Wildlife Trends in Arizona: 150 Years of Winner and Losers

 Arizona’s wildlife history is an example of a timeline that occurred in many developing landscapes: an era of exploitation and eradication (1800s–1950s) followed by an era of restoration and management (1980s–present). 

However, there are some factors that were unique to the United States that led to distinct trends in wildlife populations when compared to those same species across the border in Mexico.

The following summary of research (Part 1) lists 16 Arizona species that were extirpated or greatly reduced and whether they have recovered.  Part 2 looks at 10 species that occur in both Arizona and Mexico and why their populations followed different trends.

This research illuminates the current state of wildlife and ecosystems in Arizona and helps explain the factors that got us here.

Part 1: Arizona vs. Wildlife

The following summary organizes species into groups based on their population trajectories: the “Great Returns” that were extirpated but have been successfully reintroduced, the “Survivors” that have been greatly reduced but still persist, and the “Lost Causes” that were extirpated but have not been successfully reintroduced. 

I. The "Great Returns": Extirpated & Successfully Reintroduced

These species were completely removed from the state but have been restored, often using proxy subspecies or captive breeding.

Rocky Mtn Elk

Extirpation Date/Cause: 1900: The native Merriam’s subspecies was hunted to extinction for meat and teeth.

Reintroduction Date/Area: 1913–1928: Rocky Mtn elk from Yellowstone were released near Winslow, Alpine, & Kingman.

Key Trend/Notes: Ecological Substitution: A proxy subspecies filled the empty niche, expanding rapidly due to lack of competition.

Mexican Gray Wolf

Extirpation Date/Cause: 1970: Eradicated by federal predator control programs (poison/traps) to protect livestock.

Reintroduction Date/Area: 1998: Captive-bred wolves released in the Blue Range Primitive Area.

Key Trend/Notes: Predator Tolerance: Success is biologically high but socially controversial; relies on ongoing conflict management.

 

California Condor

Extirpation Date/Cause: 1924: Vanished due to lead poisoning (bullets in carrion) and shooting.

Reintroduction Date/Area: 1996: Released at Vermilion Cliffs.

Key Trend/Notes: Intensive Care: Survival relies on active management (chelation therapy for lead) rather than self-sufficiency.

River Otter

Extirpation Date/Cause: 1950s: The native Sonora subspecies was  trapped out for fur.

Reintroduction Date/Area: 1981–1983:  Louisiana subspecies released in the Verde River.

Key Trend/Notes: Another Proxy: Like the elk, a non-native subspecies was used to successfully fill the vacant ecological role.

Black-footed Ferret

Extirpation Date/Cause: 1960s: Poisoning of their food source (prairie dogs) led to total extirpation.

Reintroduction Date/Area: 1996: Reintroduced in Aubrey Valley (Seligman).

Key Trend/Notes: Disease Barrier: Success is limited by sylvatic plague; requires dusting burrows and vaccines to persist.

Apache Trout

Extirpation Date/Cause: Mid-1900s: Hybridization with non-native rainbow trout and habitat loss.

Reintroduction Date/Area: 1955–Present: White Mtns (managed by White Mountain Apache Tribe & AZGFD).

Key Trend/Notes: The First Win: Became the first sportfish in history to be delisted from the Endangered Species Act (2024).

 

II. The "Survivors": Reduced but Persisted

These species were decimated by unregulated market hunting or predator control but survived in rugged refugia (escape terrain).

Desert Bighorn

Historic Low Point: Early 1900s: Reduced by diseases from domestic sheep and market hunting.

Survival Factor: Terrain: Survived in the most inaccessible desert peaks (Grand Canyon, Kofa).

Current Status: Translocated: Populations are moved to historic ranges (e.g., Santa Catalinas, Virgin River) to ensure genetic diversity.

 

Mountain Lion

Historic Low Point: 1960s: Bountied as "vermin" until 1970.

