CHAPTER 6

OVERVIEW OF EARLY SCIENTIFIC WORK, RESOURCE DATA COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONSERVATION 1812–1982

Historic Native American and Hispanic resource use degradation that subsequently were addressed in ever- and conservation prior to the Anglo occupation and domi- increasing degrees by governmental agencies. nation of the Middle Rio Grande Basin was documented Most notable is the characteristic evolution from virtu- in Chapters 3–5. Various Indian groups exploited water ally unregulated resource use on the frontier, especially and a range of faunal and floral resources, arable soil, on the public domain. Driven and supported by federal and rock materials. They developed strategies, in some and local legislative acts, policies, agencies, and monetary instances, for sustained use of these resources on a sub- remuneration, the pattern shifted to a relatively well- sistence basis. Their relatively low populations and low regulated and reasonably balanced resource management levels of technology generally ensured an ongoing relative system emphasizing self-sustainable and wise use pro- abundance of most of these resources. In rare situations grams and policies, involving an array of public agencies where intensive local use or climatic events depleted a and “watchdog” environmental groups. A few legislative needed resource, Native Americans moved to a new area acts from the early exploitation period, such as the 1872 or traded for the scarce commodity. In the colonial pe- Mining Act, remain in effect. The 104th Congress has at- riod, the Spanish generally interrupted such strategies. tempted to modify many resource management laws cre- Hispanics brought not only an array of new technolo- ated in recent decades. gies, which enabled them to exploit eco-cultural resources The following overview includes (1) a discussion of the more extensively and intensively than the indigenous early naturalists and environmental scientists and their populations, but they also brought a new attitude regard- work, (2) a chronological narrative about conservation and ing environmental use. The Spanish, unlike Native management of land and water resources by public agen- Americans, saw themselves as separate from nature and cies, (3) significant resource management legislation, and viewed natural disasters as acts of God over which they (4) a discussion of important private organizations' effect had no control (Weber 1992: 29). Although most residents on management and preservation of the region’s environ- maintained basic subsistence lifestyles, some resources mental resources during the territorial and statehood (to were exported to Mexico by wealthier private individu- 1982) periods. A chronology of landmark events, the work als or government officials. By the late 18th century, in of naturalists, scientists, government agencies, and envi- spite of some governmental regulation, there were some ronmental organizations and resource legislation follows. local water shortages and contamination, decimation or depletion of forage, and soil erosion. By the time of the EARLY NATURALISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL arrival of the U.S. Army and early Anglo settlers in the SCIENTISTS IN THE STUDY REGION, 1831–1924 mid- to late-1840s, grass and wood supplies were in de- cline or nearly exhausted around the Rio Grande Valley Various Native American groups, who have lived in the from above Cochiti Pueblo to below Socorro. region for more than 10,000 years, might be called the first Anglo Americans also brought new technologies and, “naturalists.” Over thousands of years, knowledge of more important, a new attitude toward the environment. geography, surface waters, rocks and minerals, plants and Like that of the Spaniards, Anglos' attitudes emanated animals—their distribution, seasonal or annual occur- from a religious background that viewed humans as sepa- rences, and uses—was gained through observation, study, rate from the natural environment. Also related to this and experimentation. Native Americans passed this philosophy was a resource exploitation strategy based on knowledge orally from one generation to the next. They maximum harvest of resources for maximum profit. To shared non-sacred aspects of this information with promote primarily Anglo settlement and development of Hispanics who began settling in New Mexico at the end the region, the Federal Government passed many natural of the 16th century. Hispanics brought new plants, ani- resource laws, created numerous agencies, and appropri- mals, and associated knowledge, which in turn they ated many millions of dollars. Initially, virtually all fed- shared with Native Americans. eral and territorial laws promulgated intensive use of the Native Americans also had considerable knowledge of environment. This led to various forms of environmental astronomical phenomena and extensive knowledge of the

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 331 geography of the region. Early Spanish explorers relied century, such as W.H.H. Davis (1982), wrote rather de- on Indian guides for travel directions, locations of water, tailed accounts of land use along the Middle Rio Grande and food sources. This kind of information was also made Valley. available to Spanish Colonial New Mexico’s Hispanic and The first individuals trained in the physical or biologi- later Anglo explorers and settlers. Chronicles from early cal sciences to work in the study region were botanists. Spanish expeditions (Hammond and Rey 1966, 1967; Two East Coast botanists, John Torrey of Columbia and Hodge 1946; and Schroeder and Matson 1965) contain the Asa Gray of Harvard, collected, classified, and named first written descriptions, albeit sketchy, of the land, wa- plants for a botanical study of North America in the 1840s. ter, biotic components, and indigenous peoples. Thomas Nuttall, a prominent Philadelphia botanist, and The best known map maker in Spanish Colonial New George Engelmann, a St. Louis physician and expert on Mexico was Captain Don Bernardo Miera y Pacheco. Af- cacti, assisted in this ambitious project (Dickerman 1985: ter his arrival in Santa Fe in 1756, he produced several 159; Goetzmann 1966: 321). These plant and zoological maps, including perhaps his best known map, prepared collections resulted in descriptive catalogs and invento- in 1779 (Fig. 74). This map shows, with relative accuracy, ries that organized large amounts of data for use by later, streams and rivers, mountain ranges, place names, and more theoretically oriented biologists. Scientists for- settlements. He died in Santa Fe in 1785 (Adams and warded faunal specimens to the Smithsonian Institution, Chavez 1956: 2–4, 161; Chavez 1975: 229–230). where they were cataloged and classified under the di- The most comprehensive work on the geography, agri- rect supervision of Spencer F. Baird, a student of John culture, and human populations of colonial New Mexico James Audubon (Goetzmann 1966: 322–323). was produced by Fray Francisco Atanasio Dominguez, a Collecting in New Mexico began in 1841, when Will- Franciscan priest who traveled across the region in 1776 iam Gambel, a protege of Nuttall, arrived in Santa Fe in (Adams and Chavez 1956). He carefully recorded his ob- July. He collected botanical and zoological specimens in servations on the landscape and settlements, which re- the nearby Rio Grande Valley and Sangre de Cristo Range. sulted in a large manuscript discovered in Mexico City in The Gambel oak was later named in his honor (Dickerman 1928 and first published 28 years later. Several other reli- 1985: 159, 163–164). gious figures and government officials, such as Benavides In 1846 another plant collector, Frederick A. Wislizenus (Ayer 1965), Morfi (Simmons 1977), Chacon (Simmons (1969), came to New Mexico just prior to the U.S. Army’s 1985), and Pino, Barreiro, and Escudero (Carroll and Hag- invasion. During his relatively brief passage through the gard 1942), authored manuscripts that contain less region and into Chihuahua, Wislizenus collected five new comprehensive and detailed, but nonetheless useful, en- species, including pinyon and ponderosa pines, walking- vironmental history data on the period. stick cholla, a yucca, and an echinocactus (Dickerman The first scientific studies of the region were carried out 1985: 164–166). by Anglo naturalists from the midwestern or eastern Later in 1846, Lt. William Emory of the U.S. Corps of United States, some of whom were actually trained as Topographical Engineers collected botanical specimens medical doctors. They primarily collected plants and ani- along the Santa Fe and Chihuahua trails. Two of the plants mals that were sent back east for study and naming. They he collected, an oak and a mesquite, were later named for were followed by geologists, paleontologists, botanists, him (Dickerman 1985: 167–168). Emory also produced the zoologists, and ornithologists, who were generally part first detailed maps of the region. of military expeditions or railroad surveys. Early photog- Another topographical engineer, Lt. James W. Abert raphers, artists, and map makers, also part of the same (1962), was interested in the flora, fauna, and geology of kind of field parties, provided basic imagery of the land New Mexico. Under Emory’s command, Abert described and its people. These collected specimens, associated sci- the plants and animals on his route of travel along the Rio entific data, and photographs and maps composed a body Grande Valley as far south as Valverde, west to the Rio of knowledge that was subsequently utilized by early Puerco, Laguna, and Acoma, and east to the edge of the conservationists and resource managers, as well as pri- Estancia Valley. He collected and recorded various bird vate organizations and politicians, in determining needs, specimens during his exploration. He also collected the developing programs, and enacting legislation related to first fossil specimens from the territory; some of these were the environment. illustrated in his subsequent report to the U.S. Senate. Although not trained as a naturalist, early Anglo ex- The U.S. Corps of Topographical Engineers had been plorer and trader Josiah Gregg (Fig. 75) was a good ob- created in 1838 and was responsible for conducting a gen- server and student of the region’s geography, fauna, flora, eral survey of the plants, animals, geology, and Native and eco-cultures. His observations, made from 1831 to Americans of the West. Most of the engineers, like Emory 1841, were published in the now classic Commerce of the and Abert, were educated at West Point and were trained Prairies, which has gone through several reprintings since and advised by the best scientists and learned societies in first issued in 1844. A few other Anglos of the mid 19th America. Their recording and collecting of natural his-

332 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 Figure 74—Miera y Pacheco’s map of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, 1779.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 333 tory specimens were major contributions to the basic work of science. At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, the Corps began to disintegrate. In early 1863 it merged with the Corps of Engineers (Goetzmann 1991: 6–21, 430–432). Various topographical engineers also made relatively careful observations of the weather representing the first scientific meteorological data recorded in the state. These data were used primarily to determine feasibility of road and railroad construction and settlement in the region (Goetzmann 1991: 331). Augustus Fendler, who had extensive experience col- lecting plant specimens, arrived in New Mexico with a contingent of American troops in the fall of 1846. The fol- lowing spring and summer he collected 1,026 specimens along the Santa Fe River and surrounding uplands. One of the plants he collected, Fendlerbush, was subsequently named in his honor (Dickerman 1985: 168–169). Capt. Lorenzo Sitgreaves led an expedition from Santo Domingo Pueblo west to Zuni and the Colorado River via Acoma and El Morro in 1854. Included in the party were naturalist and physician Dr. S.W. Woodhouse, Lt. J.G. Parke, and artist R.J. Kern. Woodhouse collected and described mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Among the birds were White-Throated Swifts, the first time this species was collected scientifically. He later sur- vived a bite on the hand by a rattlesnake near the Zuni River (Eifert 1962: 180–182; Ligon 1961: 7). Cartographer Richard Kern, while living in Santa Fe in late 1850, assembled a large botanical and entomological collection. He sent the collection east, probably to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Early in 1852 Kern personally gave a number of insect specimens Figure 75—Santa Fe Trail trader Josiah Gregg. Courtesy Museum and a coyote skull from New Mexico to the academy of New Mexico Photo Archives, Santa Fe (negative no. 9896). (Weber 1985: 134–135). Still another U.S. topographical engineer, Lt. A.W. Whipple, followed the 35th parallel across New Mexico the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and Territory in 1853. Surveying for a possible railroad route the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard to the Pacific, he was accompanied by Dr. C.B.R. Kennerly, University for curation (Goetzmann 1966: 286–287; a physician and naturalist; Dr. J.M. Bigelow, also a medi- Sublette et al. 1990: 1, 370). cal doctor and naturalist; Jules Marcou, a celebrated In 1857–59 John Strong Newberry, a member of mili- geologist; and H.B. Molhausen, a German artist and to- tary surveys for railroad routes, studied the geology of pographer. In addition to collecting mammals, birds, and northern and northeastern New Mexico. He wrote detailed fish, Bigelow wrote an essay on the distribution of plants descriptions of stratigraphy, gathered considerable along their survey route and the distribution of specific paleontological information, and provided a good inter- tree species found in forests. Five men trained in meteo- pretation of the regional geology (Goetzmann 1966: 308– rological observation were also members of the expedi- 309; Kues 1985: 117). tion (Goetzmann 1991: 287-288, 328). A number of army surgeons stationed at frontier out- As noted above, Bigelow, with the Whipple expedi- posts made early weather observations. Their data “rep- tion, collected the first fish specimens in the region in resented a comprehensive picture of far-western weather 1853. C. Girard, a member of the Capt. John Williams conditions,” that was useful not only to the military but Gunnison expedition, surveying the 38th parallel as an- also to early settlers in the region (Goetzmann 1991: 331). other potential railroad route, collected fish in the Up- Several military doctors contributed to early ornitho- per Rio Grande Basin in southern Colorado. These logical research in New Mexico. Perhaps the best known, specimens, and those collected by other early surveys, Lt. Col. Thomas Carlton Henry, was stationed at forts went to the U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Fillmore and Thorn in 1852–55. He collected a large num-

334 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 ber of bird specimens and published his observations on Americans. Key members of the expedition included E.D. these, as well as those made in the field, in 1856 (Henry Cope, who discovered Eocene fossil beds with their early 1856; Hume 1942: 207–218; Ligon 1961: 7–8). mammal remains in northern New Mexico. He and Dr. Dr. Caleb Burwell Kennerly accompanied Lt. Joseph C. Oscar Loew also explored new Indian ruins along the San Ives up the Rio Grande to Albuquerque in 1853, making Juan River in 1874. The surveying and mapping of north- extensive observations on birds and collecting a relatively central and northwestern New Mexico occurred in large number of specimens. He joined the Whipple expe- 1877–78. Ornithologist Henry W. Henshaw conducted ex- dition and continued his work as the group moved west tensive field work in central and northern New Mexico in across the Rio Puerco, along the San Jose, and on to El 1873–74. Zoologist Elliot Coues and photographer Timo- Morro and Zuni Pueblo (Ligon 1961: 8). thy O’Sullivan also contributed outstanding work for the At Cantonment Burgwyn (later referred to as Fort project. By the end of the project in 1878, seven large vol- Burgwyn) in the 1850s, post doctor W.W. Anderson dis- umes of final reports on geography, geology, paleontol- covered a new species of warbler, which he collected and ogy, astronomy, zoology, botany, archeology, and history sent to Professor Baird. Baird subsequently named the bird were completed. Also produced were 71 maps, including Virginia’s Warbler, in honor of Anderson’s wife (Eifert a geological, as well as a topographical, atlas and seven 1962: 183). Another new species of warbler, Grace’s land-use maps. Some 43,759 natural history specimens Warbler, was collected by U.S. Army surgeon Dr. Elliott were collected and sent to the Smithsonian (Goetzmann Coues near the site of old Fort Wingate in July 1864. He 1966: 467–470, 482–483, 485–487; Goetzmann 1991: 42). was one of the best known 19th-century ornithologists in Other important work of the Wheeler group was per- the Southwest, as well as a noted historian. Coues’ two- formed by Cope and H.C. Yarrow, who collected fish in the volume Key to North American Birds (1884) was perhaps region (Sublette et al. 1990: 345, 365–366). Ornithologist his most important ornithological publication (Eifert 1962: Henry Wetherbee Henshaw, who emphasized observing and 175-176, 183–184; Ligon 1961: 9). recording birds rather than collecting, worked in the north- While at Camp or Cantonment Burgwyn in 1872, Ma- ern part of the territory in 1873–74. U.S. Army botanist Joseph jor Charles Emil Bendire became interested in birds and T. Rothrock also collected here in 1874 (Ligon 1961: 10). egg collecting. He continued this pursuit at posts in south- Two of the best known naturalists who worked in New ern Arizona, eventually collecting some 8,000 eggs, which Mexico were Florence Merriam, an orinthologist, and he donated to the U.S. National Museum. His two-volume Vernon Bailey, a naturalist. They collected and observed Life Histories of North American Birds (1892-1895) was a across the territory-state from 1889 to 1924. Some have highly respected work (Ligon 1961: 9). called Merriam the greatest American woman ornitholo- In 1869 the U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories was gist; she authored the Handbook of Birds of the Western formed in the Department of the Interior, primarily to con- United States (1917 rev. ed.) and Birds of New Mexico (1928). duct land classification and resource explorations ahead Vernon Bailey was Chief Naturalist of the U.S. Bureau of of the land surveyors and first settlers. The first outstand- Biological Survey for years and published Life Zones and ing geologist to work for the USGS was F.V. Hayden who Crop Zones of New Mexico (1913) and Mammals of New conducted a major survey from Denver over Raton Pass, Mexico (1932) (Ligon 1961: 11; Norwood 1993: 43–46). south to Santa Fe, then back north through Taos and the New Mexico’s best known early anthropologist was San Luis valley in 1869. With Hayden were zoologist E. Adolph F. Bandelier, who worked over much of the terri- C. Carrington, entomologist Cyrus Thomas, and artist tory between late 1880 and early 1892. Perhaps Bandelier’s Henry W. Elliot. The expedition collected large numbers most important contribution was his pioneering effort in of fossils. On a later survey, 1873–75, Hayden also sent multidisciplinary approaches, especially using ethnologi- ethnologist William H. Holmes and photographer W.H. cal data in the interpretation of archeological remains. Jackson on a survey of Indian ruins from Mesa Verde to Until 1886, funding for most of his fieldwork came from the San Juan to Chaco Canyon, Pueblo Pintado, and Can- the Archaeological Institute of America and after that date yon de Chelly. Their detailed report, with numerous il- from AIA and the Hemenway Expedition (Lange and Riley lustrations, was an early landmark in Southwestern 1966: 1–5, 24–56, 66–67). archeology (Goetzmann 1966: 489, 497–498, 521–526). As indicated, artists and photographers accompanied Beginning in 1871, Lt. George M. Wheeler led the geo- many of the earliest scientific expeditions to the region. graphical surveys of the territories of the United States Their images of the historical landscape, plants, animals, west of the 100th meridian. The main objectives of the historical structures, and indigenous peoples are still valu- surveys were to gather topographical knowledge of the able today. In addition to those previously mentioned, region; prepare accurate maps; gather information on there was illustrator and cartographer Edward Kern, who routes for rail or wagon roads; survey the mineral re- was with the Col. John M. Washington expedition in 1849. sources, geological formations, vegetation, agricultural His brother Richard was also on this expedition, which suitability, and weather; and gather information on Native followed a circular route from Santa Fe through Navajo

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 335 country, via Chaco Canyon, Canyon de Chelly, and Zuni, tion of timber cutting, mining, and other resource exploi- and back to the capital. Edward’s fine map was the first tation (Udall 1962: 1; 1963: 58–59, 73). Three years later, detailed map of this region. He also made meteorological however, on March 3, Congress enacted a law establish- observations and sketches of animal and plant life. Rich- ing the Department of the Interior to administer these ard prepared several sketches of landscapes and Navajo lands and resources. The previously established General leaders, which became part of Col. Washington’s report Land Office and Office of Indian Affairs were transferred to the U.S. Senate (McNitt 1964: ix, xxxii, l-lii). to this new department (Dale 1949: 6; Smith and Zurcher Some early photographers included J.G. Gaige, who 1968: 112; Udall 1962: 2). worked out of Santa Fe and at military posts, 1862–66; To protect forests on public lands, timber agents were Nicolas Brown, who photographed around Santa Fe and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior in 1850. This Albuquerque and worked the Rio Abajo 1866–72; marked the first organized federal program for manag- Alexander Gardner, who accompanied a private railroad ing public timber. Five years later these employees were survey across central New Mexico in 1867–68; H.T. Heister, placed under the direct jurisdiction of the Commissioner who photographed from his Santa Fe studio and while of the General Land Office, which issued a circular with making a boat trip down the Rio Grande in 1874; and general directions and instructions for protecting this for- George C. Bennett, who photographed at Acoma, Cochiti, est resource (Udall 1962: 2). and Frijoles Canyon, where he worked with Adolph In an attempt to better regulate timber harvesting on Bandelier, 1880–83 (Rudisill 1973: 13–14, 16, 28-29, 33). public lands, a Bureau of Forestry was created in the De- Another group worked in the 1880s: Ben Wittick, who partment of Agriculture, which was established in 1862. worked for the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad in 1881–82 However, virtually unregulated timber cutting continued. and around the territory until he died of snakebite in 1903; Conservation of the public forests began with the 1875 John Hillers, who accompanied Col. James Stevenson in creation of the American Forestry Association. Efforts of a study of prehistoric archeological sites and extant pueb- Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz and forest agent Dr. los in 1879–80; independents George C. Bennet and Will- Franklin B. Hough in the Department of Agriculture also iam H. Brown, who photographed the Santa Fe and brought about federal protection for timber on public Cerrillos areas and the Rio Grande Valley around San Juan lands. Regulation remained hampered, however, by pro- Pueblo and Potrero Viejo in 1880; William H. Rau, a visit- tests from the timber industry and the actions of unscru- ing landscape photographer, 1881; Charles Lummis, who pulous federal employees, especially in the General Land lived at Isleta and other pueblos in 1888–1890s and teamed Office (Bergoffen 1976: 11; Roberts 1963: 2; Udall 1963: 86– with Adolph Bandelier and photographed the Cochiti- 87). Jemez country during this period; Henry A. Schmidt, who New Mexico had achieved territorial status in 1850, and worked the area around his resident town of Chloride, the first laws related to water were subsequently passed but photographed as far north as Cabezon, 1882–1924; by the Legislative Assembly in 1851. These laws confirmed William Henry Cobb, who worked out of Albuquerque Spanish-Mexican law in that the use of water for the irri- and Santa Fe, 1880–1890s; and Philip Embury Harroun, gation of the fields should be preferable to all others and who photographed irrigation and bridge projects, 1881– the course of ditches or acequias already established 92 (Coke 1979: 4–21; Olivas 1971, 1975; Rudisill 1973: 5– should not be disturbed. Furthermore, the owner of live- 11, 33, 54). Starting their work slightly later were Christian stock that trespassed onto unfenced fields owned by oth- G. Kaadt, who was employed a short time by the Santa Fe ers was liable for damages. Also in 1851, the Territorial Central Railroad and later ran a curio shop in Santa Fe, Assembly petitioned the U.S. Congress to reserve all salt 1893–1905; Erwin E. Smith, who photographed at many lakes, salt mines, and springs to prevent these resources of New Mexico’s larger ranches in the early 1900s; and from passing into private ownership. Other laws passed John K. Stauffer, who photographed along “El Camino over the next several years strengthened the “institution Real” in 1905 (Rudisill 1973: 38, 54–55). A number of other of the community acequia” (Clark 1987: 25–27, 32). photographers captured historic scenes in the Middle Rio Three years later, on July 22, 1854, Congress passed the Grande Basin (Fig. 76). Donation Act, which created the office of the Surveyor General of New Mexico and granted 160 acres of surveyed RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND land to every qualifying "white male citizen" over the age MANAGEMENT of 21. Other individuals meeting specific requirements of residency in the territory could qualify as well. To secure At the time of Anglo military invasion-occupation in a donation, the claimant had to demonstrate continuous 1846, administration of public lands was the responsibil- residence and cultivation for 4 years or more (Westphall ity of the U.S. General Land Office, an agency understaffed 1965: 1, 37). and inadequately funded. Combined with general public The first Surveyor General arrived in the territory in apathy toward natural resources, there was little regula- December 1854 to begin the public land surveys. The

336 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 Figure 76—Socorro residents with team of oxen hitched to wagon bed at the Lee Art Studio, ca. 1890. Courtesy New Mexico Bureau of Mines Photo Archives, Socorro.

policy of his office was to survey only arable or agricul- only reasonable, use of public land.” Under either act an tural land. His first effort was the survey of the principal individual could stake out as many claims as wanted, and meridian, from near the Jemez Mountains, south to the a claim remained valid as long as the miner recovered a border, and a base line for 24 miles on either side of the minimum of $100 annually from working a placer or lode principal meridian (Westphall 1965: 1, 4, 5, 17, 37). mine. A patent on the claim could be obtained through On March 12, 1860, Congress passed the Pre-emption survey and meeting other provisions of the act and mak- Act, giving free public land to New Mexico. Two years ing payment of $2.50 or $5.00 per acre (Clawson 1971: 123– later, this body passed the Homestead Act, which allowed 124; Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 27). More than a year individuals to claim 160 acres of public domain. A patent prior to the federal Mining Act of 1866, the Territorial to the land could be obtained by living on the tract for 4 Assembly passed a bill providing a legal basis for mining years or by commuting it through payment of cash within development and supported local rules of miners 6 months (Clark 1987: 44–45; Westphall 1965: 42–43). (Christiansen 1974: 87). Surveyed or unsurveyed public lands, which could be In the 1870s, Congress enacted several other federal explored or mined for minerals, were opened by the Min- laws affording individuals the right to acquire public land ing Act of 1866 to all citizens or individuals intending to for the purpose of harvesting resources, including the Tim- become citizens (Limerick 1987: 65; Westphall 1965: 96). ber Culture Act of 1873, the Desert Land Act of 1877, and This legislation and its updating in 1872 were based on the Timber and Stone Act of 1878. The first two laws were the view that mining “was the most important, if not the abused, and the third did not apply to New Mexico. An

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 337 example of one abuse of the Timber Culture Act involved some cattle corporations that had persons who were not corporate members file on land, which secured its use, free of charge, for 13 years or more. In this manner, valu- able grassland and water for livestock was procured with- out complying with any part of the law; that is, no timber was planted or maintained. By this strategy “entire” town- ships were dominated by large cattle interests (Baydo 1970: 156; Clark 1987: 46-47; Oakes 1983: 27; Westphall 1965: 43, 72–74, 76). The first government action at the federal level that would later influence resource management on protected lands in New Mexico was the creation of Yosemite Valley as a “scenic reserve” in 1864. Eight years later, Congress established Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, the first such use of public land not only for the United States but also for the world (Wild 1979: 40-41, 60; Udall 1963: 112). One of the earliest efforts to bring about government resource management and conservation in the Southwest was John Wesley Powell’s A Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the U.S. issued in 1879. In the plan, Powell, head of a Department of the Interior survey, proposed a sys- tematic classification of lands based on their potential “best use”—irrigation, logging, grazing, mining, and so forth. Powell also recommended ending the homestead Figure 77—U.S. Geological Survey geologist R. H. Chapman in and pre-emption programs. These would be replaced, he the Rio Grande. Photo courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey, Denver. suggested, by small irrigated farms no larger than 80 acres Photo Archives and all part of irrigation districts, or by livestock ranches no larger than 2,560 acres and part of grazing districts. While Powell was clearly ahead of his time, Congress re- tion of a new ditch was permitted if the damaged ditch jected virtually all of his plan. One recommendation, that a was impossible to rebuild and if most of those who would geological survey be created to compile data on which sen- furnish the labor so consented (Clark 1987: 26). The As- sible resource planning could be based, was adopted (Barnes sembly addressed flooding some 10 years later when it 1926: 35; Swift 1958: 45; Udall 1963: 88–94; Worster 1994: 13). created a five-member board of commissioners, who A year later Congress created the Public Lands Com- would be responsible for raising money for use in flood mission, and Powell was appointed director. The purpose prevention by taxing residents living within 5 miles of of the commission was to codify public land laws, develop the Rio Grande (Clark 1987: 31). a system of public land classification, and make recom- The Territorial Organic Act of 1878 specified that any mendations for the “wise disposal” and management of timber cut on public lands and exported from New Mexico the remaining public lands (Udall 1962: 5; Utely and Mack- was liable to seizure by the U.S. Government (Ritch 1968). intosh 1989: 9–10; Worster 1994: 9). Another territorial act, this one to control water pollution, The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was created by Con- was passed on February 12, 1880. This legislation declared gress in 1879, and Powell was named its first director. Since establishment, this agency has produced thousands of . . . every person who shall foul the water of any detailed maps, studies on surface and ground waters, stream in the Territory of New Mexico, or throw studies of physical and historical geology, and more re- into any ditch, river or spring of flowing water cently, aerial imagery (Udall 1963: 94–95; Fig. 77). any dead or pestiferous animal or other filth, Albuquerque’s board of aldermen in 1863 passed per- dirty vessels, or other impurities that might in- haps the first ordinances dealing with nonwater environ- jure the general health of the inhabitants of any mental problems in the territorial period. These laws ap- town or settlement of this Territory, on convic- plied to animal and traffic control, sanitation, public tion thereof, would be fined not less than one nor works, and zoning (Simmons 1982: 195–196). Territorial more than ten dollars (Clark 1987: 31). legislation related to flooding was passed on January 18, 1866. This statute provided for the right to move an irri- In this same year the Territorial Assembly also passed gation ditch destroyed by rain or runoff water. Construc- two laws to protect wildlife. One, to prevent the extinc-

