Livestock and the Coronado National Forest Larry S

14 RANGELANDS 11(1), February 1989

Livestock and the Coronado National Forest Larry S. Allen

Although livestockwere first broughtto Southern Ariz- watershed conditions were in a deplorable condition onaby deNiza and Coronadoin the mid-i 500s and stock about the turn of the century and the livestockindustry raising for subsistence and profit was introduced by was in severe financial straits. Padre Kino priorto 1700 (Bolton 1936, Corle 1951),cattle Establishment of National Forests did not produce significant ecological changes in the region until about 1870. Following the Civil War large Throughout the United States forest resources were numbersof cattle were moved into Arizona, mostly from suffering similar depletion due to over-exploitationand Texas. Cattlemen from more moderate climates in the lack of knowledge of forestry. By about 1900 eastern east tailed to recognizethe potential problemfrom regu- forests had been cut overwith little thought for the future larly occurring drought in the Sonoran Desert. They and timbering was making inroads in the Lake States. stocked the rangesduring an unusuallywet period, and Wisconsin's Peshtigo fire of 1871 burned more than a paid the price in the following inevitable droughts and million acres including several towns and killed 1,500 floods (AlIen 1989). (Personal communication,Jerry Cox, people. This conflagrationfocused attentionon the need 1985). for frest conservation (Ames 1967). As the twentieth century began, rangeand watershed In 1886 the Divisionof Forestrywithin the Department conditions throughout most of Arizona south of the Gila of Agriculture (USDA) was given statutory rank. This River were at an all time low point. Protective vegetation forerunner of the Forest Service was a research, educa- had died along thestreambanks and inthe desertvalleys. tional, and advisoryorganization with noland to adminis- Cattle died by thethousands during the severedrought of ter. In responseto a growing public demand, Congress 1982—'93 (Allen1989, Wagoner 1952,Hastings and Turner established the Forest Reserves in 1891, with manage- 1965). ment responsibility assigned to the Depart- Scientistswith viewpointsas diverseas their academic mentof Interior's General LandOffice (present Bureau of backgroundshave long debated thecauses of theturn of Land Management). The first ForestReserve was the 1.2 the century ecological decline. Hastings and Turner million acre Yellowstone Timberland Reserve, near Yel- (1965), Cook and Reeves (1976), and Dobyns (1981) ana- lowstoneNational Park whichhad been established nine- lyzed anumber of complexfactors leading up to desertifi- teen yearsearlier (Ames 1967,Chase 1986,Rowley 1985). cation in SouthernArizona and the attendantarroyo cut- Atthe urging of theAmerican Forestry Association and ting. Factors identifiedinclude: others,the Transfer Act of 1905 placedadministration of Physical Modification of Channels the Forest Reserves underUSDA. The name Forest Ser- Wagon Road Construction vice first appeared in the 1905 Agriculture Appropriation in the Reserves Grazing and Hoof Impact Act, and 1907 were designatedNational Eliminationof Trees for Fuel and Mines Forests. This transferof responsibilitywas made by Con- from Beaver Trapping gress after assurances PresidentTheodore Roose- PlacerMining veltand Chief ForesterGifford Pinchottthat theobjective Cultivation of the Forest Servicewas not to "lock up" resources, but Abandonmentof Ancient Check Dams to combineuse with preservation (Ames 1967).This "wise Indiansto Reservations and Eliminationof use" definition of conservation continues to generate Confining the Fire Hunting controversyamong Forest Service's widely divergent clientele. Also well documentedis the fact that encroachmentof shrubson rangelands hasbeen almostuniversal through- Origins of the Coronado out Southern Arizona (Hastingsand Turner 1965). The Between 1902and 1907ten Forest Reserveswere estab- interrelationship between livestock grazing and shrub lished in Southeastern Arizona and Southwestern New invasion is a "chicken and egg" situation;but there is no Mexico.The Santa CatalinaNational Forest resultedfrom doubt that shrubsare presentlyinhibiting forageproduc- combinationof 3 Forest Reserves in 1907.Other Reserves tion onthousands of acres. HistorianJay Wagoner (1952) were combined in 1908 to form the Garces, Chiricahua, commented, "In summarizing the evidence...no conclu- and Crook National Forests; and at that time the name of sions can be reached exceptthat the rangecountry was the Santa CatalinaNational Forest was changedto Coro- misused." It is not the intent of this paperto fix blame for nado. The Coronadowas expanded by combinationwith these events, but to document the fact that range and the Garces in 1911 and the Chiricahuain 1912. A portion RANGELANDS 11(1), February 1989 15 Origins

CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST KEY MAP Crook National Forest

11*1 Santa Catalina

Forest National Owzx 1907 I z • TUcSON

Santa Rita Chiricahua National Forest

TOUSSYONE 1910

— --—--— - __qyc_ -—- -— MEXICO o a io Ia 20 25 - MUM. of the Crook was addedin 1953, establishingthe present western frontier." In the aftermath of the disastrous 1.7 millionacre Coronado National Forest (Harrison 1972). events of the late 1800's, rangeconditions were at an all The Baboquivari Mountains near Sasabe became a time low. As the Forest Service began to tacklethe task of Forest Reserve in 1906, and were incorporatedinto the rangeallocation,itbecameapparentthatthereweremore Garces National Forest in 1908. A year before the 1911 livestockthan theland base could support (Barker1976). combinationof the Garces and theCoronado, Congress The Forest Service policy of prioritizing permit issuance added the Baboquivaris to the Papago Indian Reserva- was endorsed by President Roosevelt who wrote, "In tion, returning the Papago's sacred peak to Indian con- granting grazing permits you give preferencefirst to the trol. small nearbyowners; afterthat to all regularoccupants of A 1910proclamation by President WilliamTaft removed the Reserve range; and, finally, to the ownersof transient National Forest Status from the southern portion of the stock" (Roberts 1963). Animas Mountains, a part of the Chiricahua National Ranges were subdividedinto grazing"allotments" with Forest. A tand exchange with George Breece Lumber a great deal of on-the-ground negotiation between Company for an 80,000 acre addition to the Cibola neighborsand Forest Rangers. To this day, many des- National Forest in the Zuni Mountains of New Mexico cendentsof the original permittees continueto question eliminated the remainderof the Animas range in 1951. the range allocationprocess and the locationof boundary (Coronado N.F. files). fences. Spanish settlers in the Southwest introduced a Multiple useof renewablenatural resources hasalways "commons"concept of communalland usage, whichwas been the philosophy and policy of the Forest Service, consistentwith the life style of the more pastoralnative even though it was not legislatively validated until the Americans. This tradition ofthe "ej ido" madethe concept Multiple Use-Sustained Act of 1950. One of many chal- of communitygrazing allotments more readily accepta- lenges facing the new agencywas regulationof livestock ble than in other parts of the United States. Much of grazing. Forester Paul Roberts (1963), an early Arizona Arizona was settled by Mormon immigrants from Utah Forest Ranger, said,"The Forest Service was bornduring and Chihuahua. This society also practiced a form of the years of most savage competition for grass on the shared resource use. 16 RANGELANDS11(1), February1989

Fêgure 2 CORONADO NaZon4Foeet

LEGEND I R.ng.,Station For.,t $up.rvl,o,iOffic. — Pac.d Ao.d. - Unp.o.dRoad,

______— lb 20 25 Sc.l. - Mu.,

Many rangeswere first placed in communityallotments ted numbers each time a permit was reissued. This with numeroussmall permittees on single units.Over the unpopular, but eftective, policy resulted in removal of years, economicfactors have favored the consolidation hundreds of cattle from the Coronado. By the early of small rangeunits into moreefficient sized businesses. 1950's, many ranges were no longer overstocked andthe Few communityallotments survive on theCoronado. The policy was rescinded. advantages of control over breedingstock, supplemental Stock numbersdeclined steadily from the inceptionof feeding, and movement of stock motivated even small National Forest management (probably about 236,000 operatorsto lobby forexclusive range use. Insome cases, on Arizona'sNational Forests) until WorldWar I (lessthan units too small for efficient management were created 200,000). Demand for the limited permits available be- and presently pose serious challengesto management. came very strong and the Forest Servicein 1917 proposed Land areas involved are too small to produce enough a moderateincrease in grazingfees as adevice to soften income to absorb the cost of needed improvements for this demand. The agencyanticipated a great resistance to rotation grazing. As land managers proposethe logical increased fees and braced for a rash of protests and solutions of combined management plans and shared appeals. The advent ofWorld War I in April, 1917,created rangeuse, a greatdeal ofpermittee resistance is encoun- a rapid and dramaticincrease in livestock prices, which tered. resulted in ranchers accepting increased fees with less Beginnings of Management than anticipated protests(Rowley 1985). In to the War the of Since on the Coronadowas over- response emergency, Secretary virtually every range relaxed administrative controls and made all stocked in 1908, was the Forest Ser- Agriculture emphasis placed by grazing lands available for production of livestock vice on reduction of numbers to A of pro- capacity. policy ducts (Rowley 1985, Roberts 1963). Numbers on the "transferreductions" required a 10%reduction in permit- National Forests of Arizona quickly rose over 270,000. RANGELANDS11(1), February1989 17