Survival Factor: Elusiveness: Solitary nature and rough terrain made total eradication impossible.

Current Status: Stable: Managed as a big game species; populations are robust statewide.

Beaver

Historic Low Point: 1890s: Trapped out of major rivers (San Pedro, Santa Cruz).

Survival Factor: Cryptic Behavior: Survived in deep canyons (Verde/Black River) by using bank burrows instead of lodges.

Current Status: Recovering: Reintroduced to the San Pedro (1999); used today for watershed restoration.

Pronghorn

Historic Low Point: 1920s: Fences cut off migration; market hunting reduced herds.

Survival Factor: Open Space: Remnant herds survived in vast private ranchlands (Babbitt Ranches).

Current Status: Managed: Sensitive to habitat fragmentation; relies on modifying fences for movement.

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog

Historic Low Point: 1930s: Poisoned across vast areas.

Survival Factor: Remote Refugia: Survived in the high-elevation Aubrey Valley; resistant to plague.

Current Status: Keystone: Their persistence allowed the Black-footed Ferret reintroduction to happen.

 

III. The "Lost Causes": Extirpated & Failed (or Struggling) Reintroductions

Complex social behaviors or specific habitat needs made simple reintroduction impossible.

Thick-billed Parrot

Extirpation Cause: 1938: Shooting/Poaching.

Reintroduction Outcome: Failed (1986–93): Chiricahua Mtns.

Why It Failed: Cultural Knowledge: Captive birds lacked flock wisdom to avoid hawks and find food.

Masked Bobwhite Quail

Extirpation Cause: 1900: Cattle overgrazing destroyed tallgrass cover.

Reintroduction Outcome: Struggling (1937–Present): Buenos Aires NWR.

Why It Failed: Habitat Specificity: Reintroduced birds often die due to lack of specific cover and predation; almost entirely reliant on captive releases.

Gila Topminnow

Extirpation Cause: 1940s: Invasive Mosquitofish.

Reintroduction Outcome: Mixed/Struggling: Multiple failures in the 80s/90s.

Why It Failed: Invasive Barrier: Cannot survive where aggressive non-native fish are present.

Jaguar

Extirpation Cause: 1963: Killed as predator.

Reintroduction Outcome: Natural Transients Only: No formal reintroduction.

Why It Failed: Political/Social: Only solitary males currently cross from Mexico; no breeding population exists.

Grizzly Bear

Extirpation Cause: 1936: Killed as predator.

Reintroduction Outcome: Permanently Extirpated.

Why It Failed: Social Tolerance: Requires vast, roadless wilderness that no longer exists in AZ; no plans to reintroduce.

 

Unifying Trends in Arizona Wildlife History:

The Predator Paradox:

Predators (wolves, grizzly bears and black bears, jaguars, lions) were targeted by federal policy for eradication to protect livestock.  Only the cryptic/solitary ones (lions, bears in rough terrain) survived. Reintroducing social predators (wolves) has been biologically successful but socially difficult.

The Proxy Solution:

When a native subspecies was completely lost (Merriam's Elk, Sonora Otter), biologists successfully substituted a close relative (Rocky Mtn Elk, Louisiana Otter).  These ecological substitutes often thrived because the niche was wide open and they were generalists.

The Behavioral Barrier:

Reintroductions of intelligent, social animals (Thick-billed Parrot) or habitat specialists (Masked Bobwhite) often fail.  Hard releases (letting animals go) work for generalists like elk but fail for species that require learned behavior or specific micro-habitats.

Part 2: Arizona vs. Mexico

This analysis breaks down Arizona’s extirpated and reduced species by comparing them to their source populations in other U.S. states and their often-distinct fates across the border in Mexico.

The overarching trend reveals a paradox: while the U.S. effectively managed game species (elk, sheep) through public land regulation, Mexico’s private land system (ranchos) inadvertently served as the final lifeboat for nongame species (wolves, prairie dogs, parrots) that were systematically eradicated in the U.S.