338 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 tion of the buffalo, came as the last members of this spe- ally criticizing its embargo on development of water nec- cies in the territory were about to be killed. Furthermore, essary for the reclamation of arid lands. These withdraw- enforcement of the law would have been virtually impos- als were soon repealed by Congress (Clark 1987: 65, 66, sible (Gard 1960: 216). The other, a fish law, declared that 132; Westphall 1965: 84). operators of mills or factories could not discharge any The Territorial Assembly continued to legislate water waste harmful to trout. Another provision made the tak- matters, when in 1888, the first groundwater supply stud- ing of fish by the use of drugs, explosives, or artificial ies were authorized. In 1891, it passed a statute requiring obstructions a misdemeanor. Additionally, trout could be “all persons, associations, or corporations who . . . con- taken only by hook-and-line, and commercial sale of fish structed or enlarged any ditch, canal, or reservoir taking was limited (Clark 1987: 32). waters from a natural stream to make a sworn written Five years later, in 1885, a significant event affecting statement of such diversion, to be filed with the county wildlife occurred. The Federal Bureau of Biological Survey, probate court within ninety days after commencement of whose primary role was protecting game animals and the work.” Construction had to be completed within 5 years controlling predators and rodents, was created in the U.S. of commencement (Clark 1987: 117; Hale et al. 1965: 7). Department of Agriculture, partly due to pressure from Outside of New Mexico, concern for wildlife and wil- the livestock industry. Employees of this bureau began to derness led to formation of two conservation groups on study methods of poisoning rodents and “pest” birds and opposite coasts, the American Ornithologists' Union trapping or poisoning predators. By 1890 agency field (1883), parent organization to the National Audubon personnel were aggressively killing wolves, coyotes, griz- Society in New York and the Sierra Club (1892) in Califor- zly bears, mountain lions, bobcats, and prairie dogs nia (Matthiessen 1987: 167; Udall 1963: 116). Both evolved (Brown 1983: 1–2, 41–43; Udall 1962: 6). into major national environmental organizations with Concern for grass and water led Congress to pass a law chapters in New Mexico. in 1885 forbidding ranchers to control public domain by The Territorial Assembly displayed a concern for fish fencing and posting, but the practice generally continued conservation, passing a law in 1889 that created fish war- until the Taylor Grazing Act was enacted 49 years later. dens in every county to assist sheriffs and commissioners The federal law opened the public domain to all comers, in enforcing an 1880 fish and game law. The law included which, in some instances, resulted in overgrazing (Clark a closed season of fishing except for members of needy 1987: 54, 136; Hagy 1951: 75-76). families, the construction of sluices for passage of fish at In 1889 the New Mexico Territorial Assembly supple- all dams or other obstructive facilities constructed for mented the Federal fencing act by passing a law declar- purposes other than irrigation, and the prohibition of ing that an individual or corporation could only graze waste discharge harmful to trout by mills or factories into the number of livestock that he or it had enough water to any stream (Clark 1987: 32). maintain (Clark 1987: 54, 149; Hagy 1951: 75). Two years In 1889 the Territorial Assembly also established a Cattle later the legislature enacted a stricter fencing law, mak- Sanitary Board, whose main efforts were to prevent disease ing it a felony to cut fences on private land or to fence to and to inspect animals (Hagy 1951: 95). Protection of cattle the detriment of others land that was not legally owned from predators, such as the wolf, was also addressed. In or used (Clark 1987: 54). 1893 the legislature passed the Territorial Bounty Act, allow- Recent droughts and the need to better manage water ing counties to appropriate funds for payment to indi- in the West also prompted Congress to pass the Hatch Act in viduals taking wolves, grizzly bears, mountain lions, and 1887, creating agricultural experiment stations to conduct coyotes (Fig. 78). This act led to a rapid decline of wolves scientific research and disseminate findings through the and bears over the next 20 or so years (Brown 1983: 43). Leg- land grant colleges. Also, Congress authorized surveys islators who opposed this legislation considered bounties a by the USGS for irrigable lands and reservoir sites in the kind of "rural welfare"; that is, ranchers were responsible for West. This agency soon began to place streamflow gaug- controlling predators on their land. Some ranchers even paid ing stations at appropriate locations, with the first being es- bounties to professional hunters who would take wolves on tablished on the Rio Grande at Embudo in 1889 (Bullard and their land (Brown 1983: 43–44; Burbank 1990: 98). Wells 1992: 12; Clark 1987: 131; Wozniak 1987). Wolves were also targeted because of their predation In February 1887 the Territorial Assembly enacted leg- on deer, the most important meat animal taken by private islation authorizing the incorporation of companies to and commercial hunters. Deer population declines were supply water for mining and milling, as well as irriga- due in large part to hunting, however, so the Territorial tion. The U.S. Congress, in the following year, passed leg- Assembly passed a law in 1897 regulating hunting of deer islation providing for the withdrawal of irrigable land and other game (Findley et al. 1975: 329). from entry. As a result, some 39 reservoir sites amounting Interest in the climate grew among the livestock and to over 40,000 acres were selected in New Mexico. In early farming industries and the federal and territorial govern- 1891 the Territorial Assembly petitioned Congress gener- ments during this period. Weather records had been kept

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 339 chives, Santa Fe (negative no. 12241).

, 1880s. Courtesy Museum of New Mexico Photo Ar

Figure 78—Hunters and onlookers with dead grizzly bear Figure

340 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 by the U.S. military over the past 4 decades. This respon- and regulations. Management of grazing, including the use sibility was transferred to the U.S. Weather Bureau, es- of grazing fees for cattle, sheep, and horses, was authorized. tablished in the Agriculture Department in 1891 (Bradley The act also authorized sale of timber on national forest re- 1976: 12). Four years later the Territorial Assembly passed serves (Baker et al. 1988: 39, 79; Brown 1978: 254; Clark 1987: legislation enabling the publication of a Monthly Weather 140; Eastman and Gray 1987: 36). Review, which disseminated climatic data collected by the Probably the most important figure in the history of Weather Bureau. Volunteer observers collected most of the national forests, Gifford Pinchot, was appointed Chief field information at this time (Tuan et al. 1973: 12). Forester in the Department of Agriculture in 1898. An ac- The Territorial Assembly also passed an important law tivist and friend of Theodore Roosevelt, he already had a affecting irrigation. This measure defined community plan and program for the systematic management of the ditches (acequias) and detailed their legal status. The forests. Owing to Pinchot’s influence, Roosevelt, who be- multiple owners of ditches were considered to be “corpo- came president in 1901, declared that “forest and water rations” or bodies corporate, with power to sue and be problems are perhaps the most vital internal questions of sued as such (Clark 1987: 30). the United States” in his first state-of-the-union message On March 16, 1899, the legislature responded positively (Udall 1963: 101–103). A Forestry Division was created in to the federal Fergusson Act, which authorized the trans- the General Land Office in 1901, but four years later man- fer of federal public lands to the territory for schools and agement was transferred to Agriculture (Udall 1962: 9–10). certain other public institutions. About 500,000 acres were Management of wildlife in the national forests was, as designated as sites for irrigation reservoirs and 100,000 yet, not a concern, although a federal law, the Lacey Act, acres for “improving the Rio Grande and increasing its passed in 1900, made market hunting and importation of surface flow in New Mexico.” To lease, sell, and manage foreign wildlife illegal (Borland 1975: 122). Interest in wild- these lands, the Territorial Assembly created the office of life at the territory level was evidenced by the introduc- Commissioner of Public Lands and a Board of Public tion of brook trout into the Rio San Jose near Laguna at Lands in March of 1899 (Clark 1987: 84). That same year, this time, followed by other releases in other drainages of the legislature authorized towns of the “first class” to is- the Rio Grande in the early 1900s (Sublette et al. 1990: 72). sue bonds for construction of embankments, drainage Over the first decade of the 20th century, Pinchot effec- ditches, and other facilities to prevent flood damage to or tively debated vegetation management for watersheds destruction of municipal property (Clark 1987: 31–32). and grazing regulation, including fees, with the Secretary Some of the most significant events in natural resource of the Interior and Army Corps of Engineers, western stock legislation and management during the 1890s were forest growers, and various congressmen. The Department of related. Congress and other officials in Washington were Agriculture actually had promoted management of wa- increasingly concerned about illegal and wasteful timber ter through management of the forest reserves. In 1900, cutting. Congressional action in 1888 forbade trespass tim- the General Land Office opened these lands to limited fee ber harvesting on Indian reservations, and Congress re- grazing. Preference was given to livestock raisers with pealed the unsuccessful Timber Culture Act in 1891 (Clark land within or adjacent to the reserves (Clark 1987: 72, 1987: 62; Udall 1962: 6). Also in 1891, the General Land 141). Law Revision Act, commonly known as the Creative Act, Another management policy for the forests imple- was passed; it authorized the establishment of national mented at this time was fire suppression. Aggressively forest reserves from public domain lands by presidential pursued to the present, this strategy, combined with live- action. These reserves would later be redesignated na- stock grazing, has caused significant change in the com- tional forests. Their administration was assigned to the position of plant communities in the national forests (Dick- Department of Interior, rather than Agriculture (Baker et al. Peddie 1993: 51, 56, 91–92). 1988: 25; Clark 1987: 71; Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 19). Owing primarily to predation on livestock by wolves, In January 1892 the President created the Pecos River grizzly bears, and other carnivores, the program to exter- Forest Reserve, the first “national forest” in New Mexico minate these predatory animals was continued with an (Fig. 79; Table 63). The cutting of timber up to $100 in act in 1903 to authorize counties to levy taxes for use in value, per year, on the reserves was allowed in the fiscal paying bounty claims. In the following year, the legisla- year of 1893 (Baker et al. 1988: 25, 79; Tucker and ture created the New Mexico Department of Game and Fitzpatrick 1972: 1; Udall 1963: 100–101). This reserve sub- Fish (Borland 1975: 122; Hagy 1951: 91; Sublette et al. sequently became part of the Santa Fe National Forest. 1990: 72). Congress passed the Organic Act for national forests in Water quality was a concern at the federal level as Con- June 1897. This legislation established standards for the gress passed the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act use and protection of national forest reserves. Further- of 1899. Also known as the Refuse Act, this legislation more, this act embodied the concept of multiple-use of authorized the Corps of Engineers to regulate all sources resources in conformity with state laws and federal rules of effluents into navigable streams. Polluters could be

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 341 Figure 79—National forests, parks and monuments, national wildlife refuges, and major state parks.

342 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 Table 63—National and state forests, wildernesses, wild rivers, parks, monuments, and refuges.

Name Date established Name Date established

National preserves/forests (NF) Apache Kid WA 1980 Santa Fe NF Withington WA 1980 Pecos River 1892 Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 1970 Jemez 1905 National monuments (NM) Pecos River NF changed to Pecos NF 1908 Gran Quivira National Monument 1909 Jemez and Pecos NFs consolidated 1915 Salinas NM (Gran Quivira NM, Abo and Carson NF Quarai State Parks combined) 1981 Taos Forest Reserve (FR) 1906 Bandelier NM 1916 Taos, Carson, and part of Jemez NF combined 1908 Cibola NF National wildlife refuges (NWR) Mt. Taylor 1906 Bosque del Apache NWR 1939 San Mateo 1906 Sevilleta NWR 1972 Manzano 1906 Magdalena FR 1906 State parks (SP) Mt. Taylor NF and Manzano NF combined 1908 Bluewater Lake SP 1937 Datil NF 1908 Quarai and Abo Ruins SP 1937 San Mateo NF added to Magdalena NF 1908 Hyde SP 1939 Zuni NF and Manzano combined 1914 Rio Grande Gorge SP 1959 Rio Bravo SP 1982 Wilderness areas (WA) Coronado State Monument 1935 San Pedro Parks WA 1964 Pecos WA 1964 State Game Refuges (SGR) Wheeler Peak WA 1965 Sandia Mountains SGR 1938 Bosque del Apache WA 1975 La Joya SGR 1928 Bandelier WA 1978 North Sandia Peak WA 1978 State waterflow areas (SWA) South Sandia Peak WA 1978 Belen SWA 1958 Manzano Mountains WA 1978 Bernardo SWA 1971 Chama River Basin WA 1978 Casa Colorada SWA 1981 Cruces Basin WA 1980 La Joya SWA 1930 Basin Latir WA 1980

Sources: Baker et al. 1988; Barker 1970; Crawford et al. 1993: 13; Grover and Musick 1989; McDonald 1985; Tucker 1992. charged with a misdemeanor for such discharges, which was set at 100 cubic feet of air per man per minute and did not include waste from “properly supervised” public 300 cfa for each animal (Whiteside 1989: 174). works or waste in “liquid state” from streets or sewers President Roosevelt remained active in raising Ameri- (Clark 1987: 268; Welsh 1987: 202). cans’ collective awareness of environmental problems and Water management to enhance availability was also the need to widely use or preserve resources. In 1908 he addressed. In June 1902 Congress created the U.S. Recla- convened the Governors’ Conference on Conservation and mation Service, which was organized within the USGS. told the participants “Facts which I cannot gainsay force Its major responsibility was to construct irrigation works me to believe that the conservation of our natural resources for the reclamation of arid lands. Users of these facilities is the most weighty question now before the people of would repay construction costs over a 10-year period, and the United States.” Before the National Conservation Com- small farmers could irrigate 160 acres or less with water mission, which he assembled in Washington the follow- from federal irrigation works. The collected monies would ing year, the President challenged the participants “to be placed in a reclamation fund, which would be used to make the nation’s future as great as its present. That is build dams and canals in the region. In 1907 the service what the conservation of our resources means” (Swift became a separate Bureau of Interior agency (Utely and 1958: v; Worster 1994: 20–21). Mackintosh 1989: 19). In 1903 Roosevelt created a commission to study the At the direction of Congress, the Bureau of Mines was laws regulating settlement and grazing of public domain created within the Interior Department in 1907. This bu- lands, with the view of long-time "conservation,” a term reau promoted minerals technology and mine safety coined by Pinchot and forester Overton Price. These men (Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 27). Concerned for the safety and other commission members concluded that most of of miners, the Territorial Assembly passed a law govern- the grasslands on public domain were unsuitable for farm- ing operators, supervisors, and miners. Basic ventilation ing, and lack of government regulation and poor private

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 343 stewardship had resulted in widespread degradation of Quivira National Monument by President William rangelands due to overgrazing. Nevertheless, the heavy Howard Taft in 1909 (Table 63). His authority to do so stocking on national forests was believed to be desirable came from the Antiquities Act, passed by Congress in 1906, in that removal of grass and other understory plants enabling presidents to preserve significant “historic land- would reduce fuels for fires. Fire suppression was now a marks . . . and other objects of scientific interest” (Carroll primary objective of the Forest Service (Baker et al. 1988: 1991: 1; Udall 1963: 132). Also in 1909, a branch of the 56; Barnes 1926: 37–38; Brown 1985: 124; Udall 1963: 105– Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Soils, warned 106). that topsoil is the one resource that Americans must not As early as 1905, the U.S. Forest Service was develop- exhaust (Worster 1993a: 73). ing a grazing program that would improve the value and In the first decade of this century, the Territorial As- use of rangelands. However, the service made inaccurate sembly was focused on water. In 1905 an act creating the counts of livestock numbers and miscalculated carrying River Commission, with responsibility for flood control capacities, which led to continued overgrazing. The same on the Rio Grande, was passed. Burros, or dikes, were problem occurred on lands considered unfit for timber built at Valencia and Tome to protect against a major flood that were settled by individuals under the June 11, 1906, that year. Also passed was an act declaring natural wa- Forest Homestead Act. Erosion of farm plots by runoff ters as belonging to the “public,” and all New Mexico citi- water on these claims occurred frequently (Roberts 1963: zens had the right to appropriate them for beneficial use. 115; Rowley 1985: 55, 63, 81–82). A territorial engineer, a water code, and a reconstituted On June 25, 1906, Congress amended the Fergusson Act Board of Water Commissioners were enacted by the as- permitting the Secretary of the Interior to approve graz- sembly 2 years later. Hydrographic surveys were soon ing leases in excess of the 640-acre limit on public lands. begun by the engineer (Clark 1987: 117–123; Ellis and Baca Following passage of this legislation, grazing leases be- 1957: 17). Finally, 55 new irrigation ditches went into op- came the primary source of revenue from territorial lands eration in the Middle Rio Grande Valley from 1905 to 1912 (Clark 1987: 85). Four years later, an “Indian Forest Ser- (Hedke 1925: 22). vice” was formed in the Department of the Interior. It be- In 1909 two types of voluntary water organizations were came known as the "Branch of Forestry" of the Bureau of authorized by the territory—water users’ associations and Indian Affairs (Udall 1962: 13). irrigation districts. For the latter, irrigation systems could The Forest Service grazing fees, which went into effect be constructed for the members. Another provision was in 1906, averaged 4.7 cents per animal unit month. Some also passed by county commissioners authorizing drain- ranchers challenged the agency’s legal authority to charge age of seepage in unincorporated towns and villages. This for grazing, as well as to implement other regulations. provision had to be petitioned by a majority of a After lengthy litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the community’s residents and investigated by the county Forest Service’s right to carry on this management of re- surveyor, who had to concur, before this action could be sources (Baker et al. 1988: 98; Clawson 1970: 171-172; implemented (Clark 1987: 110, 112). Rowley 1985: 86). There were 131,621 cattle and horses Also, in 1909, Congress passed the Enlarged Homestead permitted to graze on national forests in New Mexico in Act, which authorized the classification and entry of semi- 1909. The same year, the service allowed Native Ameri- arid lands. Qualified entry men could occupy 320 acres cans to graze low numbers of livestock free if the meat of of "nonmineral, untimbered, nonirrigable, unreserved, these animals was eaten and the hides used. and surveyed but unappropriated" public land in the ter- Between October 5, 1906, and July 2, 1908, President ritory. One-eighth of the land had to be continuously cul- Roosevelt created a number of national forests in the study tivated for crops, other than native grasses, by the end of region (Table 63). These included Mt. Taylor, San Mateo, the second year and one-quarter within the third year and Magdalena, all of which later became part of Cibola; (Clark 1987: 136–137). Taos, which later became part of Carson; Jemez and Pecos, During this general period the Forest Service began to which were combined in 1915 and became part of the Santa hire trappers to kill wolves to protect livestock on na- Fe National Forest (Fig. 79). Most of these forests included tional forest grazing lands (Dunlap 1984: 143). Also, the not only traditional grazing lands of Hispanos and Pueb- territory continued its program to exterminate grizzly los in the region, but also Pueblo religious sites and shrines bears and wolves. Bounties of $20 and $15, respectively, such as Taos’ sacred Blue Lake. It would be many years were paid in 1908-09 for these animals, and up to $50 later before the sacred Blue Lake and other important re- could be obtained for grizzly bear hides. At the same ligious areas were restored to the Pueblos (Baker et al. time, the effort to reintroduce elk into the region was 1988: 25, 42; Sando 1989: 83; Tucker 1992: 107, 109, 112– begun by the owner of Vermejo Park. Because of the 114; Wood 1989: 74). low numbers of pronghorn, the legislature enacted a A late prehistoric-historic Pueblo ruin and associated law to take them off the list of legally hunted animals. Spanish mission churches were established as Gran In 1912, the last indigenous sage grouse was killed near

344 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 Chama (Barker 1953: 93, 153; Burbank 1990: 98; livestock. J. Stokely Ligon was made head of the wolf Matthiessen 1959: 283). eradication program and was subsequently joined by Aldo More than 900 permits to take beavers were issued to Leopold of the Forest Service, who later reversed his view individuals who claimed damages to their property in of predators, especially wolves (Fig. 80). In the first year 1910–11. Conversely, the Santa Fe Water Company was of operation, 69 wolves were trapped, poisoned, or shot offering $50 for each pair of live beavers to transplant in in the state. In 1916, 117 wolves were taken in the national upper Santa Fe Canyon, where they would help save water forests (Bailey 1971: 311; Brown 1983: 52, 1985: 126–127; (Bailey 1971: 219). Burbank 1990: 101, 107–108; Leopold 1949: 129–133). Management concerns for public grazing lands and Besides livestock, the Forest Service was concerned water use continued on the federal level. In 1910 the USFS about the loss of large game animals to various preda- established the Office of Grazing Studies, and the follow- tors. The prevailing view of wildlife managers at this time ing year offices were organized at Denver and Albuquer- was that populations of elk, mule deer, and pronghorn que. Many stockmen believed that grazing permits were had been extirpated or severely reduced primarily by pre- a property right, subject to sale or transfer. The Forest dation. Intensive hunting was also considered a contrib- Service took the position that they were “a personal privi- uting factor. To correct this, the Forest Service released 37 lege obtained from the secretary of agriculture [sic], and elk from Yellowstone National Park into the Pecos only the secretary retained the right to grant, withhold, District of the Santa Fe National Forest in 1915. In less or revoke the permit at his discretion” (Price 1976: 7; than 20 years this small herd had increased to about 300 Rowley 1985: 89–90, 99). animals, and hunting was permitted within a short time. Under legislative acts to prevent individuals or private Mule deer populations had been severely reduced in the companies from gaining exclusive use of extensive pub- valley and the foothills of the region before 1920. The lic lands or waters, the General Land Office withdrew such pronghorn population, reduced to 1,200 animals in 1915, tracts and sources (Clark 1987: 145). In 1911 Congress increased to 2,957 head by 1926 owing to protection from passed another act, the Weeks Law, which authorized hunting (Bailey 1971: 29; Barker 1953: 94–95, 163; Findley et funds for acquisition of forest lands to protect stream al. 1975: 334). watersheds. This legislation also called for a cooperative In 1915 Congress passed the Agriculture Appropriations fire protection plan between the Forest Service and par- Act, which in part provided for the establishment of sum- ticipating states (Otis et al. 1986: 5). A 1913 USGS report mer homes, recreation sites, and campgrounds in the na- addressed the need to consider water in the disposal of tional forests. Within the Santa Fe National Forest, the remaining public lands and that this resource must be President Woodrow Wilson created the 22,400-acre properly managed (Clark 1987: 144). Bandelier National Monument in February 1916. Near the In 1912 the new State Legislature passed the Game and monument, Ashly Pond, founder of the Los Alamos Ranch Fish Act, establishing a Game Protective Fund, codifying School, founded a sportsman’s club, which included a territorial wildlife laws, and making it a misdemeanor to game preserve with hunting and camping areas, at the pollute waters with sawdust or other materials that would north end of the Ramón Vigil land grant. When the spring kill or drive away fish (Clark 1987: 272). went dry, the source of water was lost, and he abandoned Upon admission to the Union in 1912, Congress gave the project (Church and Church 1974: 9; Ebright 1994: all sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 to New Mexico for the aid of 244–245; Rothman 1992: 122). On August 25 of the same public schools. Other public lands were received by the year, Congress passed the National Park Act, which led state as well (Barnes 1926: 46). to the creation of the National Park Service (Udall 1963: Also in 1912 the Forest Service began to manage graz- 153). ing to protect rangelands, watersheds, and wildlife by Also in 1916, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed reducing the numbers of livestock in the forests (Roberts construction of Elephant Butte Dam, and the reservoir 1963: 115–116). The Jornada Range Reserve, created by Ex- soon began filling. This dam and reservoir system was ecutive Order in 1912, was managed by the USDA Bureau constructed to control floods and to store irrigation wa- of Plant Industry. Researchers at the reserve, which is lo- ter. Floods were also an ongoing concern of the State Leg- cated just south of the study region, studied methods of im- islature. In this same year the legislature created the Rio proving and maintaining desert grassland for sustained use Grande Commission, whose purpose was to address and for protection of livestock (Price 1976: 17). drainage, water storage, river rectification, river-bank pro- The federal and state effort to control predators was tection, diversion dams, and canals, as well as flood con- accelerated in 1914–15. In a Congressional act on June 30, trol (Clark 1987: 195, 198, 205, 206, 217–218). 1914, the Predatory Animal and Rodent Control (PARC) The management of livestock dominated the efforts of was formed within the U.S. Biological Survey. This branch Federal regulatory agencies in the years 1916–18. The was responsible for experiments and demonstrations in Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916, passed by Congress, destroying wolves, grizzly bears, and other predators of allowed the substitution of range improvements and well

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 345 Figure 80—Aldo Leopold (left), Ira Yarnell, and Harry C. Hall in the Carson National Forest, 1911. Courtesy University of Wisconsin Photo Archives (X25 123). drilling for cultivation. Also, a free section of grazing was time, which also contributed to the overgrazing (Clark provided when the applicant filed a claim. Another pro- 1987: 146; de Buys 1985: 231; Donart 1984: 1240; Hagy 1951: vision allowed for livestock driveways of not more than 62; Roberts 1963: 120–121; Sanchez 1992: 2; Sando 1989: 83). one-fourth mile wide across public land (Clark 1987: 147; With the demand for beef generated by the war, Ligon Hagy 1951: 78–79; Oakes 1983: 27). and Leopold used the situation to justify an intensified The Forest Service raised grazing fees by 25 percent in predator control effort. In 1917 the Biological Survey re- 1916, rather than the 100 percent it had proposed. Never- ceived $25,000 to control predators and rodents in the state. theless, ranchers, in general, and some politicians, pro- Some 93 adult wolves and 30 pups were killed by PARC tested vigorously. In another management decision, the and New Mexico A&M College (now New Mexico State service issued livestock grazing permits to non-Indians University) employees in 1918. By 1920 the estimated wolf for the sacred Blue Lake area. Grazing permits on all of population of 300 had been reduced to 60 or less. The poi- the region’s national forests were increased owing to in- soning of grizzly bears was also initiated by PARC the creased demand for beef and wool during World War I. same year, and 28 animals were taken (Brown 1983: 57– This overgrazing and a drought resulted in erosion. Tres- 58, 64, 137; Flader 1978: 60; Hagy 1951: 93; Roberts 1963: pass livestock on Forest Service lands was common at this 120–121).