Arizonacattle numbersclosely par- alleled nationaltrends as follows: Table 1. NatIonal Forest CaftI. Permitted (Arizona). Year Permitted Number 1909 236,000 1914 271,000 1939 172,000 1958 145,000 (Baker et al. 1986) This short-sightedover stocking on manyranges lost resource gains made from the initial regulationof grazing. A miniscule contribution to the war effort resultedin lasting ecological damage and long-term economic loss to the stockmen (Bakeretal.1986, Barker 1976). By World War lIthe art of range management and itssupporting scien- ces had progressed to the point that the Forest Service was able to resist pressures to repeat themistakes ofthe previous war effort (Rowley 1985). Range Improvements and Live- stock Control In spiteof greatlyliberalized regula- tions,the Coronado recorded 17graz- Rangelands of the Coronado. ing trespass cases in 1918. The original Arizona permittees had used the ranges before the existence of the Forest Service so they and their des- cendants were slow to accept the authority of the new agency. In spite of the fact that Forest Servicegrazing regulationshad the full force and ef- fect of federal law, it was long considered socially acceptable to exceed permit numbers. When a stockman was caughtin violation, he was considered a martyr.The largest unautho- rized use case in Forest Service history occurred in the Grahams a few years after that portion of the Crook was added to the Coronado. Acting Regional Forester M.M. Che- ney reported on a 1930 inspectionof the Crook National Forest as follows: Through lack of controland the con- sequent competitive grazing use by individuals, this area consisting of 2,100,000 acres has greatly suffered. Its grazing value has decreasedover one half and it has becomea menace to lands and interestswhich lie below it. (Coronado Files). This report is particularlyalarming in lightof Forester Rex about protectionof the watershed. King's1915 establishment report,which indicates that the By 1930 the Coronado National Forest supported Mt. Graham Forest Reserve was established as a result of approximately41,000 cattle and the Mt. Graham Unit of a petition from GilaValley residents whowere concerned the Crook had 34,000 cattle and 5,000 sheep (Coronado 18 RANGELANDS11(1), February1989

