Volume 17, Number 3 September 2004
CHARACTERIZING SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER HABITAT ALONG THE LOWER SAN PEDRO AND GILA RIVERS, ARIZONA: VEGETATION AND HYDROGEOMORPHIC CONSIDERATIONS by Chuck Paradzick, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe
onservation of wildlife forests in the Southwest (core for the raising of Roosevelt populations hinges on of its range includes Arizona, Dam, prompted an increase in Cmaking informed habitat California, New Mexico, and research and monitoring efforts, management decisions. Wild- among other conservation life habitat-use patterns need to actions, in central Arizona. be studied over long time AGFD, USBR, and the U.S. frames and multiple spatial Geological Survey (USGS) scales to capture responses to partnered to conduct a long- environmental changes. This is term demographic monitoring especially crucial to species project at Roosevelt and along that occupy ephemeral habitats the Gila and lower San Pedro having high temporal varia- Rivers. In 1998, AGFD began bility in habitat conditions and collecting data on nest-site species distributions (e.g., selection by the flycatcher and Southwestern floodplain in 2003 that analysis was pub- forests). However, few research lished (Allison et al. 2003). projects are designed or funded Similarly, in 2003, AGFD ana- with such intentions, rather lyzed flycatcher habitat selec- habitat associations are pieced tion using GIS, and remote together from several projects, sensing (satellite imagery, digi- each one building upon the last. Figure 1. Southwestern willow tal elevation models) at multi- The Arizona Game and Fish flycatcher. ple spatial scales (Hatten and Department (AGFD) has been (Cont. pg. 3 .... Flycatcher) conducting and compiling dis- tribution and abundance data on Nevada). Due primarily to the federally endangered habitat loss and alteration, Southwestern willow flycatcher flycatchers declined pre- Inside This Issue (Empidonax traillii extimus) cipitously over the last cen- Fall Meeting...... 2 since 1993 (Fig. 1). The fly- tury. Its listing as endan- Martinez Canyon Update...... 7 catcher is a riparian-obligate gered in 1995, and a 1996 Noteworthy Publications...... 8 songbird that nests in stream- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Legal Issues...... 12 side thickets and reservoir-delta (USBR) Biological Opinion Calendar...... 16 The Arizona Riparian Council 2 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
oin us at the Arizona Pedro has been protected as the ties will be provided. This year Riparian Council Fall Nation's first Riparian National a small fee is being charged to JCampout and Get-Together Conservation Area. offset a portion of the costs on Saturday-Sunday, October The Saturday afternoon associated with dinner and rest- 16-17, 2004. We will be camp- program will focus on the San room facilities. Please copy and ing at the Gray Hawk Ranch Pedro and our invited speakers fill out the form below and re- Nature Center, along the San are Holly Richter, Upper San turn it along with your check to Pedro River, 3918 Gray Hawk Pedro Program Manager, The the Arizona Riparian Council Lane, PO Box 807, Sierra Nature Conservancy; Bill by October 7th. Vista, AZ 85636-0807. We Civish, Bureau of Land The Gray Hawk Nature encourage everyone to arrive Management; and Russell Center, located on the beautiful by 1 pm on Saturday. A map Scott, USDA Agricultural San Pedro River, seeks to pro- can be found on the ARC Research Service. We will have mote understanding, apprecia- website at
(Flycatcher cont. from pg. 1) patches to occupied c. Relate environmental cottonwood (Populus differences to the occur- Paradzick 2003). Both manu- fremontii)-willow (Salix rence of vegetation scripts noted a missing piece to gooddingii)-dominated required by flycatchers. the habitat puzzle – analysis of patches to aid in the The thesis is still “under patch-level selection that could determination of tama- construction,” with the first link selection scales. risk influence on fly- goal more developed than the In addition to understanding catcher persistence and second. Below, is a summary of habitat affinities for sensitive recovery (an ongoing my research to date on goal 1 species, defining the ecological objective of the AGFD (Habitat Selection) and some processes that create and main- and USGS). thoughts on potential manage- tain such habitats provides the 2. Define the geomorphic and ment implications. foundation for making inform- hydrologic conditions that ed land and water management create and sustain these STUDY AREA AND METHODS decisions. These associations habitat components. Habitat Selection are especially important for the a. Contrast hydrology, To characterize flycatcher conservation and recovery of geomorphology, and habitat selection, I measured endangered species, like the vegetation between the vegetation components at 10 flycatcher, that occur in high regulated Gila River occupied and 10 unoccupied disturbance habitats, such as and unregulated San (but potentially suitable for along arid-land rivers, where Pedro River. nesting based on literature) available habitat can fluctuate b. For each river, quantify patches on each river reach: both spatially and temporally. differences in hydrol- lower San Pedro River (Mam- In 2001, to determine patch- ogy, geomorphology, moth to Gila River confluence) level selection with an eye and vegetation patch and middle Gila River (Drip- toward linking scales and to structure between wil- ping Springs Wash to just address the pattern-process low flycatcher occupied below Kelvin Bridge), for a connection, I approached and unoccupied patches. total of 40 patches (Fig. 2). Dr. Julie Stromberg at Arizona State University for guidance to develop a Master’s thesis. This study had two overall goals and each goal had multi- ple objectives: 1. Describe patch-scale fly- catcher habitat selection patterns for the population located near the Gila River and San Pedro River con- fluence, and integrate the findings of the two previous studies completed by AGFD. a. Develop and test a model of habitat selection using patch-level presence- absence data and a suite of vegetation and envi- ronmental variables based on literature. b. Compare structural traits of tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima)- dominated occupied Figure 2. Confluence of the lower San Pedro River and Gila River and locations of study sites. The Arizona Riparian Council 4 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
Table 1. Final variables included in the logistic regression model explaining willow flycatcher habitat patch selection on the Gila and lower San Pedro Rivers, Arizona.
