forage Plants of Western Texas. Houston, ~exas, 1888.

Palmer, E. J. 1929. The Ligneous Flora of the Davis Mountains, Texas. J. of Arnold Arboretum. Vol. X(l).

Parry, C. C. 1859. Botany of the Boundary, Introduction, In: Emory, W. H. 1859. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Sruvey. Part I, Vol II.

IU 1 a '!'

Thomas, S. W. 1976. Fort Davis and the Texas Frontier. Texas A&M Univ. Press.

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Jeff Davis County, Texas.

Ibid. 1977. Field Office Technical Guide - Supplement #1 to Standards and Specifications for Brush Management (Tebuthurion (grasland) to control whitebrush...). Unpubl. mimeo.

U.S.F.S. 1977. Vegetation and Environmental Features of Forest and Range Ecosystems. Ag. Handbook 475.

Warnock, B. 1977. Wildflowers of the Davis Mountains and the Harathon Basin, -Texas. SuI Ross State University.

I III' 1 . ~ ,. ~ --. --~ - ~- ~ - --. -~ - -~ .,,-~ -~ jo.-

APPENDIX

T ~~ . .

,"-

Table 1. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point Nuuilier1, (Mu) Loamy Site, Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, June, 1981.

Quadrat Number and Percent Cover 1 2 3 §pecies --.------4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Average % Composition Boute1oua gracilis 11 20 15 18 1+ 6 20 22 20 40 5 16 17 11 21 246 16.40 81.2 Bouteloua curtipendula 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 16 1.07 5.3 Bothrioch10a barbinodis 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.20 1.0 Aristida 10ngiseta 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 0.07 0.3 Perennial forb 3 2 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 2 0 33 2.20 10.9 Annual forb t 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.13 0.6 Senecio longilobus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 a 0 2 0.13 0.6 Total vegetation 16 38 17 20 10 13 21 23 21 42 12 19 18 13 21 303 20.20% Cover

Litter 3 6 15 5 30 4 8 3 8 50 2 2 5 3 5 149 9.93 Bare ground/rock 81 58 68 75 61 83 71 73 71 8 85 79 77 84 74 1,048 69.90 Grand Total 99.63 Line Intercept Line 'k Density Line Per acre Species - I(N) 2(E) 2(8) % Ave. Species l(Nl.. 2(E) 3(S) D~msity Yucca e1ata 6" 0.17% Ca11iandra humi1is 1 29 Prosopis glandulosa 22" 0.61% Opuntia eng1emanni 2 58 Prosopis glandu10sa 1 29 Senecio longi1obus 3 4 1 232 Yucca elata 1 1 58

Site location: Start at historic I mile post north of fort on overland trail, sampling point is 20 paces co 900 East (toward windmill) from the mile post. J *Al1 compass bearings are magnetic.

I ,

\ Table 2. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point Number 2, (SmB) , Gravelly Site, Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, June, 1981.

r-__n Quadrat Number and Percent Cover 1 2 Species -- 3 - 4 - 5- 6 - 7 --8- 9--- 10 11 12 13 -14 15 Total Average<;1 % Compos ition. Boute1oua curtipendu1a 6 0 0 a a 0 0 12 13 0 0 10 1 28 1 71 4.73 23.3 Boute1oua gracilis 18 12 5 7 25 28 32 0 4 8 15 3 6 10 5 178 11.87 58.4 Aristida wrightii 0 1 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 1 0 a a 2 0.13 0.6 Bouteloua eriopoda a 0 a a a a a 0 3 0 a 0 a 0 0 3 0.20 1.0 Perennial-forb 2 0 t+ 3 2 t t a 4 5 0 a 1 5 2 23 1.53 7.5 Senecio longilobis 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 a 25 1.67 8.2 Hoffmanseggia spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 0.07 0.3 Unknmm shrub 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 2 0.13 0.6 ----- Total vegetation 26 13 9 10 27 30 32 12 24 8 40 14 8 43 8 305 20.33% Cover - Litter 35 10 40 24 8 35 18 8 8 4 12 35 3 8 8 257 17.07 Bare ground/rock 39 77 51 66 65 35 50 79 68 88 48 51 89 49 74 930 61.90 - Grand Total 99.30