346 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 Early in 1920 private forester Stewart Edward White The Federal Government and the Middle Rio Grande criticized the Forest Service for its no burn policy of pon- Conservancy District provided assistance to the Pueblos derosa stands. He maintained that light burning would relative to land and water issues in the region during this preclude development of understory brush, which would period. In June 1924 Congress passed the Pueblo Lands lead to destructive fires, and would prevent tree diseases. Act, which provided for the appointment of a commis- The Forest Service’s program was based on the belief that sion to investigate Pueblo land titles and to litigate the fire every 2 to 3 years would prevent restocking of the thousands of non-Indian claims against their lands. A com- tree (Brown and Carmony 1995: 143; Pyne 1982: 522). mission was established to compensate Indians and non- Aldo Leopold “presented a fully formed and brilliantly Indians for lands lost via court decisions. For Pueblos that considered wilderness-preservation plan to the Forest did not have a reliable water supply, reservoirs were con- Service” in 1921 (Brown and Carmony 1995: 152). The plan structed (Brayer 1938: 28–29; Vlasich 1980: 26). was well received by most of his supervisors. Within a In 1925 Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, year he presented a proposal for a Gila Wilderness area, Sandia, and Isleta were incorporated into the Middle Rio which was created 2 years later, the first official U.S. wil- Grande Conservancy District, agreeing to reorganize their derness area. During this period, some ranchers supported irrigated land "into larger, revenue-producing farms.” To wilderness areas because their roadlessness would keep date, only Isleta and Sandia have lived up to the require- automobiles and their passengers off grazing leases ments of the agreement (Sando 1992: 123). (Brown and Carmony 1995: 153–154). In 1928–29 the district agreed to “provide conservation, In March 1922 Congress passed the General Forest Ex- irrigation, drainage, and flood control” for the Pueblo change Act, authorizing the Forest Service to consolidate (Bayer et al. 1994: 240). When the MRGCD was organized forest lands and to make exchanges to acquire private in- after 1929 the Pueblo persuaded Congress to make a pay- holdings within national forest boundaries. This law was ment of $1,321,000 to the district on their behalf because amended 6 years later to authorize the exchange of grants they could not maintain their subsistence economy if re- lands adjacent to the Carson, Santa Fe, and Manzano na- quired to pay ongoing charges for irrigation facilities and tional forests for the use of Forest Service land and timber water (Harper et al. 1943: 24). (Baker et al. 1988: 27). The late 1920s-early 1930s were marked by loss of In 1922 there were 7,559,000 acres of public land under Pueblo land and trespass by non-Indians. Santa Ana grazing lease and 1,500,000 under oil lease. Two years Pueblo is an example of some of these problems. In the before, Congress had passed the Minerals Leasing Act, earlier period Santa Ana granted a railroad right-of-way enabling the General Land Office to lease lands with fos- across its lands. Construction of the line damaged a flood sil fuels and other critical mineral resources to private control dike and caused erosion (Forrest 1989). Livestock producers. Also in 1922, the state reduced grazing fees on owned by non-Pueblos were illegally grazed on Santa Ana its lands from 5 cents to 3 cents an acre (Barnes 1926: 47; lands, and outsiders also dumped trash and cut firewood Hagy 1951: 82; Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 27). (Bayer et al. 1994: 238). On June 10, 1920, Congress passed the Federal Water Overgrazing of the public domain continued into the Power Act, which provided for the establishment of a Fed- 1920s, especially that caused by wild horses on the na- eral Power Commission. The commission was authorized tional forests. With the assistance of local ranchers, U.S. "to issue licenses for the construction, operation, and main- Forest Service rangers rounded up thousands of these tenance of power facilities on navigable waters and pub- animals from 1924–25. The following year the Forest Ser- lic lands" (Clark 1987: 145–146). vice published The Story of the Range, which documented In the 1920s the federal and state governments began grazing history and resulting impact on Southwest range- to address adverse environmental conditions in the Middle lands. The Forest Service also released a memo entitled Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Survey Commission, “New Grazing Regulations on National Forests”; in this in cooperation with the U.S. Reclamation Service, initi- document three major concessions to the livestock indus- ated a study of these conditions in 1921. Two years later try were made: (1) 10-year grazing permits were given the service’s name was changed to the Bureau of Recla- full status of a contract between the Forest Service and the mation. In 1923 the State Legislature passed the first Con- stockmen and could only be revoked because of a violation servancy Act, which created a district for the Middle Val- of terms, (2) further distribution of grazing privileges was ley with a governing board to initiate projects to prevent generally suspended, and (3) the role of local grazing boards flooding, regulate stream flow, reclaim waterlogged lands, was reemphasized, with one member representing the De- develop irrigation works, develop or reclaim sources of partment of Agriculture and the other members selected by water, and generate electrical energy. Within 2 years the the grazing permittees. These boards settled grazing disputes district structure was formed, and construction subse- and gave advice in developing new grazing policies (Brown quently began on dams, levees, and drainage canals (Clark and Carmony 1995: 171; Rowley 1985: 134–135; Tucker and 1987: 189, 206, 207; Scurlock 1988a: 136; Wozniak 1987). Fitzpatrick 1972: 79–80; Wyman 1945: 159–160).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 347 The Story of the Range, and Aldo Leopold’s 1924 article New Mexico to negotiate specifically with Texas for the on the effects of intensive grazing and fire suppression, apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande and the helped lead to the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, which Pecos River. In 1929 Congress passed the Flood Control called for the development of methods to protect water- Act, allowing the Corps of Engineers to locate water sheds. This act also authorized experiments in range man- sources for domestic supplies, irrigation, and hydroelec- agement at 12 regional forest research stations, including tric power (Clark 1987: 230; Strauss 1947: 133–134; Welsh the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta- 1987: 22, 109). tion at Fort Collins, Colorado. A branch station was That same year the state attorney general ruled that opened subsequently in Albuquerque (Bergoffen 1976: 61; “unauthorized obstruction of any natural water course Buchanan 1988: 32; Price 1976: 19). Largely due to did become actionable for resulting damage” (Clark 1987: Leopold’s efforts, the first wilderness area ever created 25). The state also declared that the waters of underground was the Gila, established in the Gila National Forest in streams, channels, artesian basins, reservoirs, and lakes 1924 (Baker et al. 1988: 47). "with reasonably ascertainable boundaries are public wa- The U.S. Biological Survey and cooperating ranchers ters subject to appropriation for beneficial use in accor- put out 103,000 strychnine-poisoned baits to control preda- dance with the statutes and regulations formulated by the tors in 1923. Wolves, grizzly bears, and coyotes were tar- State Engineer of New Mexico" (Erickson 1954: 81). geted; populations of the first two animals were virtually The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District completed extinct. Local bounties were paid for bobcats, and sheep construction of major water control facilities, including ranchers hunted them vigorously. Game species such as deer El Vado dam and reservoir on the Chama River, between and pronghorn were at an all-time low the following year. 1930 and 1934. Levees, drainage canals, and new irriga- But mule deer numbers in the national forests increased tion ditches were also constructed in the Rio Grande Ba- rapidly with the virtual elimination of predators and hunt- sin (Harper et al. 1943: 53; Fig. 81). ing regulation. By the late 1920s, they were abundant. Most ranchers and homesteaders continued to over- Black bears, whose numbers were low, were also given le- graze public and private lands, and resulting soil erosion gal protection (Bailey 1971: 296; Brown 1985: 142; Brown and continued as a serious problem across the region. Conser- Carmony 1995: 127; Findley et al. 1975: 29; Ligon 1927: 15). vationists urged Congress to control grazing on federal From 1929 to 1934 several federal laws were passed that lands by establishing regulations to be administered by appropriated funds for the creation of wildlife sanctuar- the Department of Agriculture. By 1930, grazing permits ies on national forests; authorized the purchase of addi- on the Santa Fe National Forest had been reduced to cor- tional refuge lands; authorized studies of economics of relate with carrying capacities (Cooperrider and harvesting fish, game, and wilderness recreation; and ex- Hendricks 1937: 82; Rothman 1992: 159; Stout 1970: 323). panded the wildlife conservation authority. Congress also In 1930–31 the Forestry Division, Bureau of Indian Affairs, appropriated $150,000 for the Forest Service to “investigate assumed responsibility for the protection and adminis- the life histories and habits of forest animals, birds, and wild- tration of grazing on Indian lands. A grazing policy for life from the standpoint of injury to forest growth and as the reservations was formulated and implemented (Udall a supplemental economic resource” (Clark 1987: 266–267). 1962: 17). On March 16, 1927, the State Legislature passed a groundwater law for New Mexico, the first such law of its kind among the western states. In this act, all under- ground waters in the state were declared public waters, "subject to appropriation for beneficial uses" under rel- evant existing state laws. Use was to be administered by the State Engineer. Additionally, the Middle and Upper Rio Grande was declared a groundwater basin (Clark 1987: 236–238). Surface water conservation and management contin- ued as a priority on the national and state levels. In 1927 Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to conduct surveys for flood protection and hydropower facilities in all U.S. waterways. In 1928 Congress also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a contract with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for participa- tion in its $10 million program of drainage, flood control, rehabilitation of irrigation systems and farmland, and gen- Figure 81—Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District water eral conservation. Furthermore, in 1929 Congress enabled control facility south of Isleta Pueblo. Photo by author.

348 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 A forestry research area of 10,000 acres was established erosion control features; improved timber stands; re- in 1930 on the Santa Fe National Forest for use by the planted areas; and built residences and other structures University of New Mexico (Baker et al. 1988: 29). Three (Baker et al. 1988: 53; Buchanan 1988: 32–33; Rothman years later, the Forest Service made the Pecos High Coun- 1992: 183–184). try a "Primitive Area" (deBuys 1985: 285). The Wilderness An Indian branch of the CCC was organized in 1933, Society, an advocacy group for wilderness areas, was or- and several irrigation projects were completed. From this ganized in 1934 and would soon bring pressure on the year until 1940, a range conservation program was con- government to create wilderness areas (Udall 1963: 154). ducted on Indian lands in the Middle Valley by the Soil In November 1931, the National Conference on Land Conservation Service (Harper et al. 1943: 89; Hughes 1983: Utilization met in Chicago and recommended that in or- 126). In addition to the CCC, the Work Projects Adminis- der to obtain conservation and rehabilitation of the graz- tration, the Public Works Administration, and the National ing ranges of the public domain these lands be organized Youth Administration provided employment for work- into public ranges to be administered by a Federal agency ers who carried out conservation and reclamation projects in a manner similar to and in coordination with the na- for water and wildlife improvement beginning in 1937 tional forests. The group also recommended “that lands (Clark 1987: 244–245). valuable for watershed protection should be administered Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act on under the supervision of the Federal Government.” Sub- June 18, 1934, giving Native Americans the right to gov- sequently, the Secretary of the Interior approved federal ern themselves, prohibiting alienation of Pueblo lands, and regulation of grazing on the public domain to protect these defining the Secretary of the Interior’s responsibility for lands (Clark 1987: 252–253). Also, the Soil Erosion Ser- conservation and economic development of resources on vice was established as a temporary agency in the De- Indian lands. In this same period, the BIA and New Deal partment of the Interior in 1933. Two years later it was agencies conducted a number of in-depth surveys of natu- transferred to the Department of Agriculture under the ral and human resources in the region. The interrelation- National Soil Conservation Act. In 1935 this agency imple- ships between Native, Hispano, and Anglo Americans, mented an erosion control program for the 11,500,000-acre and each with the environment, were first addressed in watershed of Elephant Butte Reservoir, which was filling these studies (McWilliams 1961: 287; Simmons 1979b: 217; with sediment at a rapid rate (Clark 1987: 256; Udall 1962: Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 32). 18). The drought year of 1934, exacerbated by the Dust Bowl The emergency conditions of the Depression took pre- conditions located just to the east of the study region, was cedence, in general, over erosion caused by overgrazing a time of focusing on grazing and related erosion. The as the Forest Service suspended grazing fees in 1932. To governor created a planning board made up of individu- accommodate the increased grazing pressure, the agency als from five major state resource agencies and presi- removed more than 1,500 horses from the Jemez River dents of the three major universities. They initiated a District of the Santa Fe National Forest. Grazing fees for study of the region’s natural resources with an empha- grazing on national forests were reinstated in 1933 by the sis on erosion problems and water conservation (Clark Secretary of Agriculture. These fees were based on an ap- 1987: 269). The Federal government began buying cattle praisal of each range area and varied from year to year in on overgrazed, drought-stricken rangelands (Limerick proportion to changes in livestock prices (Clawson 1971: 172– 1987: 88). 173; Rowley 1985: 246). On June 28 of the same year, Congress passed the Tay- Several programs to aid economic recovery during the lor Grazing Act, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior Depression were authorized by Congress and the Presi- to rehabilitate overgrazed and eroded areas and to con- dent. The National Industrial Recovery Act enabled the trol and manage grazing on the public lands. Under the Forest Service to develop a code of business practices for act, the U.S. Grazing Service was organized within the the timber industry. Included in this code was commit- Interior Department. In 1946 this agency was combined ment to “conservation, selective cutting, sustained yield, with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land reforestation and a program to prevent forest fires" (Baker Management (Clawson 1971: 34–38; Hagy 1951: 75). Also et al. 1988: 53). under the act, the bulk of unappropriated grassland (80 President Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation million acres) was closed to further settlement. These lands Corps (CCC) in 1933, a program that, until 1942, put about were to be kept as a grazing resource and managed by three million persons to work, primarily on soil and wa- local livestock raisers organized into four districts within ter conservation projects. Some 17 CCC camps were es- the 1.5 million acres in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. These tablished on national forests in New Mexico; there were districts were supervised by the Interior Department. State four camps established on the Santa Fe, including one at and district advisory boards were formed; their members Bandelier and two on the Cibola. Workers erected bound- were elected by permittees. Through these boards, live- ary fences; built roads, trails, and bridges; constructed stock raisers, who had strongly opposed passage of the

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 349 Taylor Grazing act, were able to mitigate the impact of the 1940s (Bayer et al. 1994: 228; Harper et al. 1943: 50; the law. As a result, “range conditions improved very Wyman 1945: 173). slowly” (Clawson 1971: 34–38; Eastman and Gray 1987: After 1935 the range management division of the United 35; Hagy 1951: 75; Harper et al. 1943: 88–89; Stout 1970: Pueblos Agency determined the carrying capacity of the 314, 318; Worster 1979: 190). land. As a result, a livestock reduction program on Pueblo A 1934–35 study by the New Mexico State Planning lands was implemented; this was an extremely unpopu- Board found that the public rangelands were badly dam- lar program. Also, water control structures, such as small aged due to overgrazing. Pueblo grazing lands were also reservoirs, were constructed at some of the pueblos (Table in poor condition, primarily as a result of a long history 64). A concrete dam was erected on the Rio Grande, about of intensive grazing. This led to the U.S. Government’s 3 miles north of Cochiti Pueblo, to deliver irrigation wa- establishment of an accelerated land acquisition and man- ter to Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, and Algodones. agement program for Native Americans. About 390,727 At the first pueblo, the practice of dry farming was dis- acres were purchased or assigned to Indian use on non- continued owing to this new water supply (Aberle 1948: Pueblo lands. One such large tract was the badly over- 20; Bayer et al. 1994: 231, 233, 238; Hill 1982: 41; Lange grazed and eroded Ojo del Espiritu Santo land grant, 1959: 38, 368). Irrigation projects were completed at Santa where, following purchase, a resource management pro- Ana, Sandia, and Isleta pueblos (Table 65). gram was initiated (Varney 1987: 35). During the Depression and drought of the mid 1930s, Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the Pueblos received predator control continued, and the federal attempt to grazing permits on public lands (Aberle 1948: 15–16). This eradicate all gray wolves and grizzly bears was success- removed some grazing pressure from Pueblo lands, but ful (Hagy 1951: 54). At the state level, the legislature range grasses continued to deteriorate and soil erosion passed an act in 1931 giving full regulatory powers to the continued. The Indian Service, now the Bureau of Indian State Game Commission in managing wildlife, including Affairs, “assumed an advisory and supervisory responsi- hunting seasons and bag limits. By this year the prong- bility for the range” (Aberle 1948: 19). horn population had increased to about 5,000 animals. In 1935 a New Deal land reform for Native Americans Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were transported from and Hispanics was implemented under the leadership of Banff National Park, Canada, to the Sangre de Cristo John Collier. One aspect of this program was the restora- Mountains, where they were released in 1933 (Barker 1953: tion of the fertility of severely eroded land (Aberle 1948: 90, 1970: 188; Flader 1978: 105). 20; Forrest 1989: 129; Table 64). Land deterioration con- In 1936 the director of the Grazing Division established tinued, however, due partly to overstocking, wild horses, four grazing districts totalling 9 million acres. These dis- and generally dry conditions after 1941. Government pro- tricts were concerned with erosion control, water devel- grams to control erosion on Pueblo lands continued into opment, and land classification based on “best use” (Batie 1985: 109; Clark 1987: 270–271). Each district had advi- sory boards across the state, made up of ranchers, a local sportsmen’s club member, and an employee of the divi- Table 64—Conservation improvements on Pueblo lands, sion. Grazing fees were set at 5 cents per animal unit 1935–1944. month. This agency also reduced livestock numbers on Improvement Quantity public lands and stopped nomadic stockmen, who roamed the range with no base of operation, from further grazing. Roads and trails 318 miles Stock trails and driveways 95 miles Small and large bridges 57 Cattle guards 56 Table 65—Rio Grande Pueblo irrigation projects, ca. 1940. Boundary and cross-fencing 1,325 miles Corrals 35 Reservation Contour furrows 5,685 acres area Irrigated Diversion Terraces 16 miles Pueblo Population acres acres acres Water control structures 1,085 gullies or arroyos Shallow and deep wells 56 Cochiti 353 22,766 1,867 9,335 Spring development 122 Santo Domingo 1,020 66,235 4,278 21,390 Stock tanks 119 San Felipe 700 43,376 3,836 19,180 Impoundment, spreader, or Santa Ana 274 19,139 1,114 5,570 diversion dams 263 Sandia 136 22,885 3,418 17,090 Range grass planted 584 acres Isleta 1,336 205,331 6,183 30,915 Chamisa planted 6,732 acres Trees planted 20,000 Total 3,819 379,732 20,696 103,480

Source: Aberle 1948 Source: Nelson 1946

350 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 The Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service imple- Meanwhile, water users in southern New Mexico mented new grazing and soil stabilization management brought a suit against the state and the Middle Rio programs on severely eroded lands and actually pur- Grande Conservancy District for impairment of their water chased some of these lands. To deal with overgrazing and rights below Elephant Butte Reservoir through storage and other land use problems on the national forests, Congress, diversion of Rio Grande watershed waters upstream. The in 1935, had appropriated funds for establishment of the suit reached the Supreme Court and a special master was Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station appointed to hear the arguments and to make a final re- (Clark 1987: 255; Clawson 1971: 149, 173, 1985: 230–232; port. This and other problems were considered in the Joint Price 1976: 19; Rothman 1992: 199). Investigation study, which became the foundation for ne- On the severely degraded Pueblo lands in the Middle gotiating the Rio Grande Compact of March 18, 1938 Basin, a number of U.S. Government agencies financed (Clark 1987: 218–219). This compact delineated the tri-state and directed construction of conservation improvements division of Rio Grande water above Fort Quitman, Texas, from 1935 to 1944, including stock trails and driveways, and incorporated delivery schedules at the Colorado line fencing, contour furrows, terraces, water control struc- and below Elephant Butte Reservoir. tures, and revegetation of areas (Aberle 1948: 15–18). Two years before, a new irrigation dam was completed The Forest Service released its report The Western Range at San Luis, Sandoval County. Also in 1936, the district in 1937, which described the severe deterioration of pub- completed work on the Cochiti, Angostura, Isleta, and San lic grazing lands in the western states (Clark 1987: 274). Acacia diversion dams. Also finished were 180 miles of By 1936, the agency estimated that at least 75 percent of new canals, 294 miles of new laterals, and 200 miles of the Rio Grande watershed in southern Colorado and riverside levees. During this construction in the Albuquer- northern New Mexico was experiencing severe, acceler- que area, some 300 farmers erected a barricade in the ated erosion, primarily due to overgrazing and intensive North Valley to halt work (Orona 1994). Some 8,000 indi- logging (deBuys 1985: 230–232). This same year the For- viduals, almost all Hispanic, “lost their land titles because est Service received authorization and funding for the they were unable to pay taxes and assessments on the reserving of certain unappropriated waters in New Mexico Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Project...” to carry out the protection and improvement of national (Gonzalez 1969: 52). The shallow water table in the valley forest lands through water conservation (Clark 1987: 274). subsequently went down, and 59,159 acres of reclaimed Also in 1937, Congress passed the Bankhead-Jones Farm land were put under irrigation. The district was also al- Tenant Act, authorizing the Federal Government to pur- lowed to develop its plan for 123,000 acres of land and chase private lands of “low production.” These tracts were water under this agreement (Clark 1987: 219–221; Harper added to national forests and parks, grazing districts, and et al. 1943: 94–95). other public land holdings (Levine et al. 1980: 53). On August 26, 1937, the Small Reservoirs Act, which During the 1930s drought, significant federal water leg- provided funding for construction of small storage struc- islation continued to be passed and management pro- tures for isolated communities and groups of ranchers, grams implemented. In 1934, the President created by was passed by Congress (Clark 1987: 212, 263–264; Executive Order the National Resources Board, which Widdison 1959: 277). By 1939 the Division of Grazing had sponsored ground and surface water studies. Two years constructed 585 check dams to control erosion and 31 res- later the Flood Control Act was passed. This law declared ervoirs with an aggregate capacity of 17,500 acre-feet of that the Federal Government was responsible for control- water benefitting 75,000 acres of land (Clark 1987: 256). ling floods on navigable rivers and runoff-caused ero- The federal and state governments also focused on eco- sion on smaller streams. The act "established for the first cultural and recreational resources during this period. time an integrated flood-control policy" and laid the Congress passed the Historic Sites Act in 1935, requiring foundation for the greatest public works program ever archeological investigations prior to the construction of a undertaken by the U.S. Government (Clark 1987: 250, 256, federal reservoir or a federally permitted reservoir. This 259–261). act also declared a national preservation policy on public The drought also spurred the establishment of the com- use of historic sites, structures, and objects of national sig- prehensive Rio Grande Joint Investigation in 1936 involv- nificance. Furthermore, it established an "Advisory Board ing a number of federal, state, and area governmental on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monu- agencies and organizations, as well as private agencies ments (McGimsey n.d.: 16; Udall 1962: 19)." and educational institutions. Their final report, issued in At the state level, the legislature created, in 1935, the June 1937, provided the foundation for the Rio Grande office of Superintendent of Parks and a Park Commission. Compact of the next year. This agreement, between New The commission was authorized to acquire park lands and Mexico, Colorado, and Texas, apportioned the over-appro- was directed to draft rules and regulations for public use priated waters of the river to the three states (Clark 1987: of parks. Coronado, near Bernalillo, was the first state 219–220; Harper et al. 1943: 53; Thomas 1963: H16). monument, and Bluewater Lake was the first park (Clark

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 351 1987: 271–272; Young 1984: 1, 5). In 1938 the Pueblo and levee system in the Middle Valley. Also, the WPA con- Spanish ruins of Abo and Quarai were declared state structed small retention and diversion dams in rural New monuments (Toulouse 1949: 1). Under the supervision of Mexico communities to prevent flooding (Bullard and the National Park Service in 1938–39, the CCC developed Wells 1992: 47; Welsh 1987: 110, 140). the 350-acre Hyde State Park (Baker et al. 1988: 137; Fig. In January 1940, the Upper Rio Grande Drainage Basin 79; Table 63). Committee held its first meeting. Made up of personnel Two major, private environmental groups were formed, from state and federal agencies, this group heard various the Wilderness Society in 1934 and the National Wildlife parties discuss and protest against certain irrigation Federation in 1936 (Borland 1975: 148; Brown and projects and possible loss of water rights to new develop- Carmony 1995: 163). The Albuquerque Ski Club was or- ment along the river (Vlasich 1980: 33). ganized a year later; this group operated a rope tow and In the spring of the following year, severe flooding restaurant in the Sandia Mountains under permit from struck the region. This event spurred Senator Clinton P. the Cibola National Forest (Baker et al. 1988: 138). Anderson to introduce the Flood Control Act, which was Federal and state agencies continued to implement pro- passed by Congress. This legislation directed the Chief of grams for the conservation and management of wildlife the Corps of Engineers to conduct a preliminary study of resources. The New Mexico Game and Fish Department dam sites in the Rio Grande Basin above El Paso. The established a game refuge on the east side of the Sandia Corps, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, was also Mountains, one of 201 statewide game refuges, totalling directed to develop a joint-use plan for the Rio Grande in almost 3 million acres, in existence by 1939 (McDonald the Albuquerque area. To facilitate this, the corps created 1985: 12; Workers of the Writers’ Program 1940: 33). In the Albuquerque District and established an office in the late 1939 the department released the first of a reintro- city (Welsh 1987: 78–79, 111). duced herd of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep from Brit- Two years later the All-Pueblo Council met and gener- ish Columbia into the Sandia Mountains (Pickens 1980: ally declared opposition to the Flood Control Act of 1941. 83). The department also continued efforts to control The council specifically opposed construction of the pro- predators. To supplement other predator control pro- posed flood control dams at Otowi and San Felipe but grams, the department tested a limited bounty plan in supported flood control measures in general. The Coun- Socorro, Catron, and Sierra Counties. Based on this test, it cil also spoke out against any plans made for Pueblo lands estimated that 16,000 coyotes could be killed annually in without its input. Later, the Pueblos complained to Con- the state by paid hunters (Mortensen 1983: 74). gress that the district had not provided adequate water Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson Act, also or maintenance of ditches as promised. Many claimed they known as the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, which pro- had lost crops as a result (Bayer et al. 1994: 242–243). vided funds for state game and fish departments to con- Overgrazing and severe erosion continued to be seri- duct wildlife surveys on a systematic basis and to insti- ous problems for federal agencies administering public tute professional research. These funds came from a fed- rangelands. The Forest Service and the Grazing Service eral tax on firearms and ammunition. The bill also fos- began to fence federal land in the Rio Puerco-of-the-East tered closer cooperation between federal and state wild- valley and traditional grazing lands on Mesa Prieta and life agencies (Brown and Carmony 1995: 123; Clark 1987: in the San Mateo Mountains, including Mount Taylor in 267–268; Udall 1963: 145). The Federal Aid to Wildlife Act 1940 (Garcia 1992: 23). Each family on the Rio Puerco was of 1939 provided funds for purchase of habitat; some permitted by the Soil Conservation Service to graze 15 30,000 acres were purchased subsequently by the state head of sheep in their grazing precinct. This number of (Barker 1976: 100–101). livestock was considered below the minimum needed for In 1939 the 57,200-acre Bosque del Apache National subsistence (Forrest 1989: 159). Wildlife Refuge was established in Socorro County, pri- Most wild horses had been removed from public grazing marily as winter habitat for sand hill cranes and various lands except on Indian reservations and “waste lands out- species of waterfowl (Laycock 1965: 269). In the follow- side of the grazing districts and fenced areas” (Wyman 1945: ing year, the La Joya State Waterfowl Refuge was estab- 173). In 1940–41, the Soil Conservation Service sponsored lished, and elk from Wyoming, the Wichita Mountains projects to control erosion on Santa Ana Pueblo land by erect- National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, and the Philmont ing fences and windbreaks (Bayer et al. 1994: 228). The For- Boy Scout Ranch were transplanted on Mount Taylor, in est Service closed grazing on Manzano Forest lands next to the Jemez Mountains, and in the Hopewell and Tres the Carnue land grant (Quintana and Kayser 1980: 50). Piedras areas of the Carson National Forest (Barker 1976: In 1941 there were seven livestock grazing districts, to- 104, 109–110; Fig. 79; Table 63). talling almost 16 million acres, under the administration In the late part of the decade El Vado dam was com- of the Division of Grazing. State and national advisory pleted on the Chama River; its primary function was flood boards, made up of ranchers, were established to assist in control. During this same period, the district completed a the management of grazing on these lands. Twenty years