Odds ratio 95% CI
Variable Coefficient SE Wald P Odds Ratio Lower Upper
Basal Area 5.5 – 15 cma 0.863 0.354 5.939 0.015 2.37 1.18 4.75
Waterb 1.911 1.195 2.558 0.110 6.76 0.65 70.27
% Forest in 4.5 ha 0.691 0.356 3.780 0.052 2.00 0.99 4.01 neighborhoodc
Constant -7.634 2.437 9.812 0.002
a Odds ratio calculated in 20-cm increments: (cm2/100m2)/20
b Modeled as a binary variable: 1 = water <1 m from patch, 0 = water >1 m from patch
c Odds ratio calculated in 10% increments
Within each patch, I sampled RESULTS in the 4.5-ha neighborhood. approximately 10% of the total Preliminary Findings ! Tamarisk and cottonwood- patch area using randomly willow occupied patches ! Cluster analysis suggested placed 100-m2 plots. In each had similar structural char- two main floristic groupings plot, I counted all woody stems, acteristics. of patches: cottonwood- estimated vertical foliage vol- ! Multivariate logistic regres- willow (Pofr-Sago) domi- ume and diversity, canopy sion model suggested that nated (>58% total basal cover, maximum canopy basal area of trees 5.5-15 area) and tamarisk (Tara) height, and distance to water. I cm DBH, amount of forest dominated (>51% total also estimated ground cover in the 4.5-ha neighborhood, basal area). within the patch and delineated and presence of water were ! Occupied patches were dom- patch types, based on dominant the best predictors of inated by dense stands of plant species, cover, and size occupied habitat (Table 1). young (5.5-15 cm diameter class, in the surrounding 4.5-ha at breast height [DBH]) neighborhood. The sampling tamarisk and/or willow. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS area was based on results of ! Occupied patches had con- Nesting Southwestern wil- Hatten and Paradzick (2003) – sistently high (>70%) and low flycatchers along the Gila this area was linked to site homogeneous canopy cover. and lower San Pedro Rivers selection but information on ! Vertical foliage density was selected dense patches domi- floristics and vegetation struc- high in all strata, and great- nated by young (5.5-15 cm ture was lacking. Patch types est between 7-9 m (above DBH) tamarisk and willow within the 4.5-ha area included mean nest height), but fol- trees located near moist soils or forest (>60% cover), woodland iage diversity did not differ standing water, and within a (25-60% cover), shrubland between unoccupied and larger complex of riparian (multi-stemmed shrubs or trees occupied patches. forest. Stands of young trees <5m tall) ( >25% cover), grass- ! Occupied patches were close had dense canopy cover and forb land (>25 % cover), to water or saturated soil. high foliage density, which channel/water, and open/bare ! Occupied patches had supports the qualitative descrip- (<25% cover). I used a cluster greater forest (of any type) tions of flycatcher habitat re- analysis to group patches by in the surrounding 4.5-ha quirements in the literature, and floristic composition, neighborhood. is similar to results of other correlations to reduce variables, ! Tamarisk-occupied patches studies of flycatcher habitat use and multiple logistic regression also had greater woodland in Arizona and in other parts of to determine selection patterns. its range. The Arizona Riparian Council 5 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
High stem densities of young tamarisk and willow provide the needed within- patch structure during the breeding season. Dense vegetation can benefit offspring production through nest concealment from predators, and may also provide a cooler microclimate that could be especially important in the desert South- west. Similarly, the presence of water could not only influence microclimate through evaporative cooling, but might also increase insect abundance, and the vigor and growth of riparian trees used during the breeding season. Avian survival and repro- ductive rates are linked to habitat choice and habitat selection does not necessarily reflect reproductive viability if the habitat is a sink for the species. There is a current resurgence of tamarisk removal projects throughout the West and some researchers have hypothesized that tama- risk has negative effects on flycatcher fitness; however, little empirical data has been presented to substantiate this assertion. Research by AGFD and USGS suggests that reproductive rates, nest success, juvenile and adult survivorship, and breeding- season physiological condi- tions at flycatcher sites at the Figure 3. Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat preferences at multiple spatial scales: Gila and lower San Pedro landscape scale shows GIS-model results (black polygons) overlaid on digital elevation model of lower San Pedro River floodplain (modified from Hatten and Paradzick [2003] Rivers and Roosevelt Lake are and Paradzick and Hatten [2004]). Patch scale shows sketch of occupied flycatcher similar between habitats, and patch and local surrounding habitat (Paradzick unpubl. data). Nest scale shows the populations are stable or photograph of nesting trees and within patch structure (photo by A. Smith). expanding at both areas. These data highlight the need to A synthesis of habitat- other flycatcher habitat studies, collect quantitative data selection results of the three a more complete picture of through empirical studies to studies completed along the habitat needs can be described. make informed flycatcher man- Gila and lower San Pedro The preference for young dense agement, conservation, and Rivers is shown in Figure 3. forest stands (<9 year river restoration decisions. Together, and with results from cottonwood-willow, <20 yr The Arizona Riparian Council 6 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3 tamarisk) presents a manage- decadent with little recruitment McCarthey. 2003. A char- ment challenge both in of new trees, and some occu- acterization of nesting and protecting extant sites and pied patches have been desic- non-nesting plots for South- sustaining available habitat cated by the combination western willow flycatchers through time. This preference drought and reduction of water in central Arizona. Studies highlights the importance of releases from Coolidge Dam, in Avian Biology 26:81-89. periodic disturbance in the which have defoliated nesting Dockens, P. E. T., C. E. Parad- riparian ecosystem to produce areas causing flycatchers to zick, and J. R. Hatten. 2004. new cohorts of trees suitable for abandon habitat. While on the Application of a South- flycatcher nesting over the San Pedro River, USBR, The western willow flycatcher long-term. Management actions Nature Conservancy, and Salt GIS-based habitat model: should not only consider direct River Project have been acquir- An estimate of breeding effects to forest communities, ing property, decreasing habitat in Arizona, 2001. but alterations to the underlying groundwater withdrawals, and Pp. 28-59 in P.E.T. Dock- ecosystem processes could reducing livestock impacts on ens and C.E. Paradzick, influence the abundance and the floodplain. New, young eds., Mapping and monitor- distribution of suitable habitat. habitat is developing and fly- ing Southwestern willow In the second part of my catchers have been recorded flycatcher habitat in research, preliminary analysis colonizing these areas. Thus, an Arizona: A remote sensing suggests that vegetation ecosystem approach is needed approach. Nongame and communities, and fluvial and to assess how historic and Endangered Wildlife Pro- hydrological conditions on the recent flow regimes, ground- gram Technical Report 223. Gila River differ considerably water pumping, and livestock Arizona Game and Fish from the lower San Pedro grazing, influences the current Department, Phoenix, AZ. River. Tamarisk patches conditions of flycatcher nesting Hatten, J. R., and C. E. Parad- dominate the Gila, whereas habitat and its future potential zick. 2003. A multiscaled cottonwood-willow is more on Southwestern rivers. model of Southwestern abundant on the San Pedro. willow flycatcher breeding Also, recent survey data from LITERATURE CITED habitat. Journal of Wildlife AGFD suggest that habitat on Allison, L. J., C. E. Paradzick, Management 67:774-788. the Gila River is becoming J. W. Rourke, and T. D.