Successful Reintroductions: The Game Bias

The species that succeeded in Arizona were often abundant elsewhere in the U.S. but had been wiped out or severely reduced in Mexico.

Rocky Mtn. Elk

Status in Other U.S. States: Thriving: Millions exist across the Rockies (CO, MT, ID).

Status in Mexico: Extirpated / Rare: Native Merriam’s were also lost in Mexico. Small, private herds of Rocky Mtn. elk exist now on high-fence ranches in Coahuila/Sonora.

Accounting for the Difference: Public Land Management: The U.S. model of public land hunting funded the massive translocation efforts. Mexico lacked the public land base or agency funding to replicate this scale of reintroduction.

River Otter

Status in Other U.S. States: Secure: Abundant in the Mississippi Delta and Pacific Northwest.

Status in Mexico: Critical / Extirpated: The native Sonora otter is likely extinct in the Colorado River Delta due to the complete drying of the river before it reaches the sea.

Accounting for the Difference: Water Policy: Arizona’s otters survive in protected flows (Verde/Salt). In Mexico, the water is siphoned off for agriculture before it can support otter habitat.

Mexican Gray Wolf

Status in Other U.S. States: Extirpated: Historically ranged into NM/TX (now reintroduced there).

Status in Mexico: Reintroduced (Struggling): Mexico began releasing wolves in the Sierra Madre in 2011. The population is smaller and more fragile than the AZ/NM population.

Accounting for the Difference: Prey Base: In Arizona, wolves rely on abundant elk. In Mexico, elk are absent and deer are scarcer, forcing wolves to target livestock, leading to immediate conflict with ranchers.

Reduced/Survivors: The Refugia Divide

Species that held on in Arizona often did so in rugged terrain, while in Mexico, their fate depended heavily on the stewardship of individual landowners.

Desert Bighorn

Status in Other U.S. States: Stable: NV, CA, and UT have strong, managed herds.

Status in Mexico: Stable / Commercialized: In Sonora and Baja, bighorn are a high-value commodity. Private ranchers protect them aggressively to sell high dollar hunting tags ($50k+).

Accounting for the Difference: Economic Incentive: In the U.S., bighorn are protected by state agencies as a public trust. In Mexico, they survived because they became a private asset worth protecting from poachers.

Pronghorn

Status in Other U.S. States: Secure: WY and MT have massive herds.

Status in Mexico: Endangered (Sonoran Subspecies): The Sonoran Pronghorn (El Pinacate) is critically endangered.

Accounting for the Difference: Barriers: The U.S. herds had open range. The Mexican herds were hemmed in by highways (Hwy 2) and border fencing, severing their ability to find water during droughts.

Beaver

Status in Other U.S. States: Abundant:  r egained range across the West.

Status in Mexico: Recovering (Delta): The Colorado River Delta saw a miraculous, short-term return of beavers following the "Pulse Flow" (Minute 319) water release in 2014.

Accounting for the Difference: Resilience: Beavers in Mexico proved they are waiting in the wings; they only lack the water, whereas U.S. populations had consistent flows in mountain refugia.

Failed/Struggling: The Mexican Lifeboat

Species that failed in Arizona (often due to poisoning or habitat loss) survived in Mexico, which served as the last stronghold.

Masked Bobwhite

Status in Other U.S. States: Extirpated: Only exists in captivity/refuge.

Status in Mexico: Critical / Persistent: Small wild populations were rediscovered on private ranches in Sonora (e.g., Rancho Carrizo) in the late 20th century.

Accounting for the Difference: Grazing Intensity: While U.S. ranchers switched to exotic grasses (Lovegrass), some remote Sonoran ranches maintained native vegetation due to isolation and traditional (lower intensity) grazing practices.

Thick-billed Parrot

Status in Other U.S. States: Extirpated: No wild flocks in the U.S.