352 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 later, these boards were expanded to represent wildlife, reseeded with crested wheatgrass in 1951. This species forestry, mineral development, soil conservation, and had been introduced in New Mexico earlier in the 1930s other resource interests (Clawson 1971: 151). by USFS Forest and Range Experiment stations (Baker et In August 1946 Congress passed the Indian Claims Act, al. 1988: 59; Rowley 1985: preceeding p. 92). In May, 1952, setting up a Claims Commission to resolve long-time land U.S. Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico convened disputes between Native Americans and non-Indians. As hearings on grazing on the national forests in three loca- a result of extensive research and testimony over many tions of the state. A number of livestock raisers complained years, the Pueblos received payments for various tracts about the reduction of the number of head that they could of land and water lost to Hispanos and Anglos in the re- graze under a permit and the closing of some areas to gion (Minge 1976: 114–117; Simmons 1979b: 216). grazing (Mortensen 1983: 79). Range conditions had been On July 16, 1946, the U.S. General Land Office and the deteriorating due to the ongoing drought, as well as the Grazing Service were merged to form the Bureau of Land intensive grazing. Management. This new agency was responsible not only Congress had passed the Forest Pest Control Act in 1947; for grazing but also for the management of other natural this legislation placed a new emphasis on the control and and cultural resources on public domain lands. A regional management of forest insects and diseases (Baker et al. office was established in Albuquerque, and the agency imple- 1988: 59). Spraying of insecticides, pesticides, and fungi- mented a grazing fee of 8 cents per animal unit month cides, as well as clearing of affected trees, was employed (Clawson 1971: 38–39, 174; Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 29). to combat insects and diseases in the forests from this year During this decade the Forest Service limited the num- into the 1960s (Frome 1962: 239–243). DDT was one of the ber of livestock that one owner could graze on the na- compounds commonly used, not only on the national for- tional forests because of heavy, local demand. A June 1948 ests but also on other public lands, as well as in cities and inspection of the grazing allotments on the Santa Fe Na- on private lands. tional Forest revealed that their condition was unsatis- A 1947 study of some 87,000 acres of land and water factory. For this forest, 50 to 100 head of cattle per owner wildlife habitat in the Middle Rio Grande Basin was con- were permitted. Also, attempts were made to reduce ducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Pillow and common use of forest ranges by constructing fences, de- DeVaney 1947: 16). This work examined the potential eco- veloping more surface water, and reassigning individual nomic impact of proposed development of dams and allotments. On April 24, 1950, Congress passed a law au- channel improvements on the region through assigning thorizing advisory boards on grazing on national forests. dollar values to game mammals, birds, amphibians, and Members were to be primarily livestock raisers holding fishes harvested there. The estimate was $71,900 annu- permits on a particular forest. Previously, advisory boards ally. Potential losses due to impacts were estimated at had no standing under the law (Baker et al. 1988: 102; $79,500 (Ligon 1961: 19–25). Eastman and Gray 1987: 37; Mortensen 1983: 80–81). In an ongoing effort to control rodents and predation In the early- and mid-1940s, the New Mexico Cattle on livestock grazing public lands, the federal Predatory Growers’ Association continued to lobby for transferring Animal Control Division made available a new, highly federal ownership of the public domain to the state. This lethal rodenticide called Compound 1080 in 1949. It was organization’s policy was supported by New Mexico’s two especially effective against wild canids, but many domes- U.S. senators and one of its representatives. In 1946 the tic pets and other animals were killed as well. Highly con- state’s Commissioner on Public Lands, John E. Miles, sug- troversial as a result, the Environmental Protection Agency gested that land commissioners, educators, and livestock banned the compound in 1972. Also, the U.S. Government raisers meet to develop strategy for acquiring the public outlawed the indiscriminate use of poison to kill livestock domain. An Association of Western State Land Commis- predators in 1954. Sheep ranchers turned to use of the sioners was established to procure legislative enactment “coyote getta,” a “cyanide gun” stuck in the ground (Fig. for granting the states the public domain for support of 82). Some ranchers also controlled predators by shooting schools and other public institutions. Their efforts were them from airplanes (Brown 1983: 103; Moyer 1979: 71). unsuccessful (Mortensen 1983: 85–86). Early in the 1950s, the BLM raised the grazing fee to 12 During the late 1940s and 1950s, grass reseeding and cents per animal-unit-month. This fee was based on cur- reforestation on national forest lands was common. Part rent livestock market prices. The agency was later criti- of this program also involved removing Juniper from vari- cized for focusing primarily on leasing public lands to ous areas and then reseeding with grasses. In an attempt livestock raisers and overlooking other public values and to improve grazing conditions on the Carson National For- uses for these lands. A special concern for some groups est, an area of the Tres Piedras District was reseeded with was the protection of watersheds and “marginal lands” crested wheatgrass. On 7,000 acres of overgrazed lands from overgrazing (Clark 1987: 590). of the Mesa Viejas, Canjilon Ranger District, of this na- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed reservoirs tional forest, sagebrush was cleared; the tract was also on the Jemez River in Jemez Canyon and at Chamita on

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 353 The severe drought of 1951–56 led to the passage of two water-related acts. In 1953 the State Legislature declared “that all underground waters of the State of New Mexico are public waters subject to appropriation for beneficial use within the State” (Erickson 1954: 81). That same year Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico co-sponsored legislation to encourage experimentation in “rainmaking” and created the Advisory Committee on Weather Control (Clark 1987: 413-414). Cognizant of the fact that flooding usually followed droughts, Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1954, which included authorization of two diversion canals that would carry summer rain runoff from the west slopes of the Sandia Mountains. The Corps of Engineers completed the renovation of flood levees along the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area the following year. In March 1956 the Sandia Conservancy District was created at the peti- tion of a group of landowners to control flash-flood wa- ters originating along the west face of the Sandia Mountains (Clark 1987: 355; Welsh 1987: 167–168). Flood control work on the Middle Rio Grande contin- Figure 82—Dead coyote hung on U.S. Forest Service sign. ued from the late 1950s to the early 1980s. The Corps of Courtesy Museum of New Mexico Photo Archives, Engineers reconstructed the levee-riverside drains in the Santa Fe (negative no. 101965). Albuquerque area in 1958. Operation and maintenance of the system were subsequently transferred to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (Bullard and Wells 1992: the Chama River early in 1948. Later that same year, Con- 47). In the 1960s the riverside diversions at Corrales and gress passed another Flood Control Act, which authorized Atrisco were replaced by inverted siphons that ran under these two flood and sediment control dams. Also in 1948, the river from riverside drains, converting them into sea- Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, sonal water conveyance channels. In 1959 the San Marcial the first comprehensive legislation of its kind in the United Channelization Project was completed (Jenkins and States. The act was directed at “controlling the discharge Schroeder 1974: 77). From 1959 to 1963 the Corp con- of effluents into interstate streams”. The formation of the structed Heron Dam and the Abiquiu Dam on the Rio Water Pollution Control Advisory Board was also autho- Chama. In 1960 Congressional legislation, the agency was rized, and this board was directed to assist and cooperate also directed to construct the Galisteo Dam, 12 miles up- with the states, whose responsibilities and rights to con- stream from the confluence of Galisteo Creek and the Rio trol water pollution were recognized (Clark 1987: 444, Grande. The project was completed 10 years later (Welsh 532). 1987: 133–134, 149, 152, 155–156). In 1952, Congress adopted House Resolution 9216 to Adequate and clean water supplies for the Basin were expedite construction of the Rio Grande Floodway, part also a major concern in this decade. In 1960, per capita of the Middle Rio Grande Project. As part of this program, water consumption in New Mexico was about 160 gal- private and state levees and dams were targeted for re- lons per day (Hale et al 1965: 51). The Bureau of construction from Velarde to Elephant Butte (Welsh 1987: Reclamation was authorized to construct the San Juan- 166). This same year the Corps completed the Jemez Can- Chama Transmountain Diversion Project in 1962. Water yon dam and reservoir. In 1951 the Corps and the Bureau control facilities subsequently diverted "about 110,000 of Reclamation began to install the first of 100,000 jetties acre-feet of water from the upper tributaries of the San along the Middle Rio Grande. The Bureau began channel Juan River, through the Continental Divide, and into the modification in this reach to maintain channel capacity Rio Grande drainage" (Bullard and Wells 1992: 20). The “for safely passing high flows, reducing water losses while All-Pueblo Indian Council and Native American support- conveying water to downstream users, and moving sedi- ers strongly endorsed the project (Clark 1987: 653). ments through the valley” (Bullard and Wells 1992: 50; Struggle for traditional land and water remained im- Crawford et al. 1993: 43–44; Fergusson 1951: 360; Welsh portant in the 1950s–60s as well. As mentioned previously, 1987: 117–118). From 1947 to 1958 an intensive study of settlements were made under the Indian Land Claims Act. sediments in the Rio Grande Basin was conducted by the Acoma Pueblos received more than $6 million for loss of U.S. Geological Survey (Hale et al. 1965: 6). aboriginal lands in their area in 1970 (Minge 1976: 116–

354 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 117). Santa Ana, Zia, and Jemez Pueblos eventually re- Leopold of the University of California, to examine the ceived compensation for Espiritu Santo lands wrongfully Federal Government’s animal damage control program. taken (Bayer et al. 1994: 234). In 1959, Cochiti Pueblos lost This group, in their “Leopold Report,” asserted that the their claim to the La Bajada land grant. Their efforts to government should be responsible for the husbandry of convince the Corps of Engineers to move the location of every animal species and that current control was too ex- the Cochiti Dam failed. cessive (Mortensen 1983: 75). Eight years later, another Also at the national level, Congress passed the Water Re- panel of wildlife experts, headed by former Assistant Sec- sources Planning Act in 1965, which created a National Wa- retary of the Interior Stanley A. Cain “recommended that ter Commission to work with the National Resources Coun- all existing toxic chemicals be removed from registration cil and public and private agencies in identifying problems and use for Federal predator control operations” related to an ample supply of clean water for the future. This (Mortensen 1983: 75). In response, President Richard group produced a final report, Water Policies for the Future, Nixon issued an executive order on February 8, 1972, ban- emphasizing the economics of water (Clark 1987: 379–380). ning “the field use of any chemical toxicant for the pur- In New Mexico, the Water Resources Research Institute pose of killing a predatory mammal or bird” or that was established, partially with funds from the Federal “which causes any secondary poisoning on all Federal Water Resources Research Act of 1964. Since then, the em- lands and in any Federal program” (Mortensen 1983: 75). phasis of the institute has been on supplementing rather Tourism to national parks and monuments had begun than duplicating ongoing water research, especially re- to increase significantly by 1960. Four years earlier in 1956, search related to water consumption and requirements for the National Park Service had submitted its “Mission 66” local entities, more efficient irrigation practices, problems program to Congress, requesting a substantial increase in of major stream basins, availability of undeveloped funds to renovate existing facilities and to construct and sources, water recycling, wastewater management, and maintain new ones to meet the projected visitation for the groundwater quality (Clark 1987: 381). 1960s–70s. Recreational visitation to the national forests In 1965 the State Legislature declared that “the State of had also risen sharply; major activities included hunting, New Mexico claims the right to all moisture in the atmo- fishing, skiing, and hiking (Baker et al. 1988: 60; Udall sphere which would fall so as to become a part of the natu- 1962: 32–33). These new pressures led to congressional ral streams or percolated water of New Mexico, for use in enactment of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act in 1960, accordance with its laws.” The Weather Control and Cloud which authorized and directed the Secretary of Agricul- Modification Commission was also created in this year ture “to develop and administer the renewable resources “to oversee attempts to alter natural weather conditions” of the national forests, including outdoor recreation, wa- (Clark 1987: 373). At the same time, the State Planning tershed, range, timber, and wildlife and fish resources, in Office and the State Engineer Office carried out an in- such a way that they would be available in perpetuity. It depth inventory and report of water resources in New meant that no one demand should take precedence over Mexico (Clark 1987: 374, 381). another” (Baker et al. 1988: 60, 65). President John F. Kennedy led the way for environmen- This demand for public recreation also led to the for- tal legislation in the 1960s and, along with Rachel Carson’s mation of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation within the 1962 book Silent Spring, provided a foundation for the Interior Department on May 28, 1963. This agency was environmental movement of the mid 1960s-early 1970s. responsible for coordination of related federal programs, In February 1961 Kennedy delivered a natural resources assistance in state recreational planning, administration message “advising” Congress that he had directed the sec- of a grants-in-aid program, sponsorship of research, and retary of the interior [sic] to launch a three-pronged offen- formulation of a nationwide recreation plan based on state, sive against public land abuse. This included making "an regional, and federal plans (Udall 1962). inventory and evaluation of unreserved public lands,” de- In 1964 there were 1,562,600 recreational visits to the veloping a “balanced use program,” and developing “an Cibola National Forest. In this same year Congress passed accelerated soil and water conservation program including the Wilderness Act, led by Senator Anderson of New rehabilitation of depleted rangelands” (Clark 1987: 590–591). Mexico. The Forest Service and National Park Service ini- In his conservation message to Congress in 1962, tiated studies of the lands under their administration to President Kennedy said “Conservation . . . can be defined determine suitability for classification as wilderness. Be- as the wise use of our natural environment: it is, in the fore the end of the year, the Pecos and San Pedro Parks final analysis, the highest form of national thrift—the pre- wildernesses were created (Table 63). At the same time, vention of waste and despoilment while preserving, im- the Pecos area was restocked with Rocky Mountain big- proving and renewing the quality and usefulness of all of horn sheep. In contrast, the Forest Service proposed a high- our resources” (Udall 1963: 173). way from Las Vegas to Pecos Canyon in the Santa Fe In 1963 an appointee of JFK, Secretary of Interior Stewart National Forest. In the first major confrontation between Udall, convened a panel of experts, headed by A. Starker the Forest Service and environmental groups in the re-

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 355 gion, the New Mexico Coordinating Council and the Upper tablished as an advisory group to the President and as a Pecos Association opposed the road. The latter group filed watch-dog group (Clark 1987: 450–451; Welsh 1987: 201–202). suit against the Forest Service who subsequently aban- Related to this bill was the Environmental Quality Im- doned the project. The Forest Service also proposed to provement Act of 1970, which provided for an upgrading construct a scenic roadway from Placitas to Sandia Crest, of environmental quality through mandating federal de- which drew sharp criticism from several environmental partments and agencies, conducting or supporting pub- organizations and local residents. The proposal was lic work projects, to implement environmental protection dropped in 1971 (Baker et al. 1988: 70–71, 134; deBuys policies. This act also provided aid and support for the Coun- 1985: 289; McDonald 1985: 12–13; Rothman 1992: 271). cil on Environmental Quality through establishment of the Congress passed the Land Classification and Multiple Office of Environmental Quality in the Executive Branch Use Act in 1964, directing the Secretary of the Interior “to (Clark 1987: 450). In the summer of that year, President Nixon develop criteria for determining which BLM lands should established the Environmental Protection Agency to gather be classified for disposal and which should remain in fed- and organize scattered research, enforce pollution control eral ownership.” These lands would also be “managed standards, and monitor enforcement agencies relative to air, for the protection of public values” (Clark 1987: 591). water, and land pollution abatement. The focus was to be on Congress also created the Public Land Law Review specific problems such as pesticides, solid waste, water qual- Commission in 1964 to examine existing public land stat- ity, radiation, and pollution (Clark 1987: 452). utes and regulations and the policies and practices of the The Forest Service, which continued to use DDT and administering agencies. Under the guidance of Represen- initiated the use of malathion in 1966 to control outbreaks tative Wayne Aspinall, chairman of the commission, the of insects in the national forests, became embroiled with body made 137 recommendations for modification in pub- various environmental groups over use of the channels in lic land management and disposition. Among these were the Taos area of the Carson National Forest. DDT was even- a proposal to study public lands to determine if they would tually banned by the EPA in 1973 (Baker et al. 1988: 62). better serve the public good under state, local, or private In regional national forests several important events ownership. Still another recommendation was that local involving management occurred at the end of the decade advisory boards should have more input into federal plan- and in the early years of the 1970s. Members of the Alianza ning. This and a number of other recommendations were Federal de los Pireblos Libres , organized and led by Reies included in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act Tijerina, attempted to reclaim the San Joaquin del Rio de of 1976 (Clark 1987: 575–576). This legislation also in- Chama land grant, which had become part of the national cluded a section mandating a 15-year review of potential forest near Tierra Amarilla. Violence broke out in 1967– wilderness areas on lands administered by the Bureau of 68, with some Forest Service facilities destroyed and per- Land Management (Kutz 1989: 9; McDonald 1985: 8). sonnel detained by the protesters. Members of the Alianza Under the Wilderness Act the Wheeler Peak area was also raided the Tierra Amarilla courthouse, hoping to re- created as wilderness in the Carson National Forest in the cover land grant papers proving their position, but this mid- 1960s. A wilderness area was also established at the was not the case. Tijerina and some of his followers were Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in the 1970s. subsequently convicted and served jail sentences for their Also during this period, the Sevilleta National Wildlife actions against the federal and local governments (Baker Refuge was established in northern Socorro County. Sub- et al. 1988: 72–73). sequently, the latter was designated a Long Term Study Another battle over traditional lands incorporated into Ecological Area, a global classification (Grover and Musick the Carson National Forest was that of the Taos Pueblo’s 1989: 1–3; McDonald 1985: 6; Table 63). long-time struggle to have their sacred Blue Lake returned. By the mid-1960s the government was basing grazing Finally, on December 15, 1970, President Nixon signed a fees on public lands on a year-by-year assessment of the congressional bill placing 48,000 acres of forest land, in- economic value of the land in question (Mortensen 1983: cluding the lake, in trust for the sole use of the Pueblo 78). In 1972, the state advisory boards for grazing districts (Keegan 1991: 50). and the national advisory board to the Department of the Joined by another federal agency, the Bureau of Land Interior were abolished by federal act; they were reinstated Management, the Forest Service raised grazing fees to lev- under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of els more in line with fees paid for grazing private lands 1976 (Mortensen 1983: 83). in 1966. Forest Service fees ranged from 21 cents to $1.81, One of the most important legislative bills dealing with while the BLM fee was set at 33 cents. In 1969 the BLM the environment since World War II, the National Envi- had raised the fee to 44 cents per animal unit month ronmental Policy Act, was passed by Congress in 1969. Its (Clawson 1971: 175). Management of grazing was com- basic mandate was to provide more protection for the envi- plicated by the passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act ronment where federal agencies or funds were involved in in 1971. Populations of both species, protected by the act, projects. The Council on Environmental Quality was es- had been increasing dramatically on some areas on the

356 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 public lands and were causing severe overgrazing. Bur- were subsequently adopted and were enforced by the EPA ros were not protected on National Park lands, such as office, Region 6, Dallas, Texas, and the New Mexico Bandelier National Monument, where they had been an Department of Health. Major sources of air pollution in ongoing problem. Park personnel had been shooting them the study region included the Four Corners power plants since the mid 1940s, but public protests in the 1970s ham- fueled by coal (Harrington and Abbey 1981: 1, 4, 22). pered eradication. Live capture was implemented, In March 1972 the Corps of Engineers completed con- complemented by limiting shooting, and this resulted in struction of the north and south flood diversion channels removal of almost all of these animals by the end of 1983 in the Albuquerque District. The Corps received new regu- (Rothman 1992: 280–283). latory responsibility with passage of the Water Pollution In 1966 and 1969 Congress passed Endangered Species Control Act amendment, which upheld the 1899 Refuse Acts, which authorized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Act. Any company intending to discharge fluid waste into to initiate studies identifying endangered wildlife species. navigable waters was required to obtain a permit from In 1973 a new Endangered Species Act was passed, pro- the corps or face a fine. Discharge of pollutants in toxic viding unprecedented protection for listing species on amounts into waters was made illegal, and agricultural public and private lands through consultation, prohibi- and rural sewage treatment became a new priority (Clark tion of “takings,” and recovery plans (Beatley 1994: 13–22; 1987: 453–454; Welsh 1987: 172, 202). Borland 1975: 152). The state enacted a similar law autho- During the 1970s the Bureau of Reclamation conducted rizing the Game and Fish Department to identify and list a rectification project along the Rio Grande to clear and endangered species in the state (Hubbard et al. 1988: 1). maintain a relatively linear floodway that would effi- In 1966 Congress also enacted the National Historic ciently convey water to Elephant Butte Reservoir and to Preservation Act, establishing the program for National pass floodwater rapidly through the system with mini- Register surveying and selecting buildings, sites, districts, mal water loss and damage to the river channel and flood- and objects significant in American history, archeology, plain (Bullard and Wells 1992: 47). A significant part of architecture, and eco-culture. Furthermore, the Act pro- the federal flood control program on the Rio Grande was vided matching funds to help acquire and preserve them completed when the Cochiti Dam was closed and the res- and to aid in statewide surveys for properties to be placed ervoir began to fill in November 1973. Subsequently, on the National Register. Section 106 of the Act currently downstream farmers at Cochiti Pueblo and Pena Blanca requires the State Historic Preservation Officer to com- complained that rises in the groundwater table of up to 8 ment on any undertaking that might affect property listed feet were resulting in deposition of harmful salt and in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places “waterlogging” of 320 acres of traditional agricultural (McGimsey n.d.: 16–17). land. In 1980 the Pueblo’s council filed suit against the In 1968 the National Wild and Scenic River Act was Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District, claiming the passed, which provided for the environmental protection agency was responsible for these environmental problems of rivers in “a free-flowing, natural state.” One section of (Welsh 1987: 158, 162). a regional river, the Upper Rio Grande from the Colorado In its 1972 report The Nation’s Range Resources, the Forest state line to below Taos, was subsequently designated a Service reported that much of southwestern rangelands, wild and scenic river (Baker et al. 1988: 72; Table 63). public and private, were in a deteriorating condition. Also, The rising public awareness of, and concern for, the the volume of timber cut for commercial sales in the state’s environment had increased sharply in the late 1960s. Mem- national forests peaked at over 141 million board-feet bership in various long-time, as well as new, environmen- (Baker et al. 1988: 84). Since 1972, tighter grazing regula- tal groups mushroomed. Environmental organizations tions and reduced timber harvest have been implemented, brought unprecedented public pressure on local, state, and partly as a result of protest and litigation by national and federal governments to meet their environmental con- local environmental organizations. cerns. As a result, a number of significant environmental During the mid and late 1970s the Forest Service worked laws were passed at the federal and state levels. Supported to improve, restore, or preserve watersheds through ex- by Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin, environmen- tensive management programs. As part of these projects, talists from these groups organized the first Earth Day on the service determined grazing quotas, timber harvests, April 22, 1970. Twenty million Americans participated in and the extent of other uses that could potentially impact rallies, marches, workshops, and environmental clean-ups these ecosystems adversely. An example of such a water- (Borland 1975: 174; Pirages and Ehrlich 1974: 37–38). shed program was (and is) the Bernalillo Watershed Project One of the pieces of legislation passed was the Clean in the Cibola National Forest, which has included construc- Air Act of 1970, the first serious attempt by the Federal tion of check-dams and restoration of vegetative cover. This Government to improve air quality. Sources of emissions effort has controlled the periodic, serious flooding of the could be held accountable for their contribution to the Bernalillo community by intensive runoff from the north- degradation of air quality. Stringent emission standards west slopes of the Sandia Mountains (Clark 1987: 577).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 357 The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plan- 19th and early 20th centuries. Water control works, such ning Act of 1974, and an amendment known as the Na- as dams, drainage canals, and levees, were constructed in tional Forest Management Act of 1976, directed the Forest the Middle Valley at the end of this period. The Middle Service, in cooperation with state, local, and other federal Rio Grande Conservancy District, the Bureau of Recla- agencies, to inventory and analyze the renewable re- mation, and the Corps of Engineers were responsible for sources on national forest lands relative to anticipated the construction of these works and their maintenance. uses, demands, and relevant agency policies and pro- During the 1930s–40s water management and use, wild- grams. A plan, based on these studies, was to be prepared life management, and grazing regulation on public lands and updated every 5 years (Clark 1987: 579). and Indian reservations were major issues. Legislation Congress also passed the Federal Land Policy and affecting archeological sites, wildlife refuges, and parks Management Act of 1976, which included a number of at the federal and state levels was passed. Conservation recommendations made by the Public Land Law Review programs such as the CCC were created, providing em- Commission 12 years earlier. The primary purpose of this ployment for hundreds of citizens. Also, several new na- legislation “was to update and bring together in a single tional environmental groups, along with previously statute the laws governing management of” BLM lands, established ones, began to voice their concerns for better and to a more limited extent Forest Service lands. More- management of eco-cultural resources. over, the Secretary of the Interior was directed “to develop The Historic Sites Act, passed by Congress in 1935, af- a comprehensive land-use plan incorporating multiple- forded investigations of archeological resources and pres- purpose and sustained-yield principles based on a con- ervation of significant historical sites and structures. In tinuing inventory of lands and their resources” (Clark the same year, the State Legislature created a Park Com- 1987: 575). mission. Subsequently several state parks and monuments Finally, the 22,000-acre Bandelier Wilderness area was were established in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. created in 1976, and on February 24, 1978, Congress passed The 1950s drought spurred more funding and construc- the Endangered American Wilderness Act, which included tion of public water control facilities in the Middle Basin. establishment of the North Sandia Peak and South Sandia Water quality and predator control became an issue on Peak wilderness areas, the Manzano Mountain Wilder- national and state levels. The Pueblos and other Native ness, and the Chama River Basin Wilderness (McDonald Americans continued their struggle to acquire land, which 1985: 15; Table 63). they claimed traditional rights to. President Kennedy, Secretary of the Interior Stewart SUMMARY Udall, and biologist Rachel Carson sparked the environ- mental movement of the 1960s. Awareness of the envi- Although Native and Hispano Americans collectively ronment and the “need” for recreating on public lands held an extensive knowledge of the occurrence, range, and led to the passage of new laws and establishment of new use of various natural resources, scientific studies of the parks, monuments, and recreation areas. Concern for ar- study region did not begin until the arrival of Anglo Ameri- cheological sites and historical structures resulted in pas- cans in 1846. Early map makers, photographers, and natu- sage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. This ralists assigned to army contingents began to document and legislation provided policy and funding to help survey, collect environmental data on the Middle and Upper Rio select, and designate sites or structures for National Reg- Grande basins. Subsequent government scientists continued ister listing. Wildernesses were created in national parks, the collecting of biological and geological specimens and monuments, and forests under the new Wilderness Act. gathered the first climatic, archeological, and ethnological Significant legislation, such as the Clean Air Act of 1963, information. the Endangered Species Acts of 1966, 1969, and 1973 and Following passage of various laws that greatly facili- the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, was passed by tated and aided residents in acquiring land and exploit- Congress. The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River in north- ing resources from the 1850s to 1870s, a conservation ern New Mexico, west of Taos, was so designated in 1970. movement emerged in the midwestern and eastern United In the following year the Secretary of the Interior recom- States, as well as in territorial New Mexico. Legislation was mended that no toxic chemicals be used in federal preda- passed to regulate use of surface and ground waters, log- tor control operations. In February 1972 President Nixon ging on public lands, and the taking of game animals and issued an Executive Order banning use of such chemicals fish. Government agencies targeted predators, such as wolves in federal programs and on all federal lands. Four years and grizzly bears, for reduction in populations, and ulti- later Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Man- mately for extirpation. agement Act of 1976. This law stipulated that the laws Additional resource management agencies were cre- governing management of BLM lands, and to a limited ex- ated, and the first national forest preserves and national tent national forest lands, be updated and consolidated monuments were created in the study region in the late (Clark 1987: 371, 401–402, 575, 586–588; McIntyre 1995: 187).