LAND USE COMMITTEE UPDATE by Tim Flood
ast month, Arizona Public original channel and reestablish tural, historic, and engineering Service (APS) updated a rare, travertine-dominated, aspects of the facilities, includ- Ltheir plans for decommis- riparian area. ing the perspectives from past sioning the Childs-Irving facili- APS expects the Federal and current employees. Similar- ties. Since 1909 a flume had Energy Regulatory Commis- ly, the Team expressed their diverted most of the 43 cfs flow sion to approve its surrender commitment to dismantle the of Fossil Springs into turbines application within a few facilities in an environmentally to generate hydropower. In months, and to return flows to sensitive manner. A temporary 1999, APS decided that the Fossil Creek around December bridge to Irving will be con- environmental benefits of 21, 2004. Costs for decommis- structed this month. Prior to closing the facilities outweigh- sioning are estimated at $13 restoring flows, a native fish ed the business impact, and million. renovation project will occur. now is proceeding with sur- The process requires con- The Bureau of Reclamation will rendering its license. APS sultation with numerous federal build a fish barrier near the recognizes this unique oppor- and state agencies. The APS Verde River. Native fish will be tunity to return 14 miles of the Project Team is paying much diverted Fossil Creek to its attention to document the cul- Land Use Update Cont. . . . 14 The Arizona Riparian Council 7 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
MARTINEZ CANYON UPDATE Tom and Tomas Taylor, Mesa, AZ
n the fall of 2001 the check the Gila chub should be their nest without the motorized Arizona Riparian Coun- part of the native fish assem- vehicle disruptions. Icil selected Martinez blage. Since the Fall 2001 ARC Canyon for its annual Fall At the time of the Fall 2001 Campout in Martinez Canyon, Campout. Some significant Campout some photopoints workshops have begun on a events have occurred since were established by Tim Flood “route inventory” for the Min- then, and some critical decisions and other ARC participants. eral Mountains and surrounding for this riparian canyon are This crucial procedure initiated landscape. The objective of the “coming around the corner.” by the ARC will ensure close workshops is to review existing At the campout we presented monitoring of this rare desert routes from maps recently pro- our Martinez Canyon Native riparian habitat. duced. Three alternatives are Fish Project. We began this Another significant event recommended for each route. A project in 2000. With perennial, occurred this past Veteran's (1) “green” alternative leans spring-fed pools we proposed Day, 2003. The AGFD toward closures, (2) a pro they could be utilized for the released 30 head of desert motorized leans toward leaving conservation of native fish bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis them open, and (3) the species. We sent the proposal to mexicanus) into the Mineral “tweener” alternative may leave the Bureau of Land Manage- Mountains, the range where a route open, but with limita- ment (BLM), and also to the Martinez Canyon is situated. tions. Since the original Arizona Game and Fish This is a reintroduction effort as topographic maps of the area, Department (AGFD). BLM the desert bighorn sheep have and even since 1992 aerial completed the Environmental historically inhabited these photographs, you can see a Assessment (EA) authorizing mountains. The sheep are proliferation of roads. Mining three species. We volunteered monitored by aerial flights and activity ended more than two our efforts with AGFD and so ground radio telemetry. There decades ago, so the majority of far we have two dace species in is has been at least one lamb these “wildcat” roads may have the water. The longfin and the birth since the release of the been created by off-highway- speckled dace (Rhinichthys sheep! Needless to say some of vehicles. chrysogaster and R. osculus, the sheep migrated to the If you would like informa- respectively). The third species environs of Martinez Canyon, tion on participating in these authorized is the Gila chub finding great habitat in the workshops, would like to visit (Gila intermedia). Two towering peaks. Martinez Canyon for a possible attempts to locate a population Recently while participating bighorn sheep sighting, or to in Mineral Creek came up in a “Watershed Survey” with see reintroduced native fish, empty-handed. Incidentally, it some BLM staff we encoun- please feel free to contact was a phone conversation we tered what may be a “message.” Tomas or Tom Taylor. Also, had with the late Dr. W.L. While hiking in lower Martinez when the critical time comes for Minckley that inspired propos- Canyon we came upon a pair of public review of BLM's pro- ing Gila chub from Mineral nesting Zone-tailed Hawks posed route designations we Creek. Before we could cap- (Buteo albonotatus) with their will let the ARC be aware so we ture Gila chub at the alternate young fledging still in the nest. can get your valuable com- sight the species became a can- A few months ago the BLM ments! didate for listing. This delayed began prohibiting motorized We thank the ARC for the capture due to a Section 7 vehicle traffic in this ephemeral accessibility and replies we review with the U.S. Fish and section of Martinez Canyon, have received. Please contact us Wildlife Service (USFWS). where the raptor nest already by email: Tom at Just recently, this review has existed. The “message” we [email protected] or been completed and soon with ponder is the possibility these Tomas at cooler weather and a habitat Zone-Tailed Hawks regained [email protected] . The Arizona Riparian Council 8 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
NOTEWORTHY PUBLICATIONS Elizabeth Ridgely Gila River Indian Community, Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project
Barnosky, A. D., E. A. Hadly, noticeable changes in taxo- immigration are affected. Other and C. J. Bell. 2003. nomic composition of com- possible effects of environmen- Mammalian response to munities, and possibly reduc- tal change are expression of global warming on varied tion in species richness follow different phenotypes such as temporal scales. Journal as warming extends to a few nutritional quality or environ- of Mammalogy 84(2):354- thousand years. Faunal turn- mental factors, genetic change 368. over nears 100% and species through population processes, Paleontological information diversity may increase when and evolution of new species was used to evaluate and com- warm temperatures last hun- when environmental change pare how Rocky Mountain dreds of thousands to millions induces new selective mammalian communities of years, because speciation pressures, fragments species changed during past global takes place and faunal changes ranges, and encourages dis- warming events characterized initiated by a variety of shorter- persal. Changes in speciation by different durations (350, term processes accumulate. rates, like the other factors 10,000–20,000, and 4 million Climate-induced faunal listed in point 3, would years) and different per-100- changes reported for the current contribute to changing species year warming rates (1.08°C, global warming episode richness. 