Line Intercept Line? Density Line Per Acre Species 1(S) 2(W) 3(E) % Ave. Spec;ies 1-~ 2(W) 3(E) Density - - Unknown shrub 7" 0.19% Buddleja scordioides 3 - 87 - Senecio longi1obus 5" 4" 0.25% Opuntia englemanni - 2 58 - - Yucca elata 28" 0.78% Senecio 1ongi1obus 10 3 377 Yucca elata 3 2 5 290

Site location: 170 paces due west, uphill, from center - embankment of bridge on overland trail, N of Fort. *A11 compass bearings are magnetic. 00 00 Table 3. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point Nuuilier3, (Ga) Draw Site, Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, June, 1981.

Quadrat Number and Percent Cover Species -1 ----2 3 4 5 6 7- 8-- 9 10 11 --12 13 14 15 Total Average % Composition Bothriochloabarbinodis 6 0 0 2, 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 30 2.0 0.6 Bouteloua gracilis 6 5 12 13 11 18 35 24 38 12' 8 12 1 6 40 2L1 16.07 77.2 Digitaria californica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0.80 3.8 Aristida longiseta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a a 1 0 1 0.07 0.3 Perennial forb 2 5 3 1 2 t a 2 0 6 1 1 1 a 3 27 1.80 8.6 Annual forb a a t 0 0 1 0 a a 0 a a t a 0 1 0.07 0.3

Total vegetation 14 10 15 16 13 22 35 26 38 19 9 31 14 7 43 312 20.81% Cover -. Litter 80 85 75 70 70 75 55 60 60 70 85 65 20 3 50 923 61.33 Bare ground/rock 6 5 10 14 17 3 10 14 2 11 6 4 66 90 7 265 17.86 - Grand Total 100.00

Line Intercept Line 'k Density Line Per Acre - Species l(N/E) 2(N) 3(N/W) ---% Ave. peces l(N/E) 2(N) 3(N/W) Density_- Prosopis glandu10sa - - 10" 0.28 Opuntia eng1emanni 1 - - 29 Prosopis glandu10sa - - 1 29

Site location: Hospital Canyon, large rock on N. side of road near rear of present rifle range. Find N. corner of rock, stake is 3 paces to North. . *All compass bearings are magnetic. co \D

'1f

." 90

Table 4. Species, Diameter and Estimated Age from Core Borings of Historic Trees, Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas.

Idenfification Number Species Diameter?', Est. Age7d,

H.T. if 1 Gray Oak 22 inches 198 years

H.T.{f2 Emory Oak 20 inches 180 years

H . T.if3 Gray and Emory Oak 18 inches 162 years

H.T.#4 Emory Oak 25 inches 225 years

H.T.4{5 Gray Oak 17 inches 153 years

H.T.if6 Gray Oak 10 inches (new trunk on old stump) 90 years

H.T.if? Gray Oak 17 inches 153 years

H . T .if8 Emory Oak 14 inches 126 years

H . T . if9 Emory Oak 21 inches 189 years

H.T.if10 Gray Oak 12 inches 118 years?',?',?',

Cottonwood 40 inches 130 years

*Diameter taken at breast height or below fork of branched trunks, excluding bark thickness. **Core samples indicate an average growth rate in oaks of 18 years per inch of radius. Any oak with a main trunk diameter of 12 inches or more should probably be considered an historic tree. Average cottonwood growth appears to be 7 years per inch of radius. '***Comp1ete core from H.T.#10 showed actual age of 118 years.

.. 1 ~,~ 91

Table 5. Category 1 and 2 species and their status at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas.

Status at Family Genus and SEecies Cate~ Fort Davis-k Asteraceae Astranthium robustum 2 Hay occur Bahia bigelovii 2 Present ";'(*

Cactaceae Cereus greggii 2 May occur -idd~ Coryphantha dasyacantha M "'~.J-.J- var. varieo lor 2 . ay occur"""

Caryophyllaceae Arenaria livermorensis 1 May occur ";'(";'d~

Fabaceae Astragalus mollissimus var. marcidus 2 May occur

Liliaceae Agave chisoensis 2 Hay occur -idd~ Polemoniaceae Polemonium pauciflorum ssp. Hinckleyi 2 May occur