Files). Although this 846,000 animal unit monthssignifi- land with a 19% improvement in capacity since 1910. cantly exceeded any estimate of the land's capacity to Critics of this documentsee it as a self-serving produc- support grazing, it was a great improvement over the tion of the Forest Service (Rowley 1985). To this day, situation Immediatelyfollowing World War I. With littleor Forest Servicepersonnel point with prideto the compara- norestrictions on areas grazed, otherthan those imposed tive condition of National Forest ranges. by topography,this was astocking rate of about1.7 suita- Capacity vs. Stocking Rate ble acres per animal unit month or 20 acres per cow. A of Muchof the ofthe Coronado National Forest 1947 compilation rangereconnaissance data pro- rangeland vided the first known Forest-wide esti- was useable onlyin thewinter due toa lackof dependable range capacity mate. Areas that currentlymake upthe CoronadoNation- water sources. Riparian vegetationand other areas near and streamswere while much al Forest were estimated to have a capacity of 534,367 springs severely impacted animal unit months.Small areas had been closed of the was unused. tograz- range for watershed but the land available for The Roosevelt Administration'sattempt to solve social ing protection, was not less than in 1930. The 1947 and economic of the Great pro- grazing significantly problems Depression estimate indicated a of 3.2 suitable acres vided a sourceof inexpensiverange improvements. The capacity per Southwest's first Civilian Conservation AUMor3l acres per cow. Use continuedto exceed capac- Corps (CCC) estimates in of reductionsin cattle. Camp was located in the Chiricahua Mountains. Men ity spite significant Numbers continuedto decline the 50s, 60s, and from these campsconstructed hundredsof miles of drift during fencesand numerous water on the Coro- lOs, but a combinationof overstocking,lack of intensive developments and climatic factors combined with a de- nado, the infusion of management, during largest range improvement cline available decreased estimates investmentsIn the ofthe ForestService. The CCC in acreage capacity history than were From an estimated 5,517 man monthson water faster numbers adjusted. 1956 through spent develop- 1964 reductionstotaled cattle.A 1976 ments in the Southwestern Region (Rowley1985, Otis et permit 1,873 report al. indicates permit adjustments totaling 977 cattle. 1986). As numbers those allotments which com- Water developments were intended to increase rnge declined, distribution of livestock. bined properstocking with improved range management capacity through improved to exhibit a trend in con- Some accompaniedthe water developments, but began significant upward range fencing ditions. Where reductionswere not combined with man- it was done primarily to separate allotmentsor facilitate livestock Little attentionwas to agement changes, overused areas became somewhat handling. given improved but the loss of continued. distribution through fencing or rotational grazing. The smaller; forage productivity end result cases was an increase over- in many in the Table2. StockIngRates and Capacities, Coronado National Forest. grazed area through attracting cattle to previouslyun- used areas. This use new areas about EstImated CapacIty Actual St ocklng Rate heavy in brought Suitable Suitable significantforage competition with residentwildlife. Allot- Year AUM Acres/AUM AUM Acres/AUM ments with rates showedmarked relativelylight stocking 1930 846,000 1.7 improvement with better distribution. 1947 534.367 3.2 In his 1936 report to the Senate, Secretary of Agricul- 1956 384256 3.9 ture H.A. Wallace stated, "There is perhaps no darker 1964 384,250 4.1 nor in the of land occu- 1980 340,000 4.4 413,000 3.6 chapter greater tragedy history Note: Low stocking rates in 1956and 1964 result fromvoluntary nonuse of pancy and use in the United States than the story of the permitted range. westernrange." He reported, "...range depletion so nearly universal underall conditions of climate, topography,and The Coronado Plan ownership that the exceptions serve only to prove the In 1975 an analysis was made of available data, in rule." Wallace estimated that a range once capable of preparation for the Coronado Forest Plan. Forty-two supporting 22.5 million animals would carry only 10.8 percent of the Forest'sgrazing allotments continued to million in 1936. This seriousproblem was dueto a lack of be overstockedat the currentmanagement level. Over knowledgeof basic principlesof range management and 80% of the acreage was found to be in a satisfactory capacity estimation. The report contended that the only condition with most "problem allotments" exhibiting other possible explanationof the seriousstate of affairs severe distribution problems. Forest Service person- was climate, but there is moreevidence that the western nel began to shift emphasis toward improved man- has than has. It also men- climate not changed that it agement practices, whilecontinuing to the tioned numerous cases of where recognize well-managed ranges significantfactor of proper stocking. Permitteeswere forage conditions were improved, while adjacent over- the of low level with attend- stocked given option management, ranges continued to deteriorateunder an identi- ant low rates or to more cal The Wallace a stocking attempting support climate(Wallace1936). report presents animals intensive strong casefor the view that the Forest Service was in a through management. of in and that the As managementimproved, permittees continued to position leadership rangemanagement fund most maintenance work and the Forest best rangeconditions inthe West were on National Forest Service RANGELANDS11(1), February1989 19 contributed over half the cost of new or reconstructed and recreational activitiescome into conflict, recreation- improvements. Most plant control and revegetation was ists can be expected to demandmore stringent control of done at governmentexpense. High inflation in the 70's the stock. and early 80's coupled with increasinglytight federal Anotherresult of increased leisuretime and affluence is budgetscaused a marked declinein the Coronado'sabil- a significantly increased knowledgeand interestin envi- ity to contribute to range improvement work. Unfortu- ronmental, ecological subjects. Increasing numbers of nately, this period of limited federal budgets coincided citizens are educated, informed, and active in environ- with a time of generally poor economic returns for the mental causes. Environmental organizationsoften ques- livestock industry. As a result, a significant number of tion the motives of resource users and the Forest Service permitteeschose low intensitymanagement with a resul- and whatthey perceive as an overemphasis on commod- tant decline in stocking rates. ity production.This basic mistrust has persisted in spite In 1980, available data was reexamined and a capacity of the Forest Service's leadership in the establishment estimate made for the Coronado Plan. Capacity under and management of wilderness areas. That many of the current management was estimated at 340,000 AUM5. founders of the wilderness movement, including Aldo Rangesuitable and available forgrazing haddecreased to Leopoldand Bob Marshall, were ForestService employ- about 1,500,000acres andestimated properstocking was ees, has not affected the environmentalist's attitudes 4.4 suitable acres per animal month (over 50 acres per towardpresent administrators. cow). Term grazing permits allowed 413,000 AUMs, but The basic concept of grazing the public lands is cur- an average voluntary nonuse of 15 to 20% resulted in rently being challengedin SouthernArizona. Opponents actual stocking nearthe estimated capacity. of grazing are quick to point out what they perceive as Balancebetween obligation (permittedlivestock num- unreasonably lowgrazing fees; rancher subsidies through bers) and grazing capacity (ability of the resource to range improvements; damage to the vegetationthrough support grazing without resource impairment)can be overgrazing; and environmental degradationfrom graz- achieved by increasing capacity, decreasing obligation, ing, plant control, and chemical use. Much of this con- or some combination of these. An environmental impact troverseyfocuses aroundriparian plant communitiesand statementfor the CoronadoForest Plan examined several the CoronadoNational Forest's uniquewildlife resource. alternativemanagement strategies. All alternatives were Conclusions designed to bring about balance between capacity and The Forest Serviceremains committedto the permittednumbers in 20years and to maintain all rangein principle of use and to basic a satisfactorycondition. multiple goal of management of The livestocknumber at which thedesired balancecan renewable naturalresources for productionof goods and livestock be achieved varieswith 2 factors; relative emphasis services, including grazing. The challengeof (1) the remainderof the twentieth is twofold: placedon rangemanagement in the overallresource mix, century and (2) funding levels including personnel and invest- 1. Adjust program emphasis and budget mix to res- ment in range improvements. The same factors, along pond to increasing public demand for recreational with climate, influence long-term capacity of the land. opportunities and amenity values. This will include The selectedCoronado Plan projects balance by theyear modificationof range management plansto minim- 2006 at340,000 AUMs and predictsa long-rangecapacity ize conflict with other resources and uses. of about 360,000 AUMs. 2. Communicate to a wide spectrum of publics and A 1987 review (Allen and Tippeconnic1987) indicates user groups that the Coronado National Forest is that progress is ahead of the schedulein the Coronado indeed well-managed and adequate consideration Forest Plan. Proper management on every allotment, for all the multiple uses is displayed. balance between and is including capacity obligation, will indicatethat this land is resilientand now anticipated by 1993. History produc- tive and the Forest Service is capable of continuing to Current Environmental Concerns meet the challenges of management. As the basic challengesof rates, and stocking capacity, Literature Cited productivity are met, several factorsare comingtogether to bring about a changing emphasis by the Forest Ser- Allen, Larry S.1989. Roots ofthe Arizona LivestockIndustry. Range- vice. Populationshifts from rural to urban and from east lands,Society for Range Management. to west are in a of Allen, Larry S. and Tippeconnic, Robert B. 1987. Range Manage- resulting changing publicperception ment on the Coronado NationalForest—A Status Report.Unpub- the purposeof NationalForests. Thetrend is towardmore lished.Tucson. value placed on amenitiesat the expense of traditional Ames,Charles R. 1987. A History ofthe Forest Service;The Smoke commodityproduction. Signal; Tucson Corral of the Westerners; Tucson. Baker, RobertD.; Maxwell,Robert S.; Treat, VIctorH.; and Dethioff, Americanshave moreleisure time than ever beforeand Henry C. 1986. TimelessHeritage A History ofthe Forest Service moredisposable income to enjoy this new freedom. One in the Southwest.Unpublished. result of this social trend is an increasingdemand for Barker, EllIott S. 1976. Ramblingsin the Field of Conservation.Sun- outdoor recreationon the public lands. Where livestock stone Press. 20 RANGELANDS11(1), February1989