0.18°C, 0.06-0.088°C, 0.0002- probably do not yet exceed the Two uncertainties remain. 0.00038°C). The goals were to normal rate, but continued First, what is the sequence of determine whether biotic warming during the next few events and expected extent of changes observed today are decades, especially combined change as the duration of a characteristic of or accelerated with the many other pressures warming event continues over relative to what took place of humans on natural eco- time spans that are long by during past global warming systems, has a high probability ecological standards (i.e., events and to clarify the of producing effects that have hundreds, thousands, and possible trajectory of not been experienced often, if millions of years)? Second, are mammalian faunal change that ever, in mammalian history. ecosystems already experi- climate change may initiate. Predictions about how encing such a fast rate of global The determination is compli- terrestrial vertebrates will warming that the resulting cated because actual warming respond to current global biotic changes are fundamen- rates scale inversely with the warming, projected to occur at tally different from those that time during which temperature rates of 1.4–5.88°C per 100 characterized past warming is measured, and species with years, have been based primar- episodes? different life-history strategies ily on modern ecological The object was to more respond, or do not respond in studies or on analysis of data reliably understand the trajec- different ways. from the Pleistocene-Holocene tory of biotic change that Nevertheless, examination transition. Such studies suggest mammals will experience as a of past global warming epi- that mammalian communities result of the current global sodes suggested that approxi- in a given geographic region warming episode. The back- mately concurrent with warm- will respond to climatic change ground rate of temperature ing, a predictable sequence of by altering 1) relative abun- change was established for the biotic events occurs at the dance of individuals within past 60 million years and, regional scale of the central and species; 2) taxonomic composi- within that context, assessed northern U.S. Rocky Moun- tion as species locally (extirpa- how mammalian species and tains. First, phenotypic and tion) or globally (extinction) communities changed during density changes in populations disappear or colonize; and 3) four previous warming events: are detectable within 100 years. species richness as rates of Medieval Warm Period Extinction of some species, extinction, extirpation, and (MWP), two different glacial- The Arizona Riparian Council 9 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3 interglacial transitions (GIGT), temperature rises 58°C within a magnitude of initial warming and the Mid-Miocene Climatic few millennia (e.g., the first and the longer the warming Optimum (MMCO). The 5,000 years of an interglacial episode persists, the more resulting information provided period), extinctions, extirpa- biotic change accumulates. a useful baseline for recogniz- tions, and immigrations lead to The 1st-order response is ing what is ‘‘normal’’ for rates clear changes in taxonomic change in populations and of climate change and accom- composition of local commun- geographic ranges, and the panying faunal dynamics and ities and possibly some 2nd-order response is extinc- whether currently observed reduction in species richness. tion of species. The 3rd-order faunal changes reflect a unique When warming persists over a response of rebuilding species response to global warming or million years or so, with global diversity through speciation fall within the range of back- temperature increasing at least takes much longer than the 1st- ground noise in the context of 28°C (possibly in some interval and 2nd-order responses. the last 60 million years. As of time less than a million Neither the faunal responses with most paleontological data, years), relative abundance of that currently are being it was not possible to prove that species within higher taxa reported nor the rate of warm- observed biotic changes that changes dramatically, and ing so far measured has yet coincided with climatic change speciation may become impor- exceeded what was normal for were caused by the climatic tant in augmenting species most of mammalian history. change. However, observed richness of local communities. That means that there are still faunal responses were consis- Concurrently, extinction, immi- some more or less naturally tent with expectations. gration, and emigration on this operating mammalian The observations led to a million-year time scale are communities within earth’s generalized model of how widespread, leading to a nearly ecosystems. Mammalian global warming may affect the completely new set of species response to the current global mammalian component of relative to the prewarming time warming episode probably is communities over spans of time (MMCO). How much such now within the 1st-order that are long by ecological dramatic changes result from response: that is adjusting standards and establish which the long duration of the warm- phenotypes and minor adjust- faunal responses are normal ing episode itself, and how ments in geographic ranges. given the background rate of much from the accumulation of Concerns arise with the very climate change that character- other biotic influences over high probability of continued ized the Cenozoic. As a global such long time periods, remains rapid warming rates through the warming episode begins, unclear. rest of this century and beyond. morphologic changes become Implications emerged as Within a few decades, the evident in populations as nutri- follows: first, past warming rate of global temperature tional and other ecophenotyp- episodes seem to have been change will have exceeded the ically important aspects of their characterized by an initially norm for mammalian history. environment affect individuals. fast rate of change and then When the threshold is crossed, Concurrently, relative abun- stabilization of rates as global the authors predict that the dance of individuals within temperatures remained elevated 2nd-order response to climate species changes, leading to through the duration of the change – extinction and drama- slight changes in species ranges episode. This holds true for all tic geographic range changes as populations expand and 4 past events discussed. In leading to very different contract. Population-level terms of biotic response, the taxonomic compositions genetic changes may occur length of time during which relative to what now exists in from the resulting effects on temperature increased and the given localities - will accelerate gene flow and population size. total duration of the warm rapidly. Extinction may well be