358 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 In the 1970s conflicting views of public land use and 1849 The General Land Office was transferred to management became common and have continued until the Interior Department (Udall 1962: 2). the present. Grazing and water rights and opposition to 1849 The Bureau of Indian Affairs was transferred major dams and other water control facilities increased, to the Interior Department (Dale 1949: 6). especially among environmentalists and the Pueblos. Wil- 1850–51 The U.S. Assistant Surgeon accompanied Lt. derness, automobile emissions, water quality, and man- Lorenzo Sitgreaves on his expedition from El agement of endangered species were other issues in the Paso to Santa Fe, then west to El Morro and 1980s. the Zuni area. He was the first scientist to col- lect birds and mammals in the region. He col- CHRONOLOGY lected and described, for the first time, grey- headed junco (now lumped with two former 1812 The General Land Office was established in species into one), black-capped vireo, Cassin’s the Treasury Department. This federal agency sparrow, Abert’s squirrel, Ord’s Kangaroo rat, managed public lands and associated re- and the southern coyote (Hume 1942: 497– sources such as minerals and timber (Udall 503). 1962: 1). 1851 (summer) The Territorial Legislature passed 1832 The New Mexico Territorial Assembly con- legislation empowering owners of tillable sidered imposing a limitation on the use of lands to take water from the most convenient water and wood by foreigners in the moun- source and move it across the properties of tains above Santa Fe (Weber 1982: 152). others, assessing owners of trespass livestock 1830s–41 Josiah Gregg (1966) made relatively detailed onto another’s fields damages, making the descriptions of New Mexico’s weather, creation of a footpath across a field punish- streams, fauna, flora, and residents. able by reprimand or fine, forbidding the 1841 (August-September) Naturalist William building of any structures (such as mills) that Gambel, a botanist and protegee of Thomas would interfere with irrigating crops, and Nuttall, collected botanical and zoological providing that “the course of ditches or specimens in the Sangre de Cristo Range and acequias already established shall not be dis- nearby Rio Grande Valley (Dickerman 1985: turbed” (Clark 1987: 25). 159, 163–164). 1851 The Territorial Assembly petitioned the U.S. 1846 (late June-late August) Medical doctor and Congress to reserve all salt lakes, salt mines, naturalist Frederick A. Wislizenus (1969) col- and springs to prevent them from passing into lected plant, rock, and mineral specimens in private ownership. Also, all fuelwood and the study region. He also recorded weather timber in the mountain should be reserved data (Dickerman 1985: 164–165). for the “common use of the people” (Clark 1846 (August-October) Lt. William H. Emory 1987: 32). (Calvin 1951) of the U.S. Topographical En- 1851–52 The Territorial Assembly declared that the gineers surveyed, mapped, and collected acequia alignments in use at the time should plant, rock, and mineral specimens in the not be disturbed and should remain public, study region. and their use for irrigation should take pre- 1846 (late September-December) Lt. James W. cedence over all other uses, such as grist mills Abert (1962) of the U.S. Topographic Engi- (Wozniak 1987). neers surveyed, mapped, and collected fossil 1852 (January 7) The Territorial Assembly enacted and rock specimens in the study region. legislation that detailed the administration of 1846 (fall) (to summer 1847) Augustus Fendler, a community acequias (Clark 1987: 25). Prussian botanist, collected 1,026 plant speci- 1852 Naturalist S.W. Woodhouse reported that mens along the Santa Fe River and the Rio wolves were common across New Mexico Grande Valley to the west. Two genera in the (Bailey 1971: 310). saxifrage family were named for him, Fendlera 1853–54 Lt. Col. Henry (1856) recorded species of birds and Fendlerella (Dickerman 1985: 167, 168– while stationed at forts Thorn, Fillmore, and 169). Webster (Ligon 1961: 7–8). 1849 (March 3) The U.S. Department of Interior was 1854 (July 22) Congress passed an act providing created to manage natural and cultural re- for the appointment of a State Surveyor- sources, including the affairs of Native Ameri- General. William Pelham was appointed the cans (Smith and Zurcher 1968: 112; Utely and first Surveyor-General. This act also provided Mackintosh 1989: 2). that every white male citizen over the age of

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 359 21 and a U.S. citizen was granted 160 acres of customs or rules of miners in the several min- land. These donations were made to promote ing districts...” (Limerick 1987: 65). the military strength of settlements exposed 1872 (March 1) Yellowstone National Park, the first to attacks by Indians (Westphall 1965: 1, 37). of its kind in the world, was created (Brown 1854 (December) The first Surveyor General ar- 1970: 191). rived in the territory to begin the public land 1872 A revision to the Mining Act of 1866 was surveys. The policy of the Surveyor General’s passed by Congress, enabling miners to mark Office was to only survey arable, or agricul- and register the boundaries of their claims. tural land (Westphall 1965: 1, 17). This legislation allowed an individual to en- 1860 (March 12) The U.S. Congress passed the Pre- ter unreserved public domain and the na- emption Act, giving free land to New Mexico tional forests in search of mineral deposits. and adjoining territories (Brown 1970: 13). An individual could stake out an unlimited 1862 The U.S. Department of Agriculture was cre- number of claims as long as he or she dili- ated (Swift 1958: 45). Subsequently, the For- gently looked for minerals on the land. If cer- estry Division was established within this tain conditions were met, a claimant could agency (Bergoffen 1976: 11). obtain a patent to his claim. Subsequently, the 1862 The Homestead Act was passed by Congress, tract of land could be purchased for $2.50 or allowing a settler to take out a homestead on $5.00 an acre (Clawson 1971: 123–124; Utely public lands of 160 acres. A patent to the land and Mackintosh 1989: 27). The placer or could then be obtained either by living on it for lode claim remained valid as long as the 5 years or by commuting it through payment miner recovered a minimum of $100 income of cash in 6 months (Westphall 1965: 42–43). from working the claim annually. 1863 Ordinances related to animal and traffic con- 1873 The Timber Culture Act, which allowed an trol, sanitation, public works, and zoning individual to acquire a quarter-section of land were passed by Albuquerque’s board of al- through planting, protecting, and maintain- dermen (Simmons 1992: 24). ing 40 acres of timber, was passed. Five years 1864 Congress passed legislation preserving later the act was amended to reduce the re- Yosemite Valley, the first “scenic reserve cre- quired area to 10 acres (Baydo 1970: 156). This ated by federal action...”. (Udall 1963: 112). act was a failure in New Mexico because the 1865 (January 18) The Territorial Mining Act was planting and cultivating of trees was not fea- passed; it provided a legal basis for mining sible without irrigation, and irrigated land development and supported local “Rules of was more valuable if farmed for crops and Miners” (Christiansen 1974: 87). not trees (Westphall 1965: 72). 1866 (January 18) A territorial statute providing for 1873–85 Some cattle corporations had persons who the right to move an irrigation ditch destroyed were not corporate members file on land un- by rain or runoff water was passed. Construc- der the Timber Culture Act of 1873. Their in- tion of a new ditch was allowed if the dam- tent was to secure valuable grassland and aged one was impossible to rebuild and if the water for livestock without complying with majority of those who would furnish the la- any part of the law; that is, no timber was bor so consented. The mayordomo was au- planted or maintained. By this strategy, “en- thorized to relocate the acequia and given the tire” townships were dominated by cattle in- authority to cross any land by securing the terests (Westphall 1965: 73–74). consent of the owner (Clark 1987: 26). 1874 A shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 1866 (July 26) The first federal legislation affect- platorynchus) was taken from the Rio Grande ing mineral lands, the Mining Act, was passed near Albuquerque. No other specimens have by Congress. This act declared that surveyed been reported since (Koster 1957: 23). and unsurveyed public lands were to be open 1875 (September 10) The American Forestry Asso- for exploration and the establishment of lode ciation was organized to publicly promote for- mines by all U.S. citizens or those intending estry and “timber culture” (Roberts 1963: 2). to become citizens (Westphall 1965: 96). This 1876 (January 13) A territorial act was passed, law stated “The mineral lands of the public establishing a five-member board of commis- domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are sioners who were responsible for taxing resi- hereby declared to be free and open to explo- dents who lived within 5 miles of the Rio ration and occupation by all citizens of the Grande to raise money for flood prevention United States” and “subject also to the local (Clark 1987: 31).

360 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1876 (August 30) The Commissioner of Agriculture “every person who shall foul the water of any appointed Dr. Franklin B. Hough as forest stream in the Territory of New Mexico, or agent. His responsibilities were gathering throw into any ditch, river or spring of flow- data on the forests and forest products, Euro- ing water any dead or pestiferous animal or pean forestry practices, and means to preserve other filth, dirty vessels or other impurities and renew the forests (Bergoffen 1976: 11). that might injure the general health of the in- 1877 (March 3) Congress passed the Desert Land habitants of any town or settlement of this Ter- Act, which “extended the doctrine of prior ritory,” “on conviction thereof, would be fined appropriation to water used in the reclama- not less than one nor more than ten dollars” tion of arid public lands by irrigation” (Clark (Clark 1987: 31). 1987: 38). A settler could buy up to a section 1880 The New Mexico Territorial Assembly passed of land for $1.25 an acre if the claimant re- an act to protect the buffalo, but this species claimed the acreage within 3 years (Buchanan was virtually exterminated by this date, and 1988: 29; Westphall 1965: 76). enforcement of the statute was impossible 1878 The Timber and Stone Act was passed by (Gard 1960: 216). Congress. Under this act, settlers and miners 1880 A fish and game law was passed by the Terri- could buy up to 160 acres of land with poten- torial Assembly. This act made it a misde- tial timber or mineral resources for $2.50 an meanor to take fish by use of “drugs, explo- acre (Oakes 1983: 27). sives, or by artificial obstructions.” Trout 1878 Under the territorial Organic Act, any timber could be taken only by hook-and-line. Opera- cut on public lands and exported from New tors of mills or factories could not discharge Mexico was liable to seizure by the U.S. Gov- any waste harmful to trout. Commercial sale ernment (Ritch 1968). of fish was also limited (Clark 1987: 322). 1879 John Wesley Powell published A Report on the 1881 John W. Powell was appointed director of the Lands of the Arid Region of the U.S., in which U.S. Geological Survey (Worster 1994: 9). he proposed a systematic classification of 1883 The parent organization of the National lands based on their potential “best use,”that Audubon Society was formed in New York is, irrigation, timber, pasture, mineral, etc. He City (Matthiessen 1987: 167). also proposed grazing districts with bound- 1884 (April) The Central New Mexico Cattle Grow- aries drawn along contour lines (Barnes 1926: ers’ Association was organized in Albuquer- 35; Udall 1963: 88). Powell also recommended que (Hagy 1951: 11). ending the homestead and preemption legis- 1884 The Bureau of Animal Industry was estab- lation and replacing them with small, irri- lished in the Department of Agriculture. gated farms no larger than 80 acres, all to be Among its responsibilities were research and part of the irrigation districts, and livestock related activities such as disease prevention ranches no larger than 2,560 acres, to be part among farm animals and meat inspection. In of grazing districts (Worster 1994: 13). 1953 this unit was transferred to the Agricul- 1879 The U.S. Geological Survey was created by tural Research Service, which also researches an act of Congress (Swift 1958: 45). plant diseases and human nutritional prob- 1879 The Public Lands Commission was created lems and enforces quarantines (Smith and by Congress to codify public land laws, set Zurcher 1968: 9, 47). up a system of public land classification, and 1885 (July 1) The Bureau of Biological Survey was make “recommendations for the wise dis- created in the Department of Agriculture (Udall posal and management of the remaining pub- 1962: 6). lic lands” (Udall 1962: 5). 1885 Congress passed a law forbidding ranchers 1879 John W. Powell was appointed to the Public to control public domain by fencing and post- Lands Commission, which undertook a gen- ing, but the practice continued until the Tay- eral review of settlement of the West (Worster lor Grazing Act passed 49 years later (Hagy 1994: 9). 1951: 75–76). This opened the public domain to 1880 All of the western surveys—such as those of all comers, which, in some instances, resulted Powell, Hayden, and Wheeler—were consoli- in overgrazing (Clark 1987: 54). dated into the U.S. Geological Survey, Depart- 1885 Federal involvement in predator control be- ment of the Interior (Utely and Mackintosh gan when the Department of Agriculture be- 1989: 9–10). gan to study ways of poisoning rodents, pest 1880 (February 12) A general act provided that birds, and predators (Dunlap 1988: 143).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 361 1887 (February 24) An act was passed by the Terri- 1889 The Territorial Assembly established a Cattle torial Assembly authorizing the incorporation Sanitary Board to work to prevent disease and of companies to supply water for mining and to inspect animals (Hagy 1951: 95). milling as well as irrigation (Clark 1987: 132). 1889 Legislation was passed to create unpaid fish 1887 The U.S. Congress passed the Hatch Act, wardens in every county to assist county sher- which created agricultural experiment stations iffs and commissioners in enforcing the fish to conduct scientific research in problems rel- laws, including a closed season of fishing, evant to their regions and to “disseminate except for members of needy families. The the information resulting from these inves- law also directed that a sluice for passage of tigations.” This work was to be done through fish had to be maintained at all dams or other land grant colleges (Clark 1987: 131). obstructive facilities constructed for purposes 1888 Congress passed legislation that provided for other than irrigation. Also, operators of mills the withdrawal of irrigable land from entry. or factories could not discharge waste of any Under this act, some 39 reservoir sites kind injurious to trout into any stream (Clark amounting to 40,170 acres were selected in 1987: 32). New Mexico (Westphall 1965: 84). 1891 (July 1) The U.S. Weather Bureau was estab- 1888 Groundwater supply studies in New Mexico lished in the Department of Agriculture (Bra- were begun (Hale et al. 1965: 7). dley 1976: 12). 1888 Recent droughts and blizzards caused the U.S. 1891 The Territorial Assembly passed a stricter Congress to authorize surveys for irrigable fencing law, making it a felony to cut fences lands and reservoir sites in the West by the on private land. Further, it was a felony for U.S. Geological Survey (Wozniak 1987). individuals or corporations to fence, to the 1888 Congress enacted legislation forbidding tres- detriment of others, lands they did not own pass on Indian reservations, including tim- or have legal use of (Clark 1987: 54). ber cutting (Udall 1962: 6). 1891 The Territorial Assembly passed a statute re- 1888–91 John W. Powell, head of the U.S. Geological quiring “all persons, associations, or corpo- Survey, initiated irrigation surveys in river rations who . . . constructed or enlarged any basins of the West. The Rio Grande was stud- ditch, canal, or reservoir taking waters from ied in 1889–1900, which also included surveys a natural stream to make a sworn written for reservoir sites (Wozniak 1987). statement of such diversion, to be filed with 1889 (January 31) The Territorial Assembly passed the county probate court within ninety days a law providing for the election of three com- after commencement of the work.” Construc- missioners to protect springs and to build ap- tion had to be completed within 5 years of propriate dams (Westphall 1965: 25). commencement (Clark 1987: 117). 1889 The New Mexico Legislative Assembly pro- 1891 Congress passed the General Land Law Re- tested delay of immediate exploitation of the vision Act, commonly known as the Creative territory’s water resources caused by Congress Act of 1891, a provision of which promoted the previous year (1888, Oct. 2) (Clark 1987: 65). establishment of national forest reserves 1889 The USGS placed the first U.S. stream flow through authorizing the president to set aside gauge at the Rio Grande Embudo (Bullard forest lands on the public domain (Baker et and Wells 1992: 12). al. 1988: 25; Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 19). 1889 The Territorial Assembly passed a statute 1891 The Timber Culture Act was repealed because “limiting stock on public ranges to the num- of abuses and difficulty in successfully grow- ber for which the user could furnish sufficient ing trees in the West (Clark 1987: 62). permanent water” (Clark 1987: 149). 1891 The cutting of timber, up to $100 value per 1889 The New Mexico Territorial Assembly supple- year, on the national forests was permitted mented the federal Fencing Act. They also (Baker et al. 1988: 79). passed a measure to control overgrazing; this 1892 (January) The Pecos River Forest Reserve was act declared that an individual or corporation established by Presidential Proclamation could only graze the number of livestock that (Tucker and Fitzpatrick 1972: 1). could be maintained by waters for which he 1892 The Sierra Club was founded by John Muir or they had title or legal possession. The Act (Udall 1963: 116). stipulated that others entering that range 1892–1906 Establishment of U.S. Forest Reserves (later must have sufficient “living,” unfenced wa- designated National Forests) in northern New ter to maintain their herds (Clark 1987: 54). Mexico “had a tremendous effect upon the

362 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 [Spanish] villages, some of which found by the Territorial Assembly. Nevertheless, themselves eventually completely sur- populations continued to decrease to less than rounded by federalized lands....” Large num- 20,000 animals statewide by 1924. Two years bers of Hispanos “had to reorganize many later a bag limit of one buck deer was set aspects of their former economy and the way (Findley et al. 1975: 329; Huey et al. 1967: 42). of life dependent upon that economy” 1898 (June 21) The Fergusson Act authorized the (Gonzalez 1969: 122). transfer of federal public lands to the terri- 1893 The USDA Division of Forestry reported tory for schools and certain other public in- “without forest management no national wa- stitutions. Five hundred thousand acres were ter management is possible” (Clark 1987: 71). designated for “establishing permanent res- 1893 The Territorial Assembly passed the Territo- ervoirs for irrigation purposes and 100,000 rial Bounty Act, authorizing counties to pay acres for improving the Rio Grande and in- bounties on “predatory wolves, big bears creasing its surface flow in New Mexico” [grizzlies], mountain lions, bobcats and coy- (Clark 1987: 84). otes” (Brown 1983: 43). 1898 Gifford Pinchot was appointed as Chief For- 1893 The New Mexico Territorial Legislature ester in the Department of Agriculture (Udall passed a law allowing counties to raise money 1963: 102). for paying “wolfers” for their services 1898–1909 Issues related to grazing regulation, grazing (Burbank 1990: 98). fees, and vegetation management for water- 1893–1915 The killing of most wolves during this period sheds by the U.S. Forest Service were debated was due to the widespread use of bounties by Gifford Pinchot and the Secretary of Inte- (Brown 1983: 43). rior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, western 1895 (January) The Territorial Assembly passed stock growers, and various congressmen legislation enabling the publication of a (Clark 1987: 141). Monthly Weather Review (Tuan et al. 1973: 12). 1899 (March 16) The Territorial Assembly re- 1895 (February 28) The Territorial Assembly passed sponded to the Fergusson Act by creating the one of its most significant pieces of irrigation office of Commissioner of Public Lands and legislation. This measure defined the mean- a Board of Public Lands. They were respon- ing of acequia, or community ditch, and de- sible for leasing, selling, and managing these tailed its legal status. The multiple owners of lands (Clark 1983: 84). the ditches were to be considered to be “cor- 1899 Legislation was passed that authorized towns porations or bodies corporate, with power to of the “first class” to issue bonds for construc- sue and be sued as such” (Clark 1987: 30). tion embankments, drainage ditches, and 1897 (February 22) President Grover Cleveland set other facilities to prevent flood damage or aside more than 21 million acres of land in destruction of municipal property (Clark the northwestern states as part of national 1987: 31–32). forest preserves (Rothman 1992: 61). 1899 The Rivers and Harbors Act, also known as 1897 (June 4) The Organic Act was passed by Con- the Refuse Act, was passed by Congress. It gress, establishing standards for the use and instructed the Corps of Engineers to regulate protection of national forest reserves. This act all sources of effluents in the navigable embodied the concept of multiple–use of streams of the United States. The Corps was resources in conformity with state laws and authorized to prosecute polluters and could federal rules and regulations. The act also au- reward anyone reporting violators by paying thorized the Forest Service to manage graz- them a percentage of the fines collected ing on public reserve lands. This soon resulted (Welsh 1987: 202). The U.S. Congress “de- in the loss of grazing for livestock owned by clared it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse nearby land grant occupants in northern New into any navigable streams or their tributar- Mexico. Grazing fees for livestock were imple- ies,” although the law did not apply to waste mented, including permits for horses to graze from properly supervised public works or on federal forest reserves. Authorized sales of waste in liquid state from streets or sewers timber on national forests was begun (Baker et (Clark 1987: 268). al. 1988: 39, 79; Brown 1978: 254; Clark 1987: 1800s (late) (to early 1900s) Brook trout were intro- 140; Eastman and Gray 1987: 36). duced into the Rio San Jose near Laguna, then 1897 The first game laws to regulate hunting of into the Rio Grande and drainages in the ter- meat animals such as mule deer were passed ritory (Sublette et al. 1990: 72).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 363 1900 (May) Congress passed the Lacey Act, end- struct irrigation projects in New Mexico and ing market hunting for pelts, plumage, eggs, 15 other territories or states. Users of irriga- meat, etc. and outlawing illegal importation tion waters would repay the costs of construc- of foreign wildlife. A section of the Lacey Act tion over a 10-year period, and small farmers prohibited the importation of the English could irrigate 160 acres or less with water sparrow, the starling, and other birds and from federal irrigation projects (Clark 1987: animals. Also, the act empowered the Secre- 79–82; Wozniak 1987). tary of Agriculture to declare that those spe- 1902 Grazing permits for sheep on federal forest cies having adverse impacts on agriculture reserves were first issued (Eastman and Gray could be destroyed or returned to their coun- 1987: 36). try of origin (Borland 1975: 122; Roth 1973: 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt created a com- 94). mission to study the laws regulating settle- 1900 The General Land Office ruled that forest re- ment and grazing of public domain lands, serves would be opened to limited, fee graz- with the view of their long-time conservation. ing. Preference would be given to livestock The commission concluded that most of the raisers with land within or adjacent to the re- public domain was unsuitable for farming, serves (Clark 1987: 72). and lack of government regulation and poor 1900–25 Forty-two bills dealing with grazing regula- private stewardship had resulted in wide- tion on the public domain were introduced spread degradation of rangelands due to in the Congress (Mortensen 1983: 82). overgrazing (Barnes 1926: 37–38). 1900 (post) Pinyon-juniper woodlands had been 1903 (and 1905, 1909) The Territorial Assembly spreading into the lower grassland zone dur- passed acts authorizing counties to levy taxes ing this century, as a result of suppression of to be used for paying bounty claims on preda- fires, livestock grazing, and other factors tory animals (Hagy 1951: 91). (Dick-Peddie 1993: 91–92). 1904 The New Mexico Department of Game and 1900 (ca.) Fire suppression, which began about this Fish was created by the Territorial Assembly time, resulted in an increased proportion of (Barker 1970: 185). engelmann spruce and corkbark fir in the 1905 (February 1) Administration of national for- subalpine coniferous forest zone, 9,500 to est reserves was transferred from Interior to 12,000 feet elevation (Dick-Peddie 1993: 51, the Department of Agriculture (Udall 1962: 56). 11). Congress passed an act transferring U.S. 1901 (December 3) President Theodore Roosevelt forest lands from the General Land Office to delivered a message on the need for conser- the Department of Agriculture. These 63 mil- vation of natural resources, the first such lion acres formed the foundation for the new speech by a leader of the Nation. His empha- U.S. Forest Service, headed by Gifford Pinchot sis was on reclamation and forest reserves (Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 19). (Clark 1987: 134). 1905 (October 12) The Jemez Forest Reserve was 1901 A Forestry Division was created in the Gen- created, precluding continuance of traditional eral Land Office, Department of the Interior grazing and other activities on this former (Udall 1962: 10). ejido land. The period of suppression of fire 1902 (June) The U.S. Reclamation Service was es- was also begun (Rothman 1989: 208–209). tablished. This agency’s major responsibility 1905 The Territorial Assembly passed an act creat- was to construct irrigation works for the rec- ing the River Commission, which had respon- lamation of arid lands (New Mexico State sibility for flood control on the Rio Grande. Engineer 1967: 81). Burros, or dikes, were built at Valencia and 1902 The Reclamation Service, established by con- Tome during a major flood (Ellis and Baca gressional act, was organized within the 1957: 17). USGS and 5 years later became a separate 1905 The Territorial Assembly enacted a code that bureau in the Interior Department (Utely and declared natural waters as belonging to the Mackintosh 1989: 19). This act “federalized public, and all citizens had the right to ap- western water development by placing the propriate them for beneficial use (Clark 1987: income from the sale of lands into a reclama- 117). tion fund and using it to build dams and ca- 1905 The Forest Service began to hire trappers to nals in the region” (Worster 1994). The act also kill wolves on national forest grazing land authorized the Secretary of the Interior to con- (Dunlap 1988: 143).