Polygonaceae Eriogonum suffruticosum 2 May occur ";'(";'d~ Rutaceae Zanthoxylum parvum 1 May occur

Salicaceae Populus hinckleyana 1 May occur -ido,(-i~

*A search made during the course of this study failed to document the presence of any of these species. **by previous documentation ***Probability of occurance at Fort Davis is very low due to habitat, known range or elevation, ****Probably a hybrid, not a true species. ;;-

Table 6. Plant Species Found at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, Previously Not Documented, June, 1981.*

Family Genus and Species Connnon Name

Asteraceae Brickellia californica California bricklebush

Poaceae Agropyron smithii Western wheatgrass Aristida pansa Wooton 3-awn

Muhlenbergia utilis Aparejo muhly Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton

*Mounted specimens of these species have been added to the F.D.N.H.S. plant collection. -.-,- - ~~~. II:' ~

I I I

...... en (J) :I ~ w

11.. - UJ .a 2

~~.~~ ;: ...... - MIXED BRUSH (B)

MEDIUM DENSIT~ ( 2 ) _/ 8 I

0. GRASSLAND (G)

(jcorrONWOOD FIGURE 2 VEGETATION TYPES '981 . F: D. N.H.S., TX. II

~1 MIXED BRUSH (8) 1!1 LIGHT TO MEDIUM ~ DENSITY ( 1-2) GRASSLAND (G)

MI)(ED BRUSH ( 1-2) FIGURE 3 VEGETATION TYPES . 1880 TO 1900 '. ~ D.N.H.S.,TX. "'( .." N' HG .~ 8 X '4 '. ';:,~.~ FIG. 4 4.tJ>-. \V,... .JJJ':p \ 1 AV:. .v PHOTO POINTS (x) iJ/'A aCJ' 19L:J n '<..1'180 24[J.F.O . N. H. S., TX. ~VJ:11$'11 . HG, )( VJ' 'i6' 1880' S 1981 ° / - r: ~ ; ~ I ''t'''.'".IIc"... a25 / :V< .Y' " I . ~..I --- ", "" l!!o, . \ I ."'JbIH-. I g 51 " ','<' .' :']'';;I lID I r,;;, @jJ J2 IC " dCO " ~, I.~ --. I ~,3' a \ AS .- --- ~ '---- ~ - . -- , ~ I <0 ( /-- '- SJ~,fuaa ~)"bt:J' I ~ '=~ 5< /'..052 -;"'.' -."C!)...an 15AS l I x;::'i,;.5.L/ r ... /,..I1O oJ, AS CJI< I 1 9 , .51' [] ;;>, '/ 1 \14, t-- liDX 31 i ."CO EP"b(J 1=, --- . J ~ rr. fJ, a~ ~ . ' at ,--,. <5. '---L.I ::.1 -.----- x. . I 'f- - . , /I6 I. , .. , ...,..[Drn ' bQ I rrr ".. I :5, 5< ~ '50 I 9. ; t1) t? . I I <>::.;" ?I ! 'alII A- . ~\>'Y./ '\ f,I H G I 20 bJJ-Il I / I .(f/./ 16 Q.. !" !IJ \\ ~ LElI" 0 -~--- ' X-' , "'l 4 . I "CJ 'g' X" k.. 1 " - O33 . "" " ° FT. ,.. ~-::: 2 : " ,,~VA '1""" I CJ 16 - X, " ~ \-<:;c:;. I @0 34 0'. <),3 X [J" "- AS 6 ~

'- ~ ," , . \. ,'<

~ I~

.. - , .,

y":;;

." 2 III .e 0 'III l V 1 III 1& - I.; -.. - . . .JI - r , ...-, i " J ',- , - , ~, '-:-. " .. --. J

i J -.:.tfII

J' - ~ ---- - ~~..." -"- - ' ' -- '= ------"'-"...:.-. - --- -

... --- ,-'=:-- .. .:.-~~"" - iiO ,~~ -=_c'''-~~-' =..c -' u:~- -'--' ~,-";-_c- .~ .,.:C',,,:, -=;c :::..- .. -'~-'-:.. ~-"'-'c. '~-:"':"';C:"':C;'?'::~, ~ - ~ :1