These responses are evident by episode seem to be important. elevated relative to past warm- the time global temperature is Elevating global mean tempera- ing events, such as the MWP elevated 18°C within 100 years ture at least 18°C in 100 years and GIGTs, especially in view and remains elevated for 400 seems to elicit local biotic of the other human-induced years (MWP). If global response, and the greater the changes that have the net effect The Arizona Riparian Council 10 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3 of habitat fragmentation on the This article illustrates the pros Napoleon sent 33,000 men to one hand and homogenization and cons about restoration or conquer Haiti and the of global biota on the other creation of wetlands with Mississippi; 29,000 died of (introduction of exotic species). respect to mosquitoes. Abun- yellow fever. As a result, Speciation, the 3rd-order dant mosquitoes should not be France sold Louisiana to the response, will not act to main- regarded as an after-the-fact United States in 1803. tain diversity because it oper- surprising side effect but rather, Western and Eastern equine ates on a much longer time abundant mosquitoes should be encephalitis, St. Louis encepha- scale than the 1st- and 2nd- viewed as a direct result of litis, and LaCrosse encephalitis order responses. providing habitat suitable for viruses are present in the Biotic systems are resilient them. Funding mechanisms and United States.West Nile virus, within a certain range of rates educational institutions often introduced into the U.S. in New in global temperature change fail to address the reality that York in the late 1990s, is over periods that are long restoring or creating wetlands spreading westward. The virus relative to a human lifetime. has a downside. causes either a mild illness or This range of normal rates has The association between much more serious meningitis not been exceeded yet. Thus, disease and wetlands was or encephalitis. In 2003, 230 there is still hope of conserving known long ago. The swampy deaths were reported according natural landscapes that exhibit area south of Toledo, Ohio, was to the Centers for Disease most of the climate-equilibrated considered almost uninhabit- Control. ecosystem dynamics to which able due to disease, presumably The introduction of either mammalian communities have malaria, until most of the an exotic species of mosquito adapted during their long swamp was drained between or an exotic pathogen could evolutionary history. However, 1870 and 1920. The desert have serious consequences: an it also is clear that we are on the Southwest was not exempt: endemic pathogen in an exotic verge of exceeding the natural several U.S. Army camps, in mosquito host or an exotic variation in rates of global what is now southern Arizona, pathogen in an endemic host temperature change as global were closed due to malaria. might result in greater disease warming continues into the Dramatic decreases in mortality transmission. When we restore next century. In this light, are attributable to decreases in or create riparian and wetland worldwide efforts to curb malaria, cholera, typhoid, and habitat, we typically create duration and acceleration of diphtheria. One author excellent mosquito habitat. global warming are critical to attributes the decline in malaria In California, between 1974 conserving natural biotic in the United States during the and 1988, at least five of nine systems, if ‘‘natural’’ is taken late 1800s to removal of pilot water treatment plants to mean conditions within the mosquito habitat (by drainage using aquatic macrophytes bounds of typical faunal of potential crop land and closed because of mosquito response and climatic-change swamps and removal of mill problems. At Sweetwater rates through the past 60 ponds), better rural housing, Wetlands in Tucson, Arizona, a million years. rapid transportation, and other surface-flow, wastewater components of modern treatment-constructed wetland, Willot, E. 2004. Restoring civilization. Another author mosquitoes increased 100-fold nature, without mos- concludes that widespread after starting operation . quitoes? Restoration draining enabled that reduction, Weekly monitoring and several Ecology 12(2):147-153. by exposing rich agricultural abatement methods, allowed Historically many wetlands land that permitted people to significant control of mos- were drained to help control increase their standard of quitoes; now Sweetwater is an malaria and other deadly living, resulting in better-built instructive example for others diseases. However, increased houses, better diets, and building wetlands. populations of pathogen- isolation of the sick. Mosquitoes are highly transmitting mosquitoes occur Louisiana was too difficult mobile. Aedes albopictus when wetlands and riparian for France to defend largely due arrived in the mid-1980s, most habitats are built or restored. to mosquitoes. In 1802 likely in used tires shipped to The Arizona Riparian Council 11 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
Texas from southeast Asia. As influence. More of us now can that eat mosquito larvae may desiccation-resistant eggs in want wetlands if the associated help control mosquitoes and used tires, A. albopictus rapidly risks are not too great. hence reduce risk to birds, but spread throughout the eastern The Society for Restoration Gambusia may threaten other U.S., although in Florida Ecology's Primer opens with an fish species or other aquatic transport of graveyard floral extended definition of organisms. arrangements fostered their “'ecological restoration,” which Restoring mosquito habitat spread. As people receive includes the idea that we aim to has both advantages and dis- shipments of living bamboo restore underlying capacities advantages; we want wetlands, and banana plants bought that permit elements of the but we do not want to increase on-line or from stores stocked ecosystem to interact in ways current or potential health risks. via trucks moving across the promoting flourishing of As a society, we do a reason- country, they provide excellent species suitable for that region. able job managing risks posed opportunities for A. albopictus The idea is to restore function, by things like cars traveling to spread. not to make the ecosystem near schools. We can manage, Some people distinguish resemble that of some earlier also imperfectly, risks assoc- between human-inhabited time. This interest in function iated with wetlands. One of the space (culture) and wild space constrains what can or cannot prices of restoring wetlands (nature). However, for mobile be considered suitable species. will be continuous monitoring. species this is sometimes The interest in restoring By integrating mosquito aware- merely a conceptual boundary, function is often to restore a ness and control into an entire not an ecological one. For kind and level of function project, it seems reasonable that example, in southern Arizona, suitable not only for wildlife some people will volunteer to the mosquito Culex but also