My Attempt to Map a Historic Itinerary

Historic newspapers can be illuminating but also frustrating.  A case in point is the series of articles in the 1864 Arizona Miner detailing "Woolsey's Expedition" in March and April of that year.  

I hoped to deduce some of the actual places visited by the expedition, but the details given were confusing, contradictory, and ultimately insufficient to definitively map where the events took place.  I wonder how many modern newspaper stories, when subject to the same analysis, would fall short?

I analyzed Henry Clifton's account from the May 11, 1864 issue.  The first step was to break the narrative into a numbered itinerary.  I underlined what I thought would be helpful clues, and bolded descriptions I thought would be interesting to compare against present day conditions:

My next step was to try to map the itinerary points on a modern day map.  I added two additionally pieces of information to the text.  First, I looked up that sunrise and sunset were at 6:20am and 6:50pm, respectively. This helps fill in the times for each stop.  Then I filled in the mileage between each stop.  In the table that follows, question marks indicate uncertainty.  The start and stop points correspond to the itinerary above.

In some cases Clifton gives the mileage, and in some cases the stops can be determined so the mileage can be measured, but in many cases he does not give the mileage.  However, based on the travel and rest times I tried to estimate the mileage.  This can also be constrained by the possible stop locations.  For example, when they stop at a creek or a canyon, there are only so many choices for where that could be.  

This map shows their possible itinerary from Woolsey's ranch to the Apache Rancheria on "Squaw Creek".  Tent icons are campsites and hiking figures are other stops.  

Overview map showing likely itinerary points.

Waypoint #4 makes sense if they followed the drainage downstream from "Cottonwood Spring" SE to the next main drainage that could be described as "east fork of the Aqua Fria".  This fork is now known as Ash Creek.  The "Ash Creek" they named at stop #5 is most likely the next major creek to the SE, which is now known as Little Ash Creek.

My best guesses for stop #4 and stop #5.

Many mysteries remain.  First, they claim to do a lot of hiking at night, but this is extremely rough terrain that would be difficult to navigate by night.  According to the US Naval Observatory historical moon phase calculator, this expedition occurred during the waning last quarter of the moon, so they would not have had much light from the moon.  I don't know what kind of lanterns they had, but they don't describe much difficulty traveling at night, other than a description that they had to "descend carefully" to a creek for stop #7.

At stop #6, which occurred sometime after 10 PM on the night of March 31st, Clifton reports finding species of the garlic family on a ridge.  These small plants seem like they would have been difficult to notice by lantern light.  Interestingly, there are only two species of garlic/onions that grow in this area in the spring now.  One, is Crowpoison, which as the name suggests is toxic.  The other is Largeflower onion, which is not common.  

Second, was the Apache Rancheria at modern Squaw Creek or some other location?  It would make sense that their place name stuck, but Squaw Creek is not exactly a unique name so it is possible that other locations have the same name.  Interestingly these creeks that form the southeast boundary of Perry Mesa have been recently renamed Ledni Lii Creek, Gosga Creek, Liya Draw, Che Yagoodiguhn Creek, etc.  I can't find any information about when they were renamed or what the new names mean.

Based on their travel that night from 10 PM until 9 AM and their progress on other legs of the journey, I estimated that they traveled about 10 miles to get there.  However, (for reasons discussed below) I think the site of the Rancheria must have been just upstream of the confluence of Gosga creek and Ilya Draw (AKA North Squaw Creek and Squaw Creek), and this would put them less than 7 miles from camp.  After attacking the Rancheria they managed to get back to camp in less time, so it is possible that they were less than 10 miles from camp.   

Possible site of the Ranchera, upstream of the confluence of Gosga creek and Ilya Draw (AKA North Squaw Creek and Squaw Creek)

In the description of the battle, Clifton states that Company C was west of Company B.  Company B "was in the canon below the rancheria" and chased the Indians up the canyon to where company C was.  Since almost all of the canyons in this part of Arizona run from NE to SW, I had a lot of trouble finding a location where "up canyon" was some westerly.  

Conclusion

Through this exercise of interpreting and attempting to map a historical itinerary, I've come to realize the difficulty of matching newspaper accounts to specific locations.  Without an extremely explicit travelogue, creating a location-based itinerary is either impossible or unreliable.  There were several times when I was ready to give up, but through persevering, rereading the account, and staring at the map I've at least been able to convince myself that some of these locations are approximately correct.  I hope to visit some of these areas in the coming months to retrace the route and add additional information.  