Bolton, Herbert1936. RIm ofChristendom. MacMillan Co. NewYork. Otis, AllsonT., Honey, William T., Hogg, Thomas C., and Lakin, Chase,Alston 1986. Playing God in Yellowstone.Atlantic Monthly Kimberly. 1986. The ForestService and the Civilian Conservation Press. New York. Corps: 1933-42. USDA, Forest Service, Government Printing Coeke, Ronald U. and Reeves, Richard W. 1976. Arroyos and Envi- Office, Washington. ronmental Changein the American Southwest.Clarendon Press. Rowley,William D. 1985. U.S. Forest ServiceGrazing and Range- Oxford England. lands,A History. Texas A&M Press. College Station. Coils, Edwin.1951. The Gila. University ofNebraska Press. Lincoln. Roberta,Paul H. 1963. HoofPrints on ForestRanges. NaylorCo. San Coronado National Forest.Various files. Antonio. Coronado National Forest Plan. 1986. Tucson, Arizona. Wagoner,Jay J. 1952. History of the Cattle Industry in Southern Dobyns, Henry F. 1981. From Fire toFlood. Ballena Press. Socorro, Arizona,1540-1940. Universityof Arizona Bulletin No.20. Tucson. N.M. Wallace, H.A. Secretary of AgrIculture 1936. The Western Range. Harrison, AnneE. 1972. The Santa Catalinas.Unpublished. GovernmentPrinting Office. Washington,D.C. Hastings, James R. and Turner, Raymond PA. 1965. The Changing Mile. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.