for humans. We need monitor mosquito species and uinquefasciatus (a possible to admit mosquito-posed numbers. After mosquitoes vector for West Nile virus in problems and explore what we were under control at Rumney the Southwest; see Goddard et can do to limit those problems. Marsh, Park Avenue Restora- al. 2002), breeds readily in Perhaps we need the equivalent tions Project in Massachusetts, either wetland areas or human- of “school zones'” where support for the project made containers, such as empty mosquitoes are more increased. The author closes by watering jugs or discarded aggressively monitored and stating that, “When we create cups. managed at wetlands near or restore wetlands, we not only When we say we desire to significant human populations. restore or create wildlife habitat experience nature, what most of Mosquito-transmitted for humans to enjoy; we also us mean is that we want to viruses also threaten nonhuman create human social environ- experience selected aspects of species. West Nile virus pri- ments. What type of human nature. This is consistent with marily affects birds. Humans social environments do we our preferences in other areas: and horses are sometimes promote, if we write, fund, we find some risk, even deadly called “dead-end hosts”'; they encourage, or implement risk, tolerable. For example, we can acquire the virus from a proposals or books that ignore prefer that our children not be mosquito, but they do not or minimize known problems?” killed in traffic, but that transmit it. In North America, preference does not lead us to birds of over 100 species can be refuse to have roads near killed by West Nile. In certain schools. The idea of ''untouched situations, to protect particular nature'' is important to many bird species, it may be bene- people. Wilderness sometimes ficial for us to manage mos- is better preserved when quito populations. The dilemma abundant mosquitoes and black is that mosquitoes transmitting flies serve as deterrents to keep a virus may threaten bird most humans away and thereby populations that are desirable allowing the ecosystem to inhabitants of that ecosystem. flourish with minimal human Adding fish such as Gambusia The Arizona Riparian Council 12 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
LEGAL ISSUES OF CONCERN Richard Tiburcio Campbell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE OVER THE VALIDITY OF INSTREAM FLOW RIGHTS IN ARIZONA
(*After six years practicing envir- An instream flow right is a Legislature had indeed granted onmental and water rights law in surface water right recognized ADWR legal authority to issue Arizona, Richard is now an Assoc- under Arizona’s surface water instream flow permits. ADWR iate Regional Counsel with EPA code that remains in-situ or “in- also pointed out that the Region 9, which includes Arizona within its jurisdiction. The view- stream,” for purposes of main- Arizona Court of Appeals had points expressed in this article do taining flows for wildlife, in- expressly embraced this logic not necessarily represent the view- cluding fish and/or recreation. in a previous decision points of the EPA.) At present, any person, includ- involving water rights: ing the federal government, “[I]f nature accomplishes a may apply to ADWR for an [I]n 1941 when ‘wild- result which is recognized and instream flow permit. ADWR is life, including fish’ and utilized, a change of process by required to approve a complete in 1962 when ‘recrea- man would seem application unless the instream tion’ were added to the unnecessary”.1 use conflicts with vested rights, purposes for appropria- is a menace to public safety, or tion, the concept of in Phelps Dodge continues to is against the interests and situ appropriation of challenge the State of Arizona’s welfare of the public. water was introduced – legal authority to issue instream The instream flow applica- it appearing to us that flow permits for the benefit of tion that Phelps Dodge is chal- these purposes could be recreation, and fish and wild- lenging involves one filed in enjoyed without a diver- life. As discussed in previous 1999 by USFS, Tonto National sion ... We therefore issues of the Arizona Riparian Forest for a segment of Cherry find that by these Council Newsletter (16[1]:13 Creek, a tributary of the Salt amendments the legis- and 16[2]:7]) Phelps Dodge is River, located east of Roosevelt lature intended to grant steadily moving its legal claim Lake. Phelps Dodge filed a a vested right to the through Arizona’s administra- timely protest to the applica- State of Arizona to sub- tive and lower courts to an tion, arguing that the Arizona ject unappropriated expected resolution by the Legislature never expressly waters exclusively to Arizona Supreme Court. The authorized ADWR to issue the use of recreation and stakes are high. Dozens of instream flow permits. Phelps fishing. instream flow permits have Dodge also argued that the been approved by the Arizona appropriation of water in McClellan v. Jantzen, 26 Ariz. Department of Water Resources Arizona necessarily requires a App. 223, 225; 547 P.2d 494, (ADWR) over the last two diversion of water out of the 496 (1976), review denied. In decades. In addition, important stream, which in effect prevents spite of this legal precedent, instream flow permit applica- the use of water for instream Phelps Dodge continued to tions, such as one filed by the purposes. In its responsive press its administrative appeal. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for pleadings, ADWR argued that Salt River Project (SRP) subse- Fossil Creek, are currently because the Legislature had quently joined the fray on the before ADWR. expressly included “recreation” side of ADWR, obviously con- and “wildlife, including fish” as cerned about retaining upstream permissible purposes for flows in several stream systems obtaining a right to appropriate for downstream use by its 1 Empire Water & Power Co. v. water, and these purposes customers. Cascade Town Co., 205 F. 123, necessarily involve mainte- Leading up to the admin- 129 (8th Cir. 1913). nance of instream flows, the istrative hearing of this matter The Arizona Riparian Council 13 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