364 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1905-06 The number of grazing permits for national trip in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Less forests in New Mexico was 878 for 53,454 than 2 years later this reserve was redesig- cattle and horses and 234 for 312,035 sheep nated as the Carson National Forest (Baker et and goats (Rowley 1985: 78). al. 1988: 25; Sando 1989: 83; Wood 1989: 74). 1905-09 Heavy stocking of the national forest reserves 1906 The U.S. Forest Service imposed fees for graz- was thought to be desirable because of the ing livestock on national forests. The fee av- decimation of vegetation that might fuel a fire eraged 4.7 cents per animal unit month. Some (Brown 1985: 124). ranchers challenged the Forest Service’s le- 1905–11 Inaccurate counts of livestock numbers and gal authority to charge grazing fees and regu- miscalculations of carrying capacity led to late grazing. After lengthy litigation, the overgrazing on the national forests (Baker et Supreme Court upheld the agency’s right to al. 1988: 95–96). do so (Clawson 1971: 170–172). 1905–11 The U.S. Forest Service worked to organize a 1906 Congress passed the Antiquities Act, giving grazing program that would improve the Presidents the power to create “National value and use of the range (Roberts 1963: 115). Monuments for the preservation of historic 1906 (June 8) The Antiquities Act was passed by landmarks . . . and other objects of ‘historic or Congress and authorized by the President to scientific interest’” (Udall 1963: 132). create historic and prehistoric monuments. 1907 (January 16) An agreement between the This act also included a provision for pun- United States and Mexico was ratified; it gave ishment of “any person who shall appropri- Mexico the right to divert up to 60,000 acre- ate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic feet of water from the Rio Grande for agri- or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any ob- cultural use (Hay 1972: 299). ject of antiquity situated on lands owned or 1907 (June 11) Western grazing interests succeeded controlled by the Government of the United in having the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 re- States” without permission of appropriate pealed (Bowman 1995: 130). government officials (Udall 1962: 11–12). 1907 Gifford Pinchot and forester Overton Price 1906 (June 11) The Forest Homestead Act, which coined the term “conservation” for the ongo- allowed individuals to file on any forest re- ing movement advocating appropriate, serve land considered unfit for timber, was nonwasteful use of natural resources (Udall passed by Congress. This act opened national 1963: 105–106). forest lands for agricultural settlement; after 1907 A territorial law was passed providing for a a residency period, settlers could receive free territorial engineer, a water code, and a re- title to 160 acres (Rowley 1985: 55, 63, 81–82). constituted board of water commissioners. 1906 (June 25) Congress amended the Fergusson Act Hydrographic surveys of the state were soon permitting the Secretary of the Interior to ap- begun by the engineer (Clark 1987: 118–123). prove grazing leases in excess of the 640-acre 1907 Some 591,000 board-feet of timber were cut in New limit. Following this enactment, “grazing Mexico’s national forests (Baker et al. 1988: 84). leases became the primary source of revenue 1907 The Bureau of Mines, created by Congress, from territorial lands” (Clark 1987: 85). promoted minerals technology and mine 1906 (October 5) The Mt. Taylor Forest Reserve was safety (Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 27). created. It was later incorporated into the 1908 (April 16) The Manzano National Forest was Cibola National Forest (Baker et al. 1988: 42). created from the forest reserve of the same 1906 (November 5) The San Mateo and Magdalena name and the entire Mt. Taylor Forest Reserve Forest Reserves were created. Both were later (Tucker 1992: 112). (1931) consolidated into the Cibola National 1908 (June 26) The Carson National Forest was cre- Forest (Baker et al. 1988: 42). ated by combining the Taos National Forest 1906 (November 6) The Manzano Forest Reserve Reserve with part of the Jemez National For- was created (Tucker 1992: 107). The designa- est Reserve (Tucker 1992: 109, 114). tion Forest Reserve was changed to National 1908 (June 26) The Jemez National Forest Reserve Forest in 1908. Manzano became Cibola Na- became a national forest. Some of the land was tional Forest on December 3, 1931 (Tucker combined with Taos National Forest Reserve 1992: 107, 109, 112). to become a national forest (Tucker 1992: 112). 1906 (November 7) The 330,000-acre Taos Forest 1908 (July 2) The Pecos River National Forest Re- Reserve, including Blue Lake, was created by serve was designated a national forest (Tucker President Theodore Roosevelt after a hunting 1992: 113).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 365 1908 President Theodore Roosevelt created 16 mil- embracing his philosophy (Worster 1994: 7, lion acres of national forest in the Nation 18, 20–21, 123). (Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 20). 1909 There were 131,621 cattle and horses permit- 1908 Trained foresters assumed administration of ted to graze on national forests in New Mexico the national forests, which, in general, were (Baker et al. 1988: 98). overgrazed (Brown and Carmony 1995: 75). 1909 The Forest Service allowed reservation Native 1908 President Roosevelt convened the Governors’ Americans to graze their livestock for free Conference on Conservation and told the where animal numbers were low and meat members “Facts which I cannot gainsay force and hides were consumed entirely by the In- me to believe that the conservation of our dians (Rowley 1985: 86). natural resources is the most weighty ques- 1909 The U.S. Bureau of Soils announced “The soil tion now before the people of the United is the one indestructible, immutable asset that States” (Swift 1958: v). the nation possesses. It is the one resource that 1908 A $20 bounty was paid for dead bears, and cannot be exhausted; that cannot be used up” up to $50 was paid for grizzly bear hides. (Worster 1993a: 73). Some 271 bobcats were killed in the national 1909 William Howard Taft issued a presidential forests, and many more were harvested by proclamation establishing Gran Quivira trappers or killed by ranchers statewide National Monument (Carroll et al. 1991: 1). (Bailey 1971: 293; Barker 1953: 153). 1909 The New Mexico Territorial Assembly enacted 1908 W.H. Bartlett, owner of the Vermejo Park, re- a $15 bounty for wolves (Burbank 1990: 98). introduced elk there (Barker 1953: 93). 1909 Pronghorns were removed form the list of le- 1909 (January 11) The first inventory of the gally hunted game animals to afford them Nation’s natural resources was submitted to protection (Matthiessen 1959: 283). President Roosevelt by Gifford Pinchot, chair- 1910 (February) An “Indian Forest Service” was man of the National Conservation Commis- formed in the Department of the Interior. It sion (Bowman 1995: 130). became known as the “Branch of Forestry” 1909 (February 19) The Enlarged Homestead Act (Udall 1962: 13). was passed by Congress; it basically autho- 1910 Many stockmen believed that grazing permits rized the classification and entry of semiarid were a property right, subject to sale or trans- lands. Qualified entrymen could occupy 320 fer. The Forest Service held the position that acres of nonmineral, untimbered, nonirrigable, they were “a personal privilege obtained from unreserved, and surveyed but unap- the secretary of agriculture [sic], and only the propriated public land in the territory. One- secretary retained the right to grant, withhold, eighth of the land had to be continuously cul- or revoke the permit at his discretion” tivated for crops other than native grasses by (Rowley 1983: 89–90). the end of the second year, and one-quarter 1910–11 The Office of Grazing Studies was estab- within the third year (Clark 1987: 136–137). lished by the U.S. Forest Service in 1910. In 1909 The Territorial Assembly authorized two 1911 regional offices of the OGS were orga- types of voluntary organizations: water us- nized at Denver and Albuquerque (Price ers’ associations and irrigation districts. In the 1976: 7). latter, irrigation systems could be constructed 1910–11 More than 900 permits to take beaver were for members (Clark 1987: 110). issued to individuals who claimed damages 1909 The Territorial Assembly passed a “provision to their property. At the same time, the Santa for the drainage of seepage and other waters Fe Water Company was offering $50 for each in unincorporated towns and villages by ac- pair of live beaver to transplant in upper tion of the county commissioners on petition Santa Fe canyon, where they would help con- of a majority of the residents and after investi- serve water for the city (Bailey 1971: 219). gation by the county surveyor” (Clark 1987: 1910–12 Under legislative acts to prevent individuals 112). or private companies from gaining exclusive 1909 President Roosevelt assembled a National use of extensive public lands or waters, the Conservation Commission in Washington General Land Office withdrew such tracts and and he charged them “to make the nation’s sources (Clark 1987: 145). future as great as its present. That is what the 1910–18 Fifty-five new irrigation ditches went into conservation of our resources means.” The operation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley commission issued a report that same year (Hedke 1925: 22).

366 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Law, which 1913 Congress passed the Federal Tariff Act, which authorized the purchase of forest lands on prohibited “the importation of plumes and headwaters for the “regulation of the flow of other bird parts except for scientific purposes” navigable streams” (Buchanan 1988: 30). The (Reed and Drabelle 1984:8). law also called for a cooperative fire protec- 1914 (June 30) Congress made the U.S. Biological tion plan between the Forest Service and par- Survey responsible for experiments and dem- ticipating states. The legislation also autho- onstrations in destroying wolves, prairie rized funds for acquisition of forest lands to dogs, and other predators of livestock (Brown protect stream watersheds (Otis et al. 1986: 5). 1983: 52). To carry out this program, the 1911 The American Game Protective Association Predatory Animal and Rodent Control was formed (Brown and Carmony 1995: 9). (PARC), a branch of the Biological Survey, was 1912 Upon admission to the Union, Congress gave formed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. all sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 of the public do- Three hunters were employed in 1914–15 main to New Mexico for the aid and support (Brown 1983: 52; 1985: 126–127). of public schools. Other public lands were 1914 (late and April 1915) The New Mexico received by the state as well (Barnes 1926: 46). Cattlemen’s Association voted to pay boun- 1912 The Jornada Range Reserve, administered by ties of $25 for each hide of adult wolves or the USDA Bureau of Plant Industry, was cre- mountain lions taken on the ranges of its ated by Executive Order. The primary func- members. The organization also passed a tion of the reserve was to study improving resolution requesting Congress to provide and maintaining desert grassland for sus- funds to exterminate predators on public tained use and for the production of livestock. lands (Hagy 1951: 91). It is located just south of the study region 1915 The Agriculture Appropriations Act, passed (Price 1976: 17). by Congress, provided for the establishment 1912 The State Legislature passed a mining law of summer homes, recreation sites, and camp- governing operators, supervisors, and min- grounds in the national forests (Brown 1985: ers. The basic ventilation standard was set at 130). 100 cubic feet of air per man per minute and 1915 Congress appropriated $125,000 for the 300 cf for each animal. “Gassy” mines had to Bureau of the Biological Survey to begin a pro- be inspected daily (Whiteside 1989: 174). gram of predator control. This effort was pri- 1912 The last indigenous sage grouse in New marily based on the rationale that “many Mexico was killed southwest of Chama. The predators emanate from federal lands, and thus New Mexico Game and Fish Department later much of the loss suffered by farmers and ranch- reintroduced the species to northern New ers has a federal origin” (Reed and Drabelle Mexico with birds captured in Wyoming (Li- 1984: 75). gon 1961: 93). 1915 The Forest Service released 37 elk from 1912 The State Legislature, in its first session, Yellowstone into the Pecos District of the passed the State Game and Fish Act, estab- Santa Fe National Forest. In less than 20 years lishing a Game Protective Fund, codifying this small herd had increased to 300 animals, territorial wildlife laws, and making it a mis- and hunting of this species was permitted demeanor to pollute waters with sawdust or within a short time (Barker 1953: 94–95, 163). other materials that would kill or drive fish 1915 The pronghorn antelope population was re- away (Clark 1987: 272). duced to 1,200 animals statewide. State pro- 1912–17 The Forest Service began to manage grazing tection from hunting increased this number to protect rangelands, watersheds, and wild- to 2,957 by 1926 (Findley et al. 1975: 334). life by reducing livestock numbers on the for- 1915–17 J. Stokely Ligon headed up predator control ests (Roberts 1963: 115–116). in the New Mexico-Arizona district. He hired 1912 Aldo Leopold found the Jicarilla unit of the 32 hunters and trappers, including renowned Carson National Forest to be overgrazed, due bear hunter Ben Lilly. Nineteen grizzly bears primarily to Hispanic livestock owners in the and at least six mountain lions were killed. area (Brown and Carmony 1995: 7). His staff of wolf hunters also killed 69 wolves 1913 A USGS report pointed out the need to con- in their first year in New Mexico and Arizona. sider water in the disposal of the remaining An estimated 300 wolves remained in New public lands and emphasized that it must be Mexico at the end of the year (Brown 1985: appropriately managed (Clark 1987: 144). 127; Burbank 1990: 102–103).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 367 1916 (February) By executive order, President 1916–17 Due primarily to intensive hunting, mule deer Woodrow Wilson created the 22,400-acre populations in the lowlands had been virtu- Bandelier National Monument (Rothman ally exterminated (Bailey 1971: 29). 1992: 122). 1916–18 When the United States joined World War I, 1916 (August 25) Congress passed the National the Forest Service increased the number of Park Act, leading to the creation of the Na- permitted livestock on national forest lands. tional Park Service (Udall 1963: 153). Conditions caused by previous overgrazing 1916 The Rio Grande Commission was authorized and logging worsened (deBuys 1985: 231). by the State Legislature. This group was to 1916–19 The U.S. Forest Service issued livestock graz- address regional and Middle Rio Grande ing permits to non-Indians for the sacred Blue water problems, such as “drainage, water Lake area (Sando 1989: 83). storage, flood control, river rectification, river- 1917 Congress increased grazing fees on public bank protection, diversion dams, and a series lands, and politicians, ranchers, and others of main canals between San Felipe and San protested vigorously (Clark 1987: 146). Marcial ...” (Clark 1987: 205–206, 217–218). 1917 As the United States entered World War I, 1916 Elephant Butte Dam was completed, and the demand for beef increased sharply, and reservoir began filling. This impoundment Stokely Ligon and Aldo Leopold used the was primarily for flood control and storage situation to justify an intensified predator of irrigation water (Clark 1987: 195, 198). control effort (Brown 1983: 57). 1916 The U.S. Forest Service initiated a predator 1917 The Bureau of Biological Survey received control program in the Jemez Mountains. The $25,000 funding to control predatory ani- gray wolf, mountain lion, and coyote were mals and rodents in New Mexico. This targeted for trapping (Barker 1970: 113; amount was matched by the state (Hagy 1951: Scurlock 1981a: 144). 93). 1916 U.S. Biological Survey personnel killed 100 1917–18 Maximum numbers of livestock were reached wolves in New Mexico. Some 117, including in New Mexico due to the increased demand those taken by the USGS, were killed in the for food and wool during World War I (Donart national forests (Bailey 1971: 311). 1984). 1916 About 1,740 antelope were reported in the 1917–18 The demand for beef during World War I state (Bailey 1971: 25). caused cattle prices to soar, and, in response, 1916 The governor proclaimed arbor and bird days ranchers increased the grazing pressure on for the state (Robinson 1993: 34). their rangelands. Grasses were decimated, 1916 Congress passed the Stock-Raising Home- exposing large areas to water and wind ero- stead Act; one of its provisions allowed for sion (Sanchez 1992: 2). the substitution of range improvements and 1917–18 Trespass livestock were common on Forest well drilling for cultivation. Native grasses Service lands, which contributed to overgraz- and topsoil would thus be protected, and ing (Roberts 1963: 120–121). small livestock growers would be protected 1917–22 The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association from displacement. It also provided for a free “diligently pursued a policy that favored giv- section of grazing land when filed on (Clark ing the State the remaining public domain to 1987: 147; Oakes 1983: 27). This act also pro- be administered in the same fashion as the vided for livestock driveways of not over one- previously granted trust lands.” The associa- fourth mile in width across public land (Hagy tion was in the minority on this issue 1951: 78–79). (Mortensen 1983: 84). 1916 Because of protests by cattlemen, the Forest 1918 Congress passed the Migratory Game Bird Service raised grazing fees by 25 percent Treaty Act, making the U.S. Biological Sur- rather than 100 percent, as the agency had vey (later the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) proposed (Hagy 1951: 62). responsible for nationwide management of 1916–17 Ashley Pond founded a sportsmen’s club, waterfowl and other migratory species (Huey which included a game preserve, with hunt- et al. 1967: 153). ing and camping areas, at the north end of 1918 Some 81 adult wolves and 30 pups were taken the Ramon Vigil land grant. The water source by the U.S. Predatory Animal and Rodent for this endeavor, a spring in Pajarito Can- Control Division of the Biological Survey and yon, dried up, and Pond abandoned the pre- New Mexico A&M College employees serve (Ebright 1994: 244–245). (Brown 1983: 58).

368 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1918 Poisoning of grizzly bears was initiated by 1922 (March) The General Forest Exchange Act the U.S. Biological Survey (Brown 1985: 272). authorized the Forest Service to consolidate 1918 Aldo Leopold declared in a published paper forest lands and exchanges to acquire private that game management was as much a func- in-holdings within national forest boundaries. tion of the Forest Service as were timber and An amendment 6 years later “authorized the range management (Brown and Carmony use of land and timber to be exchanged for 1995: 85). grant lands adjacent to the Carson, Santa Fe, 1918–19 During this fiscal year, state and Predatory and Manzano Forests” (Baker et al. 1988: 27). Animal and Rodent Control killed 28 grizzly 1922 There were 7,559,000 acres of public land un- bears in New Mexico (Brown 1985: 137). der grazing lease and 1,500,000 acres under 1920 (March) Private forester Stewart Edward oil lease (Barnes 1926: 47). White “criticized the Forest Service for allow- 1922 The state reduced grazing fees on public lands ing their forests to become overgrown with from 5 cents to 3 cents an acre (Hagy 1951: 82). brush, and chastised it for not using light 1923 The State Legislature passed the Conservancy burning to prevent tree diseases and destruc- Act, creating a Middle Rio Grande District tive conflagrations” (Brown and Carmony with a governing board to initiate projects to 1995: 143). prevent flooding, regulate stream flow, reclaim 1920 (June 10) Congress passed the Federal Water waterlogged lands, develop irrigation works, Power Act. This legislation provided for the develop or reclaim sources of water, and gener- establishment of a Federal Power Commis- ate electrical energy (Clark 1987: 206, 207, 209– sion that had authority to issue licenses for 212). the construction, operation, and maintenance 1923 The Reclamation Service was converted into of power facilities on navigable waters and the Bureau of Reclamation (Clark 1987: 189). public lands (Clark 1987: 145–146). 1923 The U.S. Biological Survey and cooperating 1920 The Forest Service adopted a policy of no light ranchers put out 103,000 strychnine baits to burning in ponderosa pine forests based on control coyotes, bears, and other predators the belief that fire every 2 to 3 years would (Brown 1985: 142). prevent restocking of the tree (Pyne 1982: 522). 1924 (pre) The channel of the Galisteo deepened 1920 Congress passed the Minerals Leasing Act, as a result of overgrazing and other abuse in enabling the General Land Office to lease its drainage. Due to this incising, water could lands with oil, gas, coal, and other critical no longer be diverted for irrigation (Brown minerals to private producers (Utely and and Carmony 1995: 169). Mackintosh 1989: 27). 1924 (June 7) Congress passed the Pueblo Lands 1920 The U.S. Biological Survey’s predator control Act, which provided for the appointment of program in New Mexico had reduced wolves a commission to investigate Pueblo land titles from an estimated 300 to an estimated 60 or and to litigate the thousands of non-Indian less (Brown 1983: 64; Flader 1978: 60). claims against Pueblo lands. Known as the 1900s (early) The Federal Government constructed Pueblo Lands Board, this commission was reservoirs for pueblos that did not have a re- empowered to compensate Indians and non- liable water supply. These quickly began to Indians alike for lands lost via court decisions silt up, resulting in a reduction of their ca- (Brayer 1938: 28–29). pacities (Vlasich 1980: 28). 1924 Passage of the Pueblo Lands Act resulted in 1921 Created by the State Legislature, the Rio Hispanos acquiring legal title to about 18,200 Grande Survey Commission, in cooperation acres of northern Pueblo land through adju- with the U.S. Reclamation Service, began to dication. Most of this acreage was irrigable, study environmental conditions in the Middle and water rights were appropriated with land River Valley (Wozniak 1987). title (Forrest 1989: 58). 1921 Aldo Leopold “presented a fully formed and 1924 Lack of grazing regulation on the public do- brilliantly considered wilderness-preserva- main led to continuing overgrazing (Brown tion plan to the Forest Service” (Brown and and Carmony 1995: 171). Carmony 1995: 152). 1924 The Clark-McNary Act greatly expanded 1921 (post) Some ranchers supported creation of wil- federal-state cooperation in reforestation and derness areas because their roadlessness would fire control on state and private forest lands keep automobiles and their passengers off graz- (Bergoffen 1976: 61). ing leases (Brown and Carmony 1995: 154). 1924 Assistant Regional Forester Aldo Leopold’s

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 369 paper “Grass, Brush, Timber, and Fire in boards settled grazing disputes and gave ad- Southern Arizona” was published. This vice in developing new grazing policies article, the first detailed discussion of historical (Rowley 1985: 134–135). change in a Southwest landscape, identified 1926 Some Hispanic farmers in the Middle Valley overgrazing and fire suppression as the causes expressed concern for the program of the Rio of the invasion of grasslands by shrubs and trees Grande Conservancy District (Orona 1994). and erosion on national forest lands. Erosion, 1926 The U.S. Forest Service published The Story of he pointed out, was caused by allowing inten- the Range by Will C. Barnes, Assistant Forester sive grazing to reduce plant cover, which sup- and Chief of Grazing. This report documented posedly would decrease the incidences of fire grazing history and resulting impact on Great (Brown and Carmony 1995: 188–192). Plains and Southwest rangelands. The ques- 1924 Owing to the efforts of Leopold, the Gila tioning of the wisdom of the Taylor Act and Wilderness area was established, the first such its application were included (Baker et al. unit in the United States (Baker et al. 1988: 47). 1988: 51). 1924 New Mexico’s wildlife populations reached 1927 (March 16) The New Mexico groundwater their lowest numbers, and more species were law was passed, “the first attempt by any threatened with extinction than at any other western state to establish by statute and in time. Several species, such as the gray wolf relatively permanent form the basic principle and grizzly bear, were extirpated within a few governing the appropriation of ground- years. Most other species, with the aid of re- water.” All underground waters in the state stocking and the establishment of refuges, have were declared “public waters,” subject to ap- made gains since that time (Ligon 1927: 15). propriation for beneficial uses under the 1925 The condition of rangelands became acute by existing laws of the state relating to appro- this year due to drought and overgrazing. priation and beneficial uses of waters from Ranchers joined U.S. Forest Service rangers in surface streams, and to be supervised and the rounding up of thousands of wild horses controlled by the State Engineer. The State on national forest lands. These were sold to groundwater act also authorized the state to reduction plants in El Paso and Gallup, where determine sources and recharge of under- they were slaughtered and ground into fer- ground waters and to control their future de- tilizer and pet food (Wyman 1945: 159–160). velopment. The Middle and Upper Rio 1925 The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Grande was declared a groundwater basin structure was formed by this year. About (Clark 1987: 236–238). 277,760 acres were included in the district. To 1927 The Corps of Engineers was authorized by alleviate flooding and subsequent water- Congress to conduct surveys for flood pro- logging, dams, levees, and drainage canals tection and hydropower facilities in all U.S. were constructed over the next 5 decades waterways (Welsh 1987: 109). (Scurlock 1988b: 136). 1927 Black bears received legal protection in New 1925 Wild horses on the Carson National Forest Mexico (Findley et al. 1975: 29). were contributing to the overgrazing prob- 1928 (March 13) Congress authorized the Secretary lem. Some 1,200 horses were rounded up; of the Interior to enter into a contract with some were sold to residents surrounding the the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District forest (Tucker and Fitzpatrick 1972: 79–80). for participation in its $10 million program 1926 (January 22) The Department of Agriculture of drainage, flood control, rehabilitation of issued a memo entitled “New Grazing Regu- irrigation systems and farmland, and general lations on National Forests,” which made conservation (Strauss 1947: 133–134). three major concessions to livestock raisers: 1928 A new agreement between the Pueblos and (1) 10-year grazing permits were given full Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District pro- status of a contract between the USFS and the vided that the district would “provide con- stockmen and could only be revoked because servation, irrigation, drainage, and flood of a violation of terms, (2) further distribu- control” (Bayer et al. 1994: 240). tion of grazing privileges was generally sus- 1928 The McSweeney-McNary Forest Research pended, and (3) the role of local grazing Act, which called for the development of boards was reemphasized, with one member methods for protection of watersheds, was representing the USDA and the other mem- passed by Congress (Buchanan 1988: 32; bers selected by the grazing permittees. These Bergoffen 1976: 61).