BIG SAGEBRUSH SUBSPECIES and Manage- ment Implications

Harmon S. Hodgklnson

Each sagebrush speciesand subspecies has a unique should be applied. The chance of increasing erosion of placein ourplant communities.Management alternatives the washes' sides would be great. chosen forsagebrush sitesdepend on the species and the Northern Arizona, where big sagebrush species occur, desiredgoals or objectives of the user. Before manage- has a semiarid climate and is in the Colorado Plateau ment is applied, the livestock, wildlife, watershed, aes- physiographic province. Average annual precipitation thetic, and recreation values must be considered and rangesfrom 8 to 17 inches,with 60%occuring in the fall, evaluated. For land users and managers to make the winter,and spring months.Elevations rangefrom 4,500 to proper management decisions (like whether to control 7,600feet. The soils have a mesic soil temperature regime brush or not) for big sagebrush plant communities, and a Ustic Aridic to Typic Ustic moistureregime (Hen- proper identification is essential. The lack of information dricks 1985). and aneed to identify the distributionof Wyoming, moun- Northern Arizona was traversed by using roads to tain, and basin big sagebrush subspecies in Arizona obtain the boundaries of each subspecies. Topographic promptedthis study. maps with a scale of 1:250,000 were used. At 195 loca- Both Wyomingand mountainbig sagebrush have good tions, plant height, leaf shape, growth form, soil surface wildlife-livestockforage value,especially for deer, ante- texture, associated species, elevation, and precipitation lope, and sheep. Wherethe density of these species has were recorded. Although morphologicalcharacteristics increased in excess of the site's potential, control mea- were used to identify each subspecies, a sample was sures should be considered with wildlife and livestock gathered at each location so that thechemical method as needs in mind. Many control measures can be applied described by Winward and Tisdale (1969) could be used with success. Burning, chemical and mechanical meth- to confirm identificationfor each subspecies. ods are practical on the moderatelydeep to deep soils. After summarizingall data, a distribution map of the Wheregrasses and forbs are lacking,seeding of adapted threesubspecies was developed. species following the control measures will be needed. Wyoming big sagebrush was the most abundant sub- After treatment,deferment, intensity and season of use species, occurring on mesas, undulating plateaus and will extend the treatment life. The shrubsshould not be high alluvialterraces. Of the136 samples taken, 85%were controlled on the shallowsoils. on moderatelydeep to deep, well-drainedsoils with tex- Basin big sagebrush has a low wildlife and livestock tures of sandy loam, loam, and sandy clay loam. The forage value, except for some shelter in winter months. remaining 15%were on shallowsoils with texturesof very Because of the few isolated locations of this subspecies gravelly loam, loam, and clay loam. Wyoming big sage- and its relationship to drainages, no control measures brush was associated with pinyon pine-Utah juniper woodlands at elevationsof 5,000 to 7,600 feet with an Author Is range conservationist. Soil Conservation Service, 2717 N. 4th Street, Suite 140,Flagstatf, ArIzona 86004. average of 6,300 feet. Annual precipitation averaged 13