in 2002 the administrative law the intended beneficial use.” Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 judge got the parties to agree (311 Mont. at 341; 55 P.3d at P.2d 370, 378 (Colo. 1960). that the legal questions regard- 404). The Montana Court Moreover, the Idaho Supreme ing ADWR’s authority to issue specifically held that Montana Court persuasively noted that instream permits should be law had never required a diver- “where an appropriative water resolved prior to tackling the sion for a valid appropriation of right does not require a diver- issue of whether the permit water “[b]ecause beneficial use sion to make it effective and application was sufficient. rather than diversion is the beneficial, in the absence of a After a public hearing invol- touchstone of the prior appro- statute requiring a diversion ving oral arguments was held priation doctrine, because Mon- there appears to be no practical on December 13, 2002, the tana has long recognized as reason why a diversion should judge decided in favor of beneficial the use of water for be required.” State, Dept. of ADWR and SRP. (See the fish, wildlife and recreation; Parks v. Idaho Dept. of Water Arizona Riparian Council and because Montana has vali- Admin., 96 Idaho 440, 530 P.2d Newsletter 16[2]:7 for a further dated non-diversionary appro- 924, 933 (Idaho 1974)(Bakes, discussion of this administra- priations [i.e., stock water- J., concurring). More recently, tive decision.) ing]....” (311 Mont. at 345; 55 in State v. Morros, 104 Nev. Phelps Dodge appealed the P.3d at 407). The Montana 709, 766 P.2d 263, 265 (Nev. administrative decision to the Court’s reasoning is particu- 1988), the Nevada Supreme Maricopa County Superior larly persuasive because like Court validated an inlake Court in 2003. In March 2004, Montana, Arizona’s surface appropriation for recreation the Honorable Michael D. water right code is also based purposes and recognized that Jones found the administrative on the doctrine of prior appro- just as the common law decision to be “well-reasoned” priation. “conformed to the practical and ruled in favor of ADWR It is worth noting that sev- demands of stockwatering,” so and SRP. See Phelps Dodge v. eral other state courts have should it reflect the fact that ADWR, Case No. LC2003- dispensed with the diversion “diversions are not needed for 000343-001 DT (March 8, requirement. Though not dis- and are incompatible with 2004). cussed by the Maricopa Super- many recreational uses.” The Superior Court found ior Court, Oregon has long Morros, 766 P.2d at 267. the reasoning of the Arizona recognized that “when no The Nevada case raises an Court of Appeals in McClellan ‘ditch, canal, or other structure’ important practical issue. The v. Jantzen to be persuasive. The is necessary to divert the water position held by Phelps Dodge Superior Court also cited in from its natural channel, the could charitably be character- support of its ruling the Mon- law does not vainly require ized as anachronistic except tana Supreme Court’s decision such works, prior to an that the position held by Phelps regarding instream flow rights appropriation.” In re Water Dodge also brings into question in its Adjudication of Existing Rights in Silvies River (Or. the validity of long-standing Rights to the Use of all Water, 1925), 115 Ore. 27, 237 P. 322, stock-watering rights since 311 Mont. 327; 55 P.3d 396 336. Similarly, the Colorado diversion is unnecessary to (2002). The Superior Court did Supreme Court found that “It is secure this type of water right. not discuss or quote the Mon- not necessary in every case for It remains a mystery why the tana decision, but one line of an appropriator of water to con- Arizona Cattlemen's Associa- reasoning in the Montana struct ditches or artificial ways tion decided not to weigh in on Court’s decision deserves through which the water might the side of ADWR and SRP. special attention: “Ample case be taken from the stream in In sum, what the Maricopa law depicting the evolution of order that a valid appropriation Superior Court, and several the prior appropriation doctrine, be made. The only indispens- other state courts, have recog- and emerging from throughout able requirements are that the nized is that the notion that a the West, supports a conclusion appropriator intends to use the physical diversion of water is that the doctrine should not waters for a beneficial purpose necessary to create a surface rigidly demand a diversion and actually applies them to water right is an anachronism. where unnecessary to achieve that use.” Town of Genoa v. At Arizona’s statehood, and The Arizona Riparian Council 14 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
some years later, the require- advantage oneself of the prior century miner must still “stake ment that surface water be appropriation law, and to estab- a claim” by erecting corner diverted in order to trigger its lish the volume of water the posts and posting notice.) appropriation was sensible appropriator intended to put to It is important to note that because it was a practical beneficial use. In contrast, the Maricopa Superior Court necessity. Much as an 1800's present-day advances in geo- decision is not the end of the miner was required to “stake a hydrology, computer modeling, matter. Phelps Dodge appealed claim” by physically erecting and water measurement the Superior Court decision to corner posts at the very spot devices, render the diversion the Arizona Court of Appeals they intended to mine, a physi- requirement unnecessary. (The on June 25, 2004. As of the date cal demonstration of the diver- mining industry may be for- of this article, no briefs have sion of surface water was the given their preoccupation with been exchanged or oral only sure way a would-be water the physical diversion aspects arguments scheduled. appropriator could provide of the prior appropriation notice to the public at large of doctrine. After all, even the 21st the appropriator’s intent to
NEW MEXICO, TEXAS GOVERNORS PLEDGE TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS OVER COMPACTS
t a meeting of governors rivers among the states. As an Paso and Juarez in Texas, put from U.S. and Mexican upstream state, New Mexico is new strains on the compacts. At Aborder states held in late required to ensure that enough the same time, drought has cut August, New Mexico Gov. Bill water flows to Texas to meet flows in both rivers. Furthermore, Richardson and Texas Gov. Rick compact requirements. Under the pueblo water rights were not Perry announced that they will agreements, New Mexico essen- factored in when water was try to negotiate a solution to a tially can use no more water from allocated under the compacts. long-standing conflict between the rivers than it did at the time Another issue complicating the their states over water deliveries. the compacts were negotiated, For decades, tensions between with Texas getting what is left the two neighboring states have over. The problem, water experts escalated as New Mexico has say, is that New Mexico and struggled to meet its water Texas have undergone tremen- matter involves providing water delivery obligations under dous growth and change since the habitat for endangered species. compacts governing the Pecos compacts were adopted. While River and Rio Grande. The Rio both New Mexico and west Editor’s note: This article was Grande Compact, signed by Texas were largely agricultural adapted from the email news- Colorado, New Mexico, and during the early to mid-20th letter WILDLINES III, Number 34, Texas in 1938, and the Pecos century, increasing demand from produced by SERC (State Envi- River Compact, adopted 10 years growing cities along the rivers, ronmental Resource Center). later by New Mexico and Texas, including Albuquerque and More information can be obtain- divvied up the water from the two Carlsbad in New Mexico and El ed about them at their website.