370 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1928 The McSweeney-McNary Forest Research ation, and control of erosion and pollution; Act, passed by congress, authorized experi- and creation of wildlife sanctuaries on the ments in range management as part of a com- national forests (Clark 1987: 267). prehensive program of forest research. One 1929 (post) Following organization of the Middle of 12 regional forest experiment stations au- Rio Grande Conservancy District, the Pueblo thorized by this act was the Rocky Mountain persuaded Congress to make a payment of Forest and Range Experiment Station $1,321,000 to the conservancy on their behalf (Bergoffen 1976: 61; Price 1976: 19). because they could not maintain their subsis- 1928 Congress appropriated $150,000 for the U.S. tence economy if required to pay ongoing Forest Service “to investigate the life histo- commercial charges (Harper et al. 1943: 24). ries and habits of forest animals, birds, and 1910s–20s Local bounties were paid for bobcats, and wildlife from the standpoint of injury to for- most sheep ranchers hunted them vigorously est growth and as a supplemental economic (Bailey 1971: 293). resource” (Clark 1987: 266). 1920s (late) Mule deer had become abundant on 1929 (March 2) Congress passed an act authoriz- most national forests (Brown and Carmony ing New Mexico to negotiate specifically for 1995: 127). the apportionment of the waters of the Rio 1930 (April 15 to July 1, 1931) The Forestry Grande and Pecos River with Texas (Clark Division, Office of Indian Affairs, assumed re- 1987: 230). sponsibility for the protection and adminis- 1929 The Flood Control Act was passed by tration of grazing on more than 42 million Congress; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acres of Native American rangelands in the was given responsibility for locating water West. A grazing policy for Indian lands was sources for domestic supplies, irrigation, and implemented (Udall 1962: 17). hydroelectric power (Welsh 1987: 22). 1930 By this year permits for grazing on the Santa 1929 The state attorney general ruled that “unau- Fe National Forest had been reduced to cor- thorized obstruction of any natural water relate with carrying capacities (Rothman course did become actionable for resulting 1992: 159). damage” (Clark 1987: 335). 1930 President Herbert Hoover appointed a com- 1929 The Agricultural Appropriation Act was mission called the Committee on passed by Congress; $160,000 was provided Conservation and Administration of the Pub- for investigation of soil erosion and the means lic Domain; this body recommended that for its control (Clark 1987: 256). “congress pass a law conveying the public 1929 In this year “westerners launched a major domain lands of the West to the States who campaign to reduce damage by predators to wanted them....” The following year the com- crops and livestock” (Reed and Drabelle 1984: mittee drafted legislation embracing this rec- 75). ommendation, but it was rejected in house 1929 President Herbert Hoover, in a communique committee (Mortensen 1983: 82). to the Western Conference of Governors, “rec- 1930 A forestry research area of 10,000 acres was ommended the creation of a commission to established on the Santa Fe National Forest consider the advisability of turning unre- for use by the University of New Mexico served nonmineral lands over to the states ...” (Baker et al. 1988: 29). (Clark 1987: 252). 1930–31 Congress passed legislation creating the Com- 1929 (late) The new Middle Rio Grande Conser- mittee on Conservation and Administration vancy District promised to provide irrigation, of the Public Domain, proposing that poten- drainage, flood control, and conservation for tial public grazing lands be offered to the the Santa Ana Pueblo, and the means for con- states in which they were located, and the trol (Bayer et al. 1994: 242; Clark 1987: 256). states in turn would pass them to private 1929–31 Conservationists urged Congress to control ownership. The Forest Service and other or- grazing on the public range by establishing ganizations opposed this recommendation as regulations to be administered by the Depart- a threat to conservation of resources on these ment of Agriculture (Stout 1970: 322–323). lands and to small-scale livestock raisers. Sur- 1929–34 Several federal laws resulted in the purchase prisingly, western states generally did not of more refuge lands; more wildlife conser- support this potential action (Clark 1987: 252). vation authority; studies of the economics of 1930–34 Construction of the major water control fa- harvesting fish and game, wilderness recre- cilities proposed by the Middle Rio Grande

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 371 Conservancy District, including El Vado dam ascertainable boundaries are public waters and reservoir on the Chama River, were com- “subject to appropriation for beneficial use in pleted. This reservoir had a storage capacity accordance with the statutes and with rules of 190,000 acre-feet (Harper et al. 1943: 53). and regulations formulated by the State En- 1931 (pre) “Users of public lands never found it gineer of New Mexico” (Erickson 1954: 81). advantageous to protect or even conserva- 1931 The New Mexico Legislature passed a law tively graze any range they did not fully con- giving the State Game Commission full regu- trol . . . ” “Homesteaders who settled as latory powers to manage the wildlife of the groups or colonies on the most favorable of state, including the setting of hunting seasons the remaining tracts of unreserved public and bag limits (Barker 1970: 188; Flader 1978: domain also contributed to the impairment 105). of range lands . . . “ “For a time many of them 1931 Due in part to a western ranchers’ campaign, believed that whatever was responsible for Congress enacted the Animal Damage Con- the untoward state of things was abnormal trol Act. This legislation granted the Fish and and that if they could produce enough to live Wildlife Service broad authority “to eradicate, on for another year, conditions would be bet- suppress, destroy or bring under control ter. They therefore grazed in common the sur- predators,” which the act defined as “moun- rounding public lands to the utmost, in the tain lions, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, attempt to eke out subsistence” (Cooperrider gophers, ground squirrels, jack rabbits, and and Hendricks 1937: 82) other animals injurious to agriculture, horticul- 1931 (March 2) Congress appropriated $10 million ture, forestry, animal husbandry, wild game ani- to fund (one million dollars annually for the mals, furbearing animals, and birds” (Reed and 10-year program) predatory animal control in Drabelle 1984: 76). the West (Hagy 1951: 94). 1931 Under state game management, the prong- 1931 (March 2) The Animal Damage Control Act horn antelope population had increased to authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to 5,000 animals (Barker 1976: 136). conduct research and experiments in deter- 1932 The U.S. Forest Service suspended grazing mining the best methods to control or exter- fees because of the emergency conditions of minate predators and “other animals the Depression (Rowley 1985: 246). injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, 1930s (early) Hispanics organized a farmer’s asso- animal husbandry, wild game animals.” Be- ciation in the Los Lunas area over concern that cause of the 1930s economy and World War their ditches might be lost to the Middle Rio II, however, the program was never funded Grande Conservancy District (Orona 1994). (Hagy 1951: 94; Mortensen 1983: 73). 1930s (early) Western livestock raisers “believed that 1931 (November) The National Conference on the passage of regulatory legislation such as Land Utilization, meeting in Chicago, recom- the Taylor bill would restrict their use of the mended that “. . . in order to obtain conserva- public domain and would lead to financial tion and rehabilitation of the grazing ranges chaos . . .” (Mortensen 1983: 83). of the public domain these lands be organized 1930s (early) More than 1,500 horses were removed into public ranges to be administered by a from the Jemez River District of the Santa Fe Federal agency in a manner similar to and in National Forest (Tucker and Fitzpatrick 1972: coordination with the national forests.” The 81). group also recommended “that lands valu- 1933 The Secretary of Agriculture established a able for watershed protection should be ad- basic fee schedule for grazing livestock on the ministered under the supervision of the national forests. These fees were based on an Federal Government.” Subsequently, the appraisal of each range area and varied from Secretary of the Interior approved federal year to year in proportion to changes in live- regulation of grazing on the public domain stock prices (Clawson 1971: 172–173). to protect these lands (Clark 1987: 252–253). 1933 The Soil Erosion Service was established as a 1931 (December 3) The Manzano National Forest temporary agency of the Department of the was renamed Cibola National Forest (Tucker Interior. Two years later it was transferred to 1992: 109). the Department of Agriculture (Udall 1962: 1931 The state declared that the waters of under- 17–18). ground streams, channels, artesian basins, 1933 Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, reservoirs, and lakes having reasonable the Forest Service developed a code of busi-

372 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 ness practices for the timber industry. This Middle and Upper Rio Grande valleys. code included commitment to “conservation, Hispano, Native, and to a lesser extent, Anglo selective cutting, sustained yield, reforesta- Americans interrelationships with each other tion, and a program to prevent forest fires” and their shared environment were first ad- (Baker et al. 1988: 53). dressed by these studies (McWilliams 1961: 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt created the 287). Civilian Conservation Corps. About 3 million 1933–40 The Grazing Service organized four districts persons, mostly young men, worked prima- embracing almost 1.5 million acres of graz- rily on soil and water conservation projects ing lands in the Middle Rio Grande Basin until 1942 (Buchanan 1988: 32–33). (Harper et al. 1943: 88–90). 1933 Four CCC camps were established on the 1933–40 A range conservation program was con- Santa Fe National Forest at Glorieta Mesa, ducted on Indian lands in the Middle Valley Senorita Canyon, and Canada. On the Cibola by the Soil Conservation Service (Harper et National Forest were the West Boundary and al. 1943: 89). Monica ranger station camps. Projects in- 1934 (June 18) The Indian Reorganization Act, giv- cluded boundary fencing, trail maintenance, ing Native Americans the right to govern road repair, erosion control, timber stand im- themselves, was passed. Under this act, the provement, and rodent control (Otis et al. U.S. Government determined the organiza- 1986: 29–31). tional structure of tribal governments. It also 1933 An Indian branch of the Civilian Conserva- defined the Secretary of the Interior’s respon- tion Corps was organized, and several irriga- sibility for conservation and economic devel- tion projects were begun (Hughes 1983: 126). opment of resources on Indian lands. This act 1933 The U.S. Forest Service declared the Pecos in part, prohibited alienation of Pueblo lands high country a “Primitive Area” (deBuys (Simmons 1979b: 217; Utely and Mackintosh 1985: 285). 1989: 32). 1933 Unionization of coal miners and a tougher, com- 1934 (June 28) The Taylor Grazing Act authorized prehensive mining law reduced deaths due to the Secretary of the Interior to rehabilitate mining accidents (Whiteside 1989: 183). overgrazed and eroded areas and to con- 1933 Bighorn sheep from Banff National Park were struct improvements on federal lands released in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains through the new Grazing Service (Hagy (Barker 1953: 90). 1951: 75). A major purpose was to control 1933 (late) A CCC camp was established at and manage grazing on the public lands. In Bandelier National Monument. Workers built 1946 this agency was combined with the roads, trails, and fire breaks and constructed General Land Office to form the Bureau of residences and Park Service administrative Land Management (Clawson 1971: 34–38). buildings (Rothman 1992: 183–184, 193). The bulk of unappropriated grassland (80 1933 Some 17 CCC camps were established on na- million acres) was closed to further settle- tional forests in New Mexico. Workers per- ment by the act. These lands were to be kept formed a variety of tasks in completing some as a grazing resource and managed by lo- projects, including construction of roads and cal livestock growers organized in districts trails, revegetation of depleted areas, con- and supervised by the Department of the struction of erosion control facilities, and Interior (Worster 1979: 190). This act had thinning of timber stands. Native American been strongly opposed by the National Wool participants replanted vegetation and built Growers’ Association and the New Mexico water control structures on eroded lands Stock Growers’ Association (Stout 1970: 314, (Baker et al. 1988: 53–54). 318). 1933–35 Under the leadership of John Collier, a New 1934 (June 30) The National Resources Board, Deal land reform program for Native which sponsored ground and surface water Americans and Hispanics was implemented. studies, was created by executive order (Clark Part of this program was aimed at restoring 1987: 250, 256). the fertility of severely eroded land (Forrest 1934 Under the Drought Relief Service program, 1989: 129). the U.S. Government began buying cattle on 1933–40 New Deal agencies, and the Bureau of Indian overgrazed, drought-stricken rangelands Affairs, conducted a number of in-depth sur- (Limerick 1987: 88). veys of natural and human resources in the 1934 The U.S. Government purchased the “badly

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 373 overgrazed and eroded” Ojo del Espiritu was filling with sediment at a rapid rate Santo land grant and began a resource man- (Clark 1987: 256). agement program (Varney 1987: 35). 1935 The ongoing drought was a factor in the 1934 The governor of New Mexico created a plan- bringing of a suit against the state and the ning board made up of employees from five Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District by major state resource agencies and presidents water users in southern New Mexico for im- of the three major universities; they began a pairment of water rights below Elephant study of the state’s natural resources, with Butte Reservoir (Clark 1987: 218). emphasis on erosion problems and water con- 1935 The director of the Grazing Division estab- servation (Clark 1987: 269). lished district advisory boards. These groups 1934 El Vado dam and reservoir were built on the were made up of ranchers, a wildlife repre- Rio Chama (Gatewood et al. 1954: B45). sentative from a local sportsmen’s group, and 1934–35 The New Mexico State Planning Board found an employee of the division, who served as that the public rangelands in the state were secretary. The boards were especially helpful badly damaged due to overgrazing (Clark in the organization and administration of new 1987: 255). grazing districts (Clawson 1971: 149). 1934–38 The extended drought spurred the comprehen- 1935 Congress appropriated funds for establish- sive Rio Grande Joint Investigation, which led ment of the Rocky Mountain Forest and to the Rio Grande Compact between Colorado, Range Experiment Station (Price 1976: 19). New Mexico, and Texas (Thomas 1963: H16). 1935 The Historic Sites Act, requiring archeologi- 1934–44 The continuing overuse and deterioration of cal investigation prior to the construction of Pueblo land led to an accelerated land acqui- a federal reservoir or a federally permitted sition program. About 390,727 acres were reservoir, was passed by Congress purchased or assigned to Indian use on non- (McGimsey n.d.: 16). This act also declared a Pueblo lands. Another 199,255 acres of pub- national preservation policy on public use of lic land were under lease or permit from the historic sites, structures, and “objects of na- state, the Forest Service, or the Taylor Graz- tional significance”. Furthermore, it estab- ing Service (Aberle 1948: 15–16). lished an Advisory Board on National Parks, 1934–40s Livestock raisers “succeeded in mitigating the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments law’s [Taylor Grazing Act] impact by forma- (Udall 1962: 19). tion of district and state advisory boards. 1935 Legislation was passed creating the office of These boards were elected by permittees and Superintendent of State Parks and a Park became the de facto governing boards.” The Commission. This commission was autho- U.S. Grazing Service generally followed the rized to acquire park lands and was directed board’s recommendations. As a result, range to draft rules and regulations for public use conditions improved very slowly (Eastman of parks (Clark 1987: 271–272). and Gray 1987: 35). 1935 (April) The Division of Grazing administered 1935 The Wilderness Society, under the leadership four grazing districts totalling almost 9 mil- of Robert Marshall, was founded (Brown and lion acres (Clark 1987: 255). Carmony 1995: 163; Udall 1963: 154). 1935–36 The Corps of Engineers joined other agencies 1935 (March 7) Coronado State Monument, site of in the Interior and Agriculture departments a large late prehistoric–early historic pueblo, in conducting the Rio Grande Joint Investi- was established by the State Legislature. Lo- gation study (Welsh 1987: 109). cated just north of Bernalillo, it is one of 1935–39 Livestock numbers were reduced on Pueblo Tiguex villages contacted by Coronado in lands because of deterioration of rangelands 1540–42 (Dutton 1963: 4–5). due to overgrazing (Aberle 1948: 20). 1935 (April 27) The Soil Conservation Act was 1936 The Flood Control Act of 1936 declared that passed by Congress, creating the Soil Conser- the Federal Government had responsibility to vation Service (SCS) (Udall 1963: 144). control floods on navigable rivers and run- 1935 (spring) Some 420,000 rainbow trout were off-caused erosion on smaller streams in co- introduced into El Vado Reservoir (Workers operation with state and local governments. of the Writers’ Program 1940: 34). This act “established for the first time an in- 1935 The SES (Soil Erosion Service) initiated an ero- tegrated flood-control policy” and laid the sion control program for the 11,500,000 acre groundwork for the greatest public works watershed of Elephant Butte Reservoir, which program ever undertaken by the U.S. Gov-

374 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 ernment. The Corps of Engineers was placed nities and groups of ranchers, was passed by in charge of “investigations and improve- Congress (Clark 1987: 263–264). ments of waterways” (Buchanan 1988: 33; 1937 The Forest Service received authorization and Clark 1987: 259–260). funding for the reserving of certain unappro- 1936 The Soil Conservation Service completed a priated waters in New Mexico to carry out new irrigation dam at San Luis, Sandoval the protection and improvement of national County, located about one-half mile above the forest lands through water conservation site of the earlier structure (Widdison 1959: (Clark 1987: 274). 277). 1937 Some 8,000 individuals, almost all Hispanic, 1936 The MRGC completed work on the Cochiti, “lost their land titles because they were un- Angostura, Isleta, and San Acacia diversion able to pay taxes and assessments on the dams, 180 miles of new canals, 294 miles of Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District new laterals, and 200 miles of riverside levees. Project . . . ” (Gonzalez 1969: 52). The valley water table was being lowered, 1937 The Works Projects Administration, the Public and 59,159 acres of land were being irrigated Works Administration, and the National (Clark 1987: 211–212). Youth Administration also provided employ- 1936 The Forest Service estimated that at least 75 ment for workers, who carried out conserva- percent of the Rio Grande watershed in south- tion and reclamation projects for water and ern Colorado and northern New Mexico was wildlife improvement (Clark 1987: 245). experiencing severe, accelerated erosion, 1937 The Forest Service released its report, The largely as a result of the removal of the plant Western Range, which described “the critical cover through overgrazing and logging deterioration in the condition of lands, regard- (deBuys 1985: 232). less of ownership, prevailing in the public- 1936 Activities of nomadic stockmen, who had land states” (Clark 1987: 273–274). roamed the range with no base of operation, 1937 Congress passed the Bankhead-Jones Farm were stopped by the Division of Grazing Tenant Act, which authorized the Federal (Clark 1987: 255). Government to purchase private lands of 1936 The National Wildlife Federation was formed “low production.” These tracts were added (Borland 1975: 148). to national forests, national parks, grazing 1930s (mid to late) The Soil Conservation Service districts, and other public land holdings purchased the Ramon Vigil grant on the (Levine et al. 1980: 53). Pajarito Plateau from Frank Bond. This 1937 A soil conservation act was passed by the agency initiated soil and water protection State Legislature, creating soil conservation plans for the grant, for San Ildefonso and districts to be assisted by other state and ap- Santa Clara lands, and for other lands on the propriate federal agencies. These districts Pajarito Plateau (Rothman 1992: 199, 231). were concerned with erosion control, water 1937 (June 28) The Civilian Conservation Corps development, and land classification based on legislation was amended by Congress, direct- “best use” (Clark 1987: 270–271). ing personnel from this agency to provide 1937 Congress passed legislation creating soil con- works “for the protection, restoration, regen- servation districts in the states (Batie 1985: 109). eration, improvement, development, utiliza- 1937 Three soil conservation grants totalling tion, maintenance, or enjoyment of the natural 174,000 acres were allocated to the Pueblos. resources of lands and waters, and the prod- These lands had a carrying capacity of 1,656 ucts thereof.” Water development and con- cattle. Three other such grants totalling servation, improved range projects, and other 187,000 acres, with a carrying capacity of 1,601 projects were carried out with funding allo- cattle, were made to non-Indians, but prima- cated to the National Park Service, U.S. Forest rily for Hispanic use (Forrest 1989: 141). Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Soil Conser- 1937 Passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act pro- vation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, vided funding for state game and fish de- and state parks and forests. The CCC also partments to conduct game surveys on a contributed to wildlife and recreational pro- systematic basis and to institute wildlife re- grams (Clark 1987: 244–245). search (Brown and Carmony 1995: 123). The 1937 (August 26) The Small Reservoirs Act, which act levied a tax on firearms and ammunition provided funding for construction of small to provide funds for state wildlife projects water storage structures for isolated commu- (Udall 1963: 145). The act also required rivers

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 375 and harbors appropriations to include fund- ervoirs with an aggregate capacity of 17,500 ing for investigations and improvements of acre-feet benefitting 75,000 acres of land wildlife, and it fostered closer cooperation (Clark 1987: 256). between federal and state governments (Clark 1939 By this year there were 201 state game ref- 1987: 267–268). uges totalling 2,884,654 acres (Workers of the 1937 The first state park, Bluewater Lake, was cre- Writers’ Program 1940: 33). ated (Clark 1987: 271). 1939 The Federal Aid to Wildlife Act was passed 1937–38 The National Resources Committee and the by Congress, and money became available for Rio Grande Compact Commission conducted states to acquire habitat lands. Some 30,000 a comprehensive and detailed study of the acres were purchased for this purpose in New land and water resources of the Rio Grande Mexico (Barker 1976: 100–101). Basin north of Fort Quitman, Texas. The study 1939 The Bosque del Apache National Wildlife addressed problems such as stream flow, ap- Refuge was established in Socorro County. portionment of waters between the two states Embracing 57,200 acres, the refuge was pur- and Mexico, and flood and silt control (Clark chased primarily for sandhill cranes and wa- 1987: 218–221). terfowl (Laycock 1965: 269). In recent years 1937–46 The Albuquerque Ski Club was organized, an experimental flock of whooping cranes has and this group obtained a special use permit wintered on the refuge. from the Forest Service to operate a rope-tow 1939 There were 116,600 recreational visits to the and restaurant in the Sandia Mountains, Cibola National Forest (Baker et al. 1988: Cibola National Forest. In 1946, Robert J. 134). Nordhaus organized the La Madera Com- 1930s When the large Hispanic livestock holders in pany and assumed control of operations un- the region were forced to reduce their herds til 1963. In this year he organized the Sandia due to overgrazing and drought, many young Peak and Aerial Tramway Company, which men whom they employed lost their jobs. built a ski lift and a tramway system to the Most of them sought work in Colorado and ski area (Baker et al. 1988: 138). Utah (Gonzalez 1969: 127). 1937–38 (March 18) Representatives of New Mexico, 1930s Some 300 farmers in the Albuquerque area Colorado, and Texas signed the Upper Rio erected a barricade in the North Valley to halt Grande Compact, which delineated the tri- construction work by the Middle Rio Grande state division of Rio Grande water above Fort Conservancy District (Orona 1994). Quitman, Texas. This agreement incorporated 1930s Crested wheat grass was introduced into New schedules for delivery of water at the Mexico and adjacent mountain states by Colorado-New Mexico line and below Agricultural Experiment Stations and the U.S. Elephant Butte Reservoir based on flow mea- Forest Service (Rogler and Lorenz 1983: 91–92). surements at Lobatos and San Marcial. Un- 1930s (late) A levee system was constructed der this compact, the Middle Rio Grande throughout much of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District could develop its plan by the Conservancy District (Bullard and affecting 123,000 acres of land (Clark 1987: Wells 1992: 47). 219–221; Harper et al. 1943: 94–95). 1939 (late) New Mexico Game and Fish personnel 1938 (August 20) The Pueblo and Spanish ruins of released the first of a reintroduced herd of Abo and Quarai were declared state monu- Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep from British ments (Toulouse 1949: 1). Columbia into the Sandia Mountains (Pickens 1938 A state game refuge was established on the east 1980: 83). side of the Sandia Mountains (McDonald 1985: 12). 1930s (late) The Game and Fish Department tested 1938–39 The 350-acre Hyde State Park was developed a limited bounty plan to supplement other by the CCC under the supervision of the predator control programs in Socorro, Catron, National Park Service. It is surrounded by and Sierra Counties. Based on this test, the Santa Fe National Forest land (Baker et al. department estimated that 16,000 coyotes 1988: 137). could be killed annually in the state by paid 1939 (February 1) Some 25,295 acres of the Ramon hunters (Mortensen 1983: 74). Vigil grant were transferred from the SCS to 1930s (late) (to 1941) The WPA constructed small re- the Forest Service (Rothman 1992: 204). tention and diversion dams in rural New 1939 By this year the Division of Grazing had built Mexico communities to prevent flooding 585 check dams to control erosion and 31 res- (Welsh 1987: 110).

376 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1940 (January) The Upper Rio Grande Drainage 1940s (early) State and national advisory boards, Basin Committee held its first meeting. This made up of ranchers, were established to as- group, made up of personnel from state and sist in the management of grazing on these federal agencies, heard various parties discuss lands. Later, in 1961, these boards were ex- and protest against certain irrigation projects panded to represent wildlife, forestry, min- and possible loss of water rights to new de- eral development, soil conservation, and velopment along the river (Vlasich 1980: 33). other resource interests (Clawson 1971: 150– 1940 The U.S. Forest Service and the Grazing 151). Service began to fence federal land in the Rio 1943 (February) The Manhattan Project, Los Puerco-of-the-East valley and traditional Alamos, was established within the Jemez grazing lands on Mesa Prieta and the San District, Santa Fe National Forest (Rothman Mateo Mountains, including Mount Taylor 1992: 209–210). (Garcia 1992: 23). 1943 (April) The All-Pueblo Council met and gen- 1940 Most wild horses had been removed from erally declared opposition to the Flood rangelands except on Indian reservations and Control Act of 1941, which was passed after “waste lands outside of the grazing districts the major flood of that year. They specifically and fenced areas” (Wyman 1945: 173). opposed construction of proposed flood con- 1940 The U.S. Bureau of Fisheries and the trol dams at Otowi and San Felipe but sup- Biological Survey were transferred and con- ported flood control measures. They also spoke solidated into the Fish and Wildlife Service, out against plans made for their lands without Department of the Interior (Clark 1987: 268). their input (Bayer et al. 1994: 242–243). 1940–41 The Soil Conservation Service sponsored 1944 Responding to growing criticism from west- projects to control erosion on Santa Ana ern states relative to federal encroachment of Pueblo land by erecting fences and wind- their rights, Congress passed a declaration breaks (Bayer et al. 1994: 228). of policy recognizing “the interests and rights 1940 (ca.) Elk from Wyoming, Wichita Mountains of the States in determining the development National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, and of the watersheds within their borders and the Philmont Boy Scout Ranch were trans- likewise their interests and rights in water uti- planted on Mount Taylor, in the Jemez Moun- lization and control” (Clark 1987: 260). tains, and in the Hopewell and Tres Piedras 1945 The Smokey Bear fire prevention symbol was areas of the Carson National Forest (Barker publicly presented by the Forest Service 1976: 109–110). (Bergoffen 1976: 61). 1940 (ca.) The La Joya State Waterfowl Refuge was 1946 (July 16) The General Land Office merged established (Barker 1976: 104). with the U.S. Grazing Service to form the 1941 Spurred by the severe spring flood, Congress Bureau of Land Management. It was respon- passed Senator Clinton P. Anderson’s Flood sible for the management of various natural and Control Act. This legislation directed the Chief cultural resources on public domain lands of Engineers to conduct a preliminary study (Clark : 255; Utely and Mackintosh 1989: 29). of the Rio Grande basin above El Paso. This The BLM established a regional office in Albu- agency, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, querque, and it implemented a grazing fee of 8 was also directed to develop a joint-use plan cents per animal unit month (Clawson 1971: 38– for the Rio Grande near Albuquerque (Welsh 39, 174). 1987: 111). 1946 The Indian Claims Commission was created 1941 The Albuquerque District of the Corps of to hear and resolve Native American disputes Engineers was established (Welsh 1987: 78– with non-Indians over ownership of land. The 79). Pueblos and other groups were able to recover 1941 There were seven districts with almost 16 mil- significant amounts of land during the 32- lion acres under the administration of the year history of the commission (deBuys 1985: Division of Grazing (Clark 1987: 255). 311). 1941–43 Each family in the Rio Puerco-of-the-West was 1940s (mid) The Pueblos complained to Congress permitted to graze 15 head of sheep, in their that the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dis- grazing precinct, by the Soil Conservation trict had not provided adequate water or Service. This number of livestock was consid- maintenance of ditches as promised. Many ered below the minimum needed for subsis- claimed they had lost crops as a result (Bayer tence (Forrest 1989: 159). et al. 1994: 243).