Notes

Note: #PrescottAZHistory blog has an account of Woolsey's expedition that is more of a summary and less of a GIS analysis.  

Note 2: Woolsey organized several expeditions, including a second one in June of 1864 that traversed a much larger area.

Land Development Releases Greenhouse Gases

Land use change releases stored carbon and should be counted under Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting.  

Example of a wildflower meadow (left) that was bulldozed to create a parking lot (right). This land use change results in direct emissions of stored soil carbon and plant biomass, as well as continuing opportunity costs: the meadow can no longer accumulate sequestered carbon. If this land is owned by the developing company, this would count as Scope 1 Emissions under GHG reporting requirements.

New GHG reporting standards for land use change are due to be finalized in 2024. According to these new standards,

"Companies shall:

-Account for land use change emissions from land carbon stock decreases across all carbon pools (biomass, soil organic carbon and dead organic matter).

-Account for and report direct land use change (dLUC) emissions or statistical land use change (sLUC) emissions in scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3."

This is important because, according to the IPCC AR6 (2023), land use change accounts for approximately 15% of anthropogenic emissions.  Interestingly, the parts of the land and ocean that have not been developed by humans still absorb 30% of our emissions.  As we degrade more and more land and water, the Earth loses this buffering capacity, in addition to the extra emissions created from land use change.

Biodiversity on Prescott National Forest

 How many plant species are there in a geographic area?  Previously, I used iNaturalist to calculate total biodiversity for selected areas.  But this method is just a snapshot of the species currently recorded in iNaturalist.  In some areas, people may have already observed most of the biodiversity, while in other areas there may still be much more to discover.

One way to estimate the total unobserved biodiversity of a geographic area is to look at the timeline of species observations.  If more new species are being observed each year, there are likely still many more species to discover, whereas if the number of new species each year is declining, we may be able to fit a decay function that would predict the total number of species that will ever be observed.

iNaturalist offers a couple of ways to find lists of new species.  As an example, I will use the Prescott National Forest in AZ.

The first method: the API function recent_taxa.

According to this method, there have been 57* new plant species observed on the Prescott National Forest in iNat so far this year.  This is filtered for only research grade observations (quality_grade=research).  There are a lot of new observations by experts that just haven’t been confirmed by other experts. *For some reason this returns the species, genus, and family so to get 57 I subtracted repeated taxa (29) from total new taxa this year (86).

https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications_recent_taxa.html?place_id=130970&taxon_id=47126&hrank=species&order=desc&order_by=created_at&per_page=200&quality_grade=research

The URL code is pretty easy to modify for other places (PNF = 130970) and other taxa (plants = 47126).  Here is more background on API query terms: https://api.inaturalist.org/v1/docs/#!/Identifications/get_identifications_recent_taxa

The second method: download data.

 When searching observations for Prescott National Forest and filtering by plants, iNaturalist returns a page with summary statistics.   This can be downloaded and analyzed in Excel.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=130970&iconic_taxa=Plantae 

 After downloading the data:

1. sort the table from oldest to newest by the observation date column

2. select the whole table

3. use “remove duplicates”, and look for duplicates in only the species name column

The resulting list will show you the first observation of each species.  I then summarized the list by year and created this graph showing the year and number of new plant species recorded in iNaturalist for PNF.  

This method also sometimes returns other taxa than species, so the totals don't quite match between the website, the API, and this method.  Also, this graph is not filtered for only Research Grade observations, but it would look basically the same.  The graph appears to increase over time as more people use iNaturalist to record plant species on Prescott National Forest, up to a peak year in 2020.  Since then the number of new species seems to fall off, although it should be noted that 2021 was a drought year and 2022 isn't over yet.  

Prescott Water Supply

 The Citizen Water Advocacy Group has good resources discussing this issue.  Here's a video covering frequently asked questions.  

Well water levels are declining by more than 1 foot/year in the center of the aquifer, and have declined more than 100 feet in the last 80 years.  Wells at the edge of the aquifer, such as in Williamson Valley, are declining from 2 to 7 feet per year (data not shown).