Land Use Update . . from pg. 6 removals are: wood and metal sion dam pending “Adaptive flume starting in 2005; Childs Management.” Sediment behind captured, and piscicide applied to facilities by 2006; and Irving the dam is expected to wash out remove non native fish by late power plant in 2007-20008. The naturally. Handoff to USFS will November 2004. fish and frog habitat will be occur in 2009. Four APS five-worker crews reassessed in 2007 with current APS deserves much praise will deconstruct 18 segments. plans to remove 14 feet from the for their plans to restore full Estimated timeframes for various crest of the Fossil Springs diver- flows to Fossil Creek. The Arizona Riparian Council 15 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
The Arizona Riparian Council (ARC) was formed in 1986 as a result of the increasing concern The Arizona Riparian Council over the alarming rate of loss of Arizona’s riparian areas. It is estimated that <10% of Arizona’s Officers original riparian acreage remains in its natural Jeff Inwood, President ...... (602) 274-6725 form. These habitats are considered Arizona’s most [email protected] rare natural communities. Tom Hildebrandt, The purpose of the Council is to provide for the Vice President...... (480) 981-9400 X221 exchange of information on the status, protection, [email protected] and management of riparian systems in Arizona. Cindy Zisner, Secretary .....(480) 965-2490 The term “riparian” is intended to include vegetation, habitats, or ecosystems that are [email protected] associated with bodies of water (streams or lakes) Theresa Pinto, Treasurer.....(602) 506-8127 or are dependent on the existence of perennial or [email protected] ephemeral surface or subsurface water drainage. Any person or organization interested in the At-Large Board Members management, protection, or scientific study of riparian systems, or some related phase of riparian Diane Laush ...... (602) 216-3860 conservation is eligible for membership. Annual dues (January-December) are $20. Additional [email protected] contributions are gratefully accepted. Jim Lombard...... (520) 299-6434 This newsletter is published three times a year [email protected] to communicate current events, issues, problems, Diana Stuart...... (480) 965-4642 and progress involving riparian systems, to inform [email protected] members about Council business, and to provide a forum for you to express your views or news about riparian topics. The next issue will be mailed in Committee Chairs January, the deadline for submittal of articles is December 15, 2004. Please call or write with Classification/Inventory...... Vacant suggestions, publications for review, announce- ments, articles, and/or illustrations. Education Cindy Zisner . . . (480) 965-2490 Cindy D. Zisner Land Use Center for Environmental Studies Arizona State University Tim Flood..... [email protected] PO Box 873211 Tempe AZ 85287-3211 Policy...... Vacant (480) 965-2490; FAX (480) 965-8087 [email protected] Protection/Enhancement Kris Randall(602) 242-0210 X250 web site: http://azriparian.asu.edu [email protected] Bill Werner ....(602) 789-3607 [email protected] Water Resources Julia Fonseca . . . (520) 740-6350 Julia.Fonseca@ dot.pima.gov The Arizona Riparian Council 16 2004 Vol. 17 No. 3
CALENDAR
Arizona Native Plant Society Annual Conference, October 1-3, 2004. Desert Outdoor Center, Lake Pleasant, AZ. For more information, contact Doug Green, Board Member at (480) 998-5638 or [email protected] for added details and/or registration.
Arizona Riparian Council Fall Meeting, October 16-17, 2004. Gray Hawk Ranch Learning Center, Sierra Vista, AZ, along the San Pedro River. Deadline for registration is October 7. More information will be available on the website http://azriparian.asu.edu and list serve http://lists.asu.edu/archives/riparian.html as it becomes available.
Arid Regions 10th Biennial Conference: Restoration and Management of Arid Watercourses, November 16-19, 2004, Hilton Phoenix East/Mesa, Mesa, Arizona. For more information on the conference, including the Call for Abstracts, please see web site at www.azfma.org and click on the Arid Regions Conf tab.
BT5 1005 Center for Environmental Studies Arizona Riparian Council Arizona State University PO Box 873211 Tempe, AZ 85287-3211
Printed on recycled paper
APOLOGIES FOR THE LATENESS OF THE NEWSLETTER!!