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 377 1946–53 The USFS and the BLM were “under attack” use of 1080, a highly lethal rodenticide, in the during this period by livestock growers. Al- control of rodents and predators. Especially though representing only a small minority of effective against canids, it killed wild as well the population in New Mexico and other as domestic pets in large numbers. This con- public-land states, livestock growers “had po- troversial compound was banned by the En- litical influence at both national and state lev- vironmental Protection Agency in 1972 els far beyond that which their numbers (Brown 1983: 103). would indicate.” “Fundamentally, they were 1949 An area of the Tres Piedras Ranger District, hostile to federal ownership of any grazing Carson National Forest, was reseeded with lands and believed that these lands could best crested wheatgrass (Rowley 1985: preceeding be developed under private ownership” p. 192). (Clark 1987: 589). 1940s The number of livestock that one owner could 1947 The Forest Pest Control Act placed a new graze on the national forests was limited. For emphasis on the control and management of the Santa Fe, 50 to 100 head of cattle per owner forest insects and diseases (Baker et al. 1988: were permitted. These limitations were im- 59). posed because of heavy local demand. Also, 1947–58 An intensive program of study of sediments attempts were made to reduce common use in the Rio Grande Basin was conducted by of forest ranges by constructing fences, de- the U.S. Geological Survey (Hale et al. 1965: 6). veloping more water, and reassigning indi- 1948 (June 1–25) An inspection of the grazing al- vidual allotments (Eastman and Gray 1987: lotments on the Santa Fe National Forest re- 37). vealed that their condition was unsatisfactory 1940s The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association (Baker et al. 1988: 102). continued to lobby for transferring federal 1948 Congress directed the Army Corps of ownership of the public domain to the state. Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation to pre- This organization’s policy was supported by pare plans for district improvement. Subse- New Mexico’s two U.S. senators and one of quently, the Corps constructed river levees its representatives. In 1946 the state’s Com- near Albuquerque, and the Bureau deepened missioner of Public Lands, John E. Miles, sug- river canals to drain water from agricultural gested that land commissioners, educators, lands. In the southern part of the valley, chan- and livestock raisers meet to develop strat- nel rectification was carried out as well egy for acquiring the public domain. An As- (Sorensen and Linford 1967: 156–157). sociation of Western State Land Commission- 1948 The Flood Control Act authorized construc- ers would procure legislative enactment for tion of the Chamita Dam (later replaced by granting the states the public domain for sup- Abiquiu Dam) above Espanola and the Jemez port of schools and other public institutions. Canyon Dam above Bernalillo. These dams Their efforts were unsuccessful (Mortensen were part of other works to control flooding 1983: 85–86). and sedimentation of the Rio Grande. Pushed 1940s–50s (late to 1950s) Grass reseeding and reforesta- by the devastating May-June 1941 flood, the tion on national forest lands were commonly Corps of Engineers proposed reservoirs at carried out by the Forest Service. As part of Jemez Canyon and Chamita (Welsh 1987: 115, this program, juniper was removed from vari- 166). ous areas and then reseeded with grasses 1948 Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution (Baker et al. 1988: 63). Control Act, the first such legislation for the 1950 (April 24) Congress passed a law authoriz- United States (Clark 1987: 444). ing advisory boards on grazing on national 1948–51 Research and field testing of methods to “ar- forests; members were to be primarily live- tificially make rain” failed in northern and stock raisers holding permits on a particular central New Mexico (Mortensen 1983: 40–41). forest. Previously, advisory boards had no 1949 State advisory boards for grazing districts and standing under the law (Mortensen 1983: 80– a National Advisory Board to the Interior 81). Department on grazing were officially incor- 1950 Congress enacted the Rio Grande Floodway porated into the Federal Range Code for as part of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Pri- Grazing Districts (Mortensen 1983: 83). vate and state levees and dams were targeted 1949 The Predatory Animal and Rodent Control is- for reconstruction from Velarde to Elephant sued instructions and safety precautions for Butte (Welsh 1987: 166).

378 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 1950–52 The Jemez Canyon Dam was constructed 1955 State legislation authorized change of the title above Bernalillo on the Jemez River to con- of “warden” to “conservation officer” and trol flooding and sedimentation (Fergusson authorized the director of Game and Fish “to 1951: 360; Welsh 1987: 117–118). appoint properly qualified persons as 1951 (March) Sagebrush was removed from 7,000 nonsalaried reserve conservation officers acres of overgrazed rangeland on Mesa Viejas empowered to enforce the regulation of the and Canjilon Ranger District, Carson National State Game Commission and perform such Forest. Reseeding with crested wheatgrass other duties with respect to wildlife manage- followed (Rowley 1985: preceeding p. 192). ment and conservation education as he might 1951 The Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of assign” (Clark 1987: 370). Engineers began to install the first of 100,000 1955 (late) The New Mexico Land Resources jetties along the Middle Rio Grande Valley Association was formed by private citizens. (Bullard and Wells 1992: 50). It was made up of farmers, ranchers, promi- 1952 (May) U.S. Senator Dennis Chavez of New nent businessmen, educators, and lawyers. Mexico convened hearings on grazing on the Their main objectives were to research and national forests in three locations in the state. address resource use, or income from that use, A number of livestock raisers complained and the disposition of federal and state lands. about the reduction of the number of head Their study, which lasted 3 years “provided that they could graze under a permit and the an extensive look at the State’s land and wa- closing of some areas to grazing (Mortensen ter resources and analyzed the ways in which 1983: 79). Grazing conditions had been dete- they were being utilized.” The members were riorating due to the ongoing drought and “particularly struck ... by the rising domi- heavy stocking. nance on the part of the Federal Government” 1950s (early) The BLM raised the grazing fee to 12 (Mortensen 1983: 86). cents per animal-unit-month. This fee was 1956 (March) The Sandia Conservancy District, based on current livestock market prices petitioned for by a group of landowners, was (Clawson 1971: 174). created to control flash flood waters origi- 1953 The Bureau of Reclamation began a channel nated along the west face of the Sandia Moun- modification of the Middle Rio Grande to tains (Clark 1987: 355). maintain channel capacity for “safely pass- 1956 The Soil Bank Act encouraged farmers to ing high flows reducing water losses, while withdraw land from production under acre- conveying water to downstream users, and age reserve and conservation programs (Clark moving sediments through the valley” 1987: 302). (Crawford et al. 1993: 43–44). 1956 The Bureau of Indian Affairs returned graz- 1953 The New Mexico Legislature declared “that ing control to the Navajo. Stocking steadily all underground waters of the State of New increased, causing severe overgrazing of Mexico are public waters subject to appropria- rangelands by the mid 1980s (Eastman and tion for beneficial use within the State” Gray 1987: 106–107). (Erickson 1954: 81). 1956 The National Park Service submitted its 1953 Senators Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico “Mission 66” program to Congress, request- and Francis Case of South Dakota sponsored ing a substantial increase in funds to construct legislation to encourage experimentation in and maintain new facilities, as well as old, to “rainmaking” and created the Advisory meet the rapidly increasing visitation to na- Committee on Weather Control (Clark 1987: tional parks and monuments (Udall 1962: 32– 413–414). 33). 1954 The Flood Control Act included authorization 1957 A bill to establish federal wildernesses was of two diversion canals that would carry sum- submitted to Congress. Over the next 7 years mer rain runoff from the west slopes of the a powerful coalition of grazing, logging, min- Sandia Mountains (Welsh 1987: 167). ing, and motorized recreation interests lob- 1954 The U.S. Government outlawed the indiscrimi- bied tenaciously against the bill, causing it to nate use of poison to kill predators of livestock. be rejected some 65 times (deBuys 1985: 287). Sheep ranchers turned to use of the “coyote 1958 The levee-riverside drains in the Albuquer- getta,” a cyanide gun stuck in the ground. que area were reconstructed by the U.S. Army Some ranchers also controlled predators by Corps of Engineers. Operation and mainte- shooting from airplanes (Moyer 1979: 71). nance of the system were transferred to the

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 379 Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District demand should take precedence over an- (Bullard and Wells 1992: 47). other” (Baker et al. 1988: 65). 1959 The channelization project on the Rio Grande 1961 (February) President Kennedy delivered a at San Marcial was completed (Jenkins and “natural resources message” advising Con- Schroeder 1974: 77). gress “that he had directed the secretary of 1959–60 Cochiti Pueblo lost their claim to the La the interior [sic] to launch a three-pronged of- Bajada land grant. The Pueblo also asked the fensive against public land abuse.” This in- Corps of Engineers to change the location of cluded making an “inventory and evaluation the proposed Cochiti dam and reservoir, but of unreserved public lands,” developing a the Corps refused (Welsh 1987: 145–146). “balanced use program,” and developing an 1959 The State Legislature created the Rio Grande “accelerated soil and water conservation pro- Gorge State Park. Eleven years later, 48 miles, gram including rehabilitation of depleted including the 7-mile-long park, were desig- rangelands” (Clark 1987: 590–591). nated the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River 1962 (April 2) The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Young 1984: 108). was established within the Interior 1959–63 Heron Dam was constructed by the Corps of Department. This agency was responsible for Engineers on the Chama River near Tierra coordination of related federal programs, Amarilla (Welsh 1987: 133–134). assistance in state recreational planning, ad- 1950s To combat forest damage caused by the spruce ministration of a grants-in-aid program, spon- bud worm, pine and fir engravers, and pine sorship of research, and formulation of a bark beetles, spraying with insecticides such nationwide recreation plan based on state, re- as DDT was initiated. Selective cutting of in- gional, and federal plans (Udall 1962: 40). fested trees was also employed, but on a much 1962 The Bureau of Reclamation was authorized reduced scale compared with the 1930s, when by congressional act to construct the San Juan- so many unemployed men were available for Chama Transmountain Diversion Project. low wages due to the Depression (Baker et About 110,000 acre-feet of water were di- al. 1988: 62). verted from the upper tributaries of the San 1950s Recreational use of the national forests in- Juan River, across the continental divide, and creased sharply. Among these uses were hunt- into the Rio Grande drainage (Bullard and ing, fishing, skiing, and hiking (Baker et al. Wells 1992: 20). The All-Indian Pueblo 1988: 60). Council and interested individuals strongly 1950s The Bureau of Land Management was criti- supported the San Juan Chama Project (Clark cized for primarily focusing on leasing pub- 1987: 653). lic lands to livestock raisers and overlooking 1962 In his conservation message to Congress, other public values and uses for these lands. President John F. Kennedy said “Conserva- A special concern of some groups was the tion . . . can be defined as the wise use of our protection of watersheds and “marginal natural environment: it is, in the final analy- lands” from overgrazing (Clark 1987: 590). sis, the highest form of national thrift—the 1960 The Flood Control Act directed the Corps of prevention of waste and despoilment while Engineers to construct the Galisteo Dam, 12 preserving, improving and renewing the miles upstream from the confluence of quality and usefulness of all our resources” Galisteo Creek and the Rio Grande. It was not (Udall 1963: 173). completed until 10 years later (Welsh 1987: 1962 Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, documenting 149, 152, 155–156). the adverse effects of DDT and other pesti- 1960 Per capita water consumption in New Mexico cides on wildlife, was published (Utely and was about 160 gallons per day per person Mackintosh 1989: 30). (Hale et al. 1965: 51). 1963 Abiquiu Dam on the Rio Chama was com- 1960 The enactment of the Multiple Use-Sustained pleted (Welsh 1987: 134). Yield Act authorized and “directed the Sec- 1963 The Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood retary of Agriculture to develop and admin- Control Authority was created to study and ister the renewable resources of the national alleviate “the problem of urban flooding from forests, including outdoor recreation, water- unregulated, ephemeral tributaries” of the shed, range, timber, and wildlife and fish re- Rio Grande (Bullard and Wells 1992: 22). sources, in such a way that they would be 1963 The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress available in perpetuity. It meant that no one and amended in 1965 and 1966. Ambient air

380 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 quality standards affecting auto, industrial, for disposal and which should remain in fed- and other air-polluting sources were to be es- eral ownership.” These lands would also be tablished by the EPA (Clark 1987: 451–452). “managed for the protection of public values” 1963 Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall con- (Clark 1987: 591). vened a panel of experts, headed by A. Starker 1964 With the leadership of Senator Clinton P. Leopold of the University of California, to Anderson, Congress passed the Wilderness examine the Federal Government’s animal Act. The Forest Service subsequently began damage control program. This group, in their studies of their lands to determine suitability “Leopold Report,” asserted that the govern- for classification as wilderness (Baker et al. ment should be responsible for the husbandry 1988: 70). of every animal species and that current con- 1964 The 41,132-acre San Pedro Parks Wilderness trol was too excessive (Mortensen 1983: 75). Area was designated in the Santa Fe National 1963 Over 6,300 coyotes were trapped or poisoned Forest (Rothman 1992: 271). by federal and state personnel without caus- 1964 The Pecos Wilderness, some 167,416 acres, ing a noticeable decrease in the overall popu- was created in the Santa Fe and Carson lation (Findley et al. 1975: 281–282). National Forests (Rothman 1992: 271). 1963–69 The first major confrontation between the 1964 There were 1,562,600 recreational visits to the Forest Service and environmental groups in Cibola National Forest (Baker et al. 1988: 134). the region was over a proposed highway from 1964 The Pecos Wilderness Area, including Pecos Las Vegas to Pecos Canyon in the Santa Fe Baldy and Truchas Peaks, was restocked with National Forest. The Upper Pecos Association Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (deBuys 1985: and the New Mexico Conservation Coordi- 288). nating Council opposed the road, and the 1964–74 The Wheeler Peak, San Pedro Parks, and former brought suit in federal court. Subse- Bosque del Apache national wildernesses quently, the Forest Service abandoned the were established (McDonald 1985: 6). proposed project (Baker et al. 1988: 71). 1965 The Water Resources Planning Act created a 1964 The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 National Water Commission to work with the was directed at supplementing, rather than National Resources Council, public and pri- duplicating ongoing research, with special vate agencies “in isolating major problems emphasis on state problems that had only a and suggesting alternative solutions which small chance of being funded. A Water would assure an ample supply of clean water Resources Research Institute was established for the future.” A final report, Water Policies for in New Mexico, partially with funding autho- the Future, was produced, with emphasis on the rized by this act (Clark 1987: 380–381). economics of water (Clark 1987: 378–380). 1964 Under the direction of Wayne Aspinall of 1965 The legislature declared that “the State of Colorado, Congress created the Public Land New Mexico claims the right to all moisture Law Review Commission to examine exist- in the atmosphere which would fall so as to ing public land statutes and regulations and become a part of the natural streams or per- the policies and practices of the administer- colated water of New Mexico, for use in ac- ing agencies. Based on its study, 137 recom- cordance with its laws.” The Weather Con- mendations for modification in public land trol and Cloud Modification Commission was management and disposition were made. also created “to oversee attempts to alter natu- Major ones included a proposed study be ral weather conditions” (Clark 1987: 373). made as “to which public lands would serve 1965–66 The State Planning Office and the State the public good better by being transferred Engineer Office carried out an in-depth report to state, local, or private ownership.” Another and inventory of the state’s water resources significant recommendation was that local (Clark 1987: 374). advisory boards should have more input into 1960s (mid) The government based grazing fees on federal planning. This and a number of other public lands on a year-by-year assessment of recommendations were later part of 1976 leg- the economic value of the land in question islation (Clark 1987: 575). (Mortensen 1983: 78). 1964 Congress passed the Land Classification and 1966 The Bureau of Land Management and the Multiple Use Act, which directed the Secre- Forest Service raised grazing fees to levels tary of Interior “to develop criteria for deter- more in line with fees paid for grazing pri- mining which BLM lands should be classified vate lands. The BLM fee was set at 33 cents

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 381 per animal unit month, and the Forest Service their development plans and, where feasible, fees ranged from 21 cents to $1.81 (Clawson suggest alternatives. Environmental Impact 1971: 175). Statements were required for all federal 1966 Congress passed the National Historic Pres- projects (Welsh 1987: 201–202). The act also ervation Act establishing the National Regis- established the Council on Environmental ter program of sites, properties, districts, Quality in the Executive Office of the buildings, and objects significant in Ameri- President. This group consisted of three ap- can history, architecture, archeology, and cul- pointees, who were to gather, interpret, and ture. Matching funds were to be made avail- analyze data relative to environmental quality, able to help acquire and preserve these sites to evaluate federal programs and activities in and artifacts and to conduct statewide sur- relation to national policy, and to advise and veys for identifying sites and properties to be recommend to the President regarding CEQ placed on the National Register. Furthermore, responsibilities (Clark 1987: 450–451). the act provided some protection for sites on 1969 The fee for BLM grazing districts was raised the register that might be adversely affected to 44 cents per animal-unit-month (Clawson by any federally permitted or funded project 1971: 175). (McGimsey n.d.: 16–17). 1960s The riverside diversions at Corrales and 1966–67 (late to 1968) Members of the Alianza Federal Atrisco were replaced by inverted siphons de los Pueblos Libres, organized and led by which ran under the river from riverside Reies Tijerina, attempted to reclaim the San drains, converting them into seasonal water Joaquin del Rio de Chama land grant, which conveyance channels (Kernodle et al. 1995: 19). had become part of the national forest near 1960s DDT continued to be used by the Forest Tierra Amarilla. Violence broke out, and the Service to control insect infestations. This use now infamous raid on the courthouse at this continued into the next decade until DDT was community received national news coverage. banned, except for public health emergencies, Tijerina and some of his followers were con- on January 1, 1973. In 1966 malathion was in- victed and served jail sentences for assault- troduced as a pesticide (Baker et al. 1988: 62). ing government employees and destroying 1970 (April 22) The first Earth Day was held in the government property (Baker et al. 1988: 72– United States (Borland 1975: 174). Some 20 73). million citizens participated, organizing 1966, 1969 Congress passed Endangered Species Acts, marches, workshops, and political speeches policy directives to federal agencies to pro- (Pirages and Ehrlich 1974: 37–38). tect these species largely through listing. 1970 (December 15) President Richard M. Nixon These acts contained little regulatory power also signed a bill placing 48,000 acres of (Beatley 1994: 13; Borland 1975: 152). Carson National Forest, including their sacred 1960s (mid to 1971) The Forest Service proposal to Blue Lake, in trust for the sole use of Taos construct a scenic roadway from Placitas to Pueblo (Keegan 1991: 50). Sandia Crest was dropped due to opposition 1970 The Environmental Quality Improvement Act from several environmental organizations was to provide for an upgrading of environ- and local residents (McDonald 1985: 12–13). mental quality through mandating that fed- 1968 Congress passed the National Wild and Scenic eral departments and agencies conducting or River Act, which provided for the environ- supporting public work projects should mental protection of rivers in a “free-flowing, implement environmental protection policies. natural state.” One section of a regional river, Also, to provide aid and support for the re- the Upper Rio Grande between the Colorado cently created Council on Environmental state line and near Taos, was subsequently Quality, the Office of Environmental Quality designated a wild and scenic river (Baker et in the Executive Office of the President was al. 1988: 72). established under this act (Clark 1987: 450). 1969 The National Environmental Policy Act, re- 1970 Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the first quiring the study and assessment of all ac- serious attempt by the Federal Government tivities that will impact the environment on to improve the quality of air, although acts federal lands or projects, was passed by Con- were enacted in 1963, 1965, and 1966. Ambi- gress (Baker et al. 1988: 34). The act mandated ent air quality standards affecting auto, in- that all federal agencies incorporate the eco- dustrial, and other air-polluting sources were logical consequences of their projects into to be established and enforced by the EPA.

382 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 These standards were to be sufficient to pro- the Interior Department were abolished by tect the public health and welfare of the federal act but were reinstated under the Fed- Nation (Harrington and Abbey 1981: 1–2). eral Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 1970 President Richard M. Nixon established the (Mortensen 1983: 83). Environmental Protection Agency (Borland 1972 The volume of timber cut for commercial sales 1975: 174). The EPA’s basic mission was to in the national forests of New Mexico peaked restore and maintain a healthy national envi- at 141,141,000 board-feet (Baker et al. 1988: 84). ronment (Clark 1987: 452). 1972 The Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge was 1970 The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River was established in Socorro County. Subsequently, formally dedicated (Young 1984: 108). the refuge was designated a Long Term Eco- 1971 The Wild Horse and Burro Act, which com- logical Research Area (Grover and Musick plicated the management of these two ani- 1989: 1–3). mals on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands, 1973 (November 12) With completion of Cochiti was passed. Both species increased on most Dam by the Corps of Engineers, the reservoir areas, and burros moved into Bandelier began to fill. Subsequently, downstream farm- National Monument. Partly due to their in- ers at Cochiti Pueblo and Pena Blanca com- tensive grazing, soil erosion on the monument plained that rises in the groundwater table of increased to an estimated 36 tons per year. up to 8 feet were resulting in deposition of Despite public protests, virtually all of these harmful salt on their agricultural lands (Welsh animals were shot or removed by late 1983 1987: 158–159). (Rothman 1992: 280–283). 1973 Congress passed a new Endangered Species 1971 Another panel of wildlife experts, headed by Act. This legislation “substantially expanded former Assistant Secretary of the Interior the powers of the federal government in this Stanley A. Cain, “recommended that all ex- area” and placed “major and significant re- isting toxic chemicals be removed from reg- strictions on government agencies and private istration and use for Federal predator control citizens regarding listed species.” Regulatory operations” (Mortensen 1983: 75). provisions included identifying and listing 1972 (February 8) President Nixon issued an Ex- endangered species, consulting with the ecutive Order banning “the field use of any USFWS about projects that would adversely chemical toxicant for the purpose of killing a affect a species, prohibiting the “taking” of a predatory mammal or bird” or “which causes species, and preparing recovery plans for each any secondary poisoning on all Federal lands listed species. The law was amended in 1982 and in any Federal program” (Mortensen to permit the incidental taking of a listed spe- 1983: 75). cies where an acceptable habitat conservation 1972 (March) The Corps of Engineers completed plan ensuring the survival and recovery of construction of the north and south flood di- the species was prepared. The ESA has been version channels in the Albuquerque District reauthorized by Congress three times (Beatley (Welsh 1987: 172). 1994: 13–22). 1972 Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution 1974 Congress passed the Forest and Rangeland Control Act, which extended the regulatory Renewable Resources Planning Act, amended responsibility of the Army Corps of by the National Forest Management Act of Engineers. This act upheld the provision of 1976, which together provided that the USFS, the 1899 Refuse Act, mandating the Corps to in cooperation with state, local, and other fed- regulate the sources of effluents going into the eral agencies, inventory and analyze the re- nation’s navigable streams. Any organization newable resources on national forest lands or individual who planned to alter relative to anticipated uses, supplies, de- streamflow in any way had to apply to the mands, and relevant agency policies and pro- agency for a permit (Welsh 1987: 202). grams. A plan, based on these studies, was to 1972 The Forest Service issued The Nation’s Range be prepared and updated every 5 years (Clark Resources, which reported that much of west- 1987: 579). ern rangelands, both public and private, were 1974 The State Legislature passed the Wildlife Con- in a “deteriorating condition” (Rowley 1985: servation Act, giving jurisdiction to the New 238). Mexico Department and Commission of 1972 The state advisory boards for grazing dis- Game and Fish over all native, nondomestic tricts and the national advisory board to vertebrate species and crustaceans and

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998 383 mollusks. Animals identified as endangered example of such a watershed is the Bernalillo were to be listed and protected by the agency Watershed Project in Cibola National Forest. (Hubbard et al. ca. 1988: 1). This effort, including construction of check- 1975 The Indian Self-Determination and Education dams and restoration of vegetative cover, has Assistance Act, while reaffirming the Federal controlled the periodic flooding of the Government’s trust responsibilities to Native Bernalillo community by intensive runoff Americans, deplored its domination of Indian from the northwestern portion of the Sandia programs. At the same time, Congress issued Mountains (Clark 1987: 577). a joint resolution for the establishment of the 1978 (February 24) Congress passed the Endan- American Indian Policy Review Commission, gered American Wilderness Act, which in- which would in part investigate the policies cluded establishment of the North Sandia and practices of federal agencies responsible Peak and South Sandia Peak wildernesses, the for protecting Indian resources. Their final Manzano Mountains Wilderness, and the report, sympathetic to the Indian position, Chama River Basin Wilderness (McDonald was not favorably accepted because of a num- 1985: 15). ber of political events, which generated an 1970s The Bureau of Reclamation carried out “a anti-Native American backlash (Clark 1987: rectification project to clear and maintain a 622–623). relatively linear floodway . . . to more effi- 1976 The Federal Land Policy and Management ciently convey water to Elephant Butte and Act, passed by Congress and including a to pass floodwater” rapidly through the sys- number of recommendations made by the tem “with minimal water loss and damage to Public Land Law Review Commission 12 the river channel and floodplain” (Bullard years earlier, had as a primary purpose to and Wells 1992: 47). update and bring together in a single statute 1980 The Cochiti Pueblo Council filed suit against the laws governing management of BLM, and the Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District, to a more limited extent, USFS lands. More- for causing the “waterlogging” of 320 acres over, the Secretary of the Interior was directed of traditional Cochiti farmland below the “to develop a comprehensive land-use plan Cochiti Dam, which the Corps had con- incorporating multiple-purpose and sus- structed in 1967–73 (Welsh 1987: 162). tained-yield principles based on a continuing 1980–84 Three wilderness areas—Cruces Basin, Latir inventory of the lands and their resources.” Park, and Wheeler Peak—were created in the This act also included a section mandating a Carson National Forest. Total acreage was 15-year review of potential wilderness areas 57,663. Four other wilderness areas, totalling on lands administered by the Bureau of Land 138,286 acres, were also created in the Cibola Management (Clark 1987: 575; McDonald National Forest. The Chama River Canyon 1985: 8). Wilderness, totalling 50,300 acres, was created 1976 The 22,000-acre Bandelier Wilderness area in the Santa Fe / Carson National Forests was created (Kutz 1989: 9). (Baker et al. 1988: 140). 1970s (mid to late) The Forest Service was involved 1981 The Salinas National Monument, including in extensive watershed management pro- Gran Quivira National Monument, Abo State grams for their improvement, restoration, or Park, and Quarai State Park, was established preservation. As part of these projects the (Chilton et al. 1984: 437). agency was determining grazing quotas, tim- 1982 (August) The Rio Bravo State Park, located ber harvests, and the extent of other uses that in Albuquerque’s south valley, was dedicated potentially could impact these ecosystems. An (Young 1984: 106).

384 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–5. 1998