Status in Mexico: Endangered / Extant: ~2,000 birds breed in the Sierra Madre Occidental (Chihuahua/Durango).

Accounting for the Difference: Old Growth Timber: Arizona logged its sky island nesting snags by the 1930s. The remote Sierra Madre retained old-growth forests longer (though these are now threatened by logging).

Jaguar

Status in Other U.S. States: Extirpated: (Breeding populations).

Status in Mexico: Vulnerable / Breeding: A reproducing population exists in Sonora (Northern Jaguar Reserve), only ~120 miles south of the border.

Accounting for the Difference: Road Density: Arizona is crisscrossed by paved roads and development. The Sonoran habitat is more rugged, roadless, and largely privately owned, reducing human-cat interaction.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Status in Other U.S. States: Extirpated: Widespread poisoning campaigns.

Status in Mexico: Thriving (Janos): The Janos Biosphere Reserve in Chihuahua holds one of the largest prairie dog complexes in North America.

Accounting for the Difference: Benign Neglect: The U.S. government funded industrial-scale poisoning. The Mexican government lacked the funds for such programs, inadvertently allowing the massive colonies to survive until conservationists bought the land.

Summary of Differences

The Industrial Efficiency of Extirpation

Arizona’s extirpations were often more thorough than Mexico’s because the U.S. had the resources to be efficient. Government-sponsored predator control (wolves/jaguars) and poisoning (prairie dogs) were well-funded industrial operations in Arizona. Mexico, lacking these centralized resources, allowed "pest" species to survive simply through "benign neglect."

Public vs. Private Conservation

Arizona: Success relies on public land management (US Forest Service/BLM). This is great for generalists like elk but hard for specialists that need specific micro-habitats.

Mexico: Survival has relied on private land isolation. Remote ranches in the Sierra Madre acted as unintended nature preserves because they were too difficult to log or develop.

The Elk Gap

The single biggest ecological difference today is elk. Arizona replaced its lost native elk with a massive, successful herd of Rocky Mountain elk. Mexico never did. This means Arizona has a massive prey base for wolves and lions that Mexico lacks, creating a "food imbalance" at the border that complicates predator recovery in the south.

 

Cutting Trees for Water: Are Thinned Forests Wetter or Drier?

Forest thinning can be controversial.  Concerned citizens want to know when logging counts as restoration;  can thinning a forest have beneficial ecological effects beyond reducing the risk of stand-replacing wildfires?  Will cutting trees increase soil moisture because there are less "straws sucking up water", or does it decrease soil moisture due to increased windspeed and more sunlight drying out the forest understory?

April 2017 - views of Rogers Lake, AZ overlooking untreated (left) and treated (right) areas.  Photos by Conor Flynn.  Click this link to play with the slider.  

Whether thinned forests are drier or wetter is complicated.  The excellent paper "Adapting western North American forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions" by Prichard et al provides a good introduction to this question:

"Decreasing canopy bulk density can change site climatic conditions (Agee and Skinner 2005). Wildfire ignition potential is largely driven by fuel moisture, which can decrease on drier sites when canopy bulk density is reduced through commercial thinning (e.g., Reinhardt et al. 2006). Reduced canopy bulk density can lead to increased surface wind speed and fuel heating, which allows for increased rates of fire spread in thinned forests (Pimont et al. 2009, Parsons et al. 2018). Other studies show no effect of thinning on surface fuel moisture (Bigelow and North 2012, Estes et al. 2012), suggesting that thinning effects on surface winds and fuel moisture are complex, site specific, and likely vary across ecoregions and seasons."

Anecdotally, some people have noticed springs beginning to flow again after thinning and prescribed fire in AZ.  My research in NM pinyon noted increased soil moisture at thinned sites (unpublished data), however this could be due to the specifics of how thinning was accomplished at those sites.  Thinned slash was chipped and the chips were left on-site without follow-up prescribed fire.

In addition to water quantity, water quality should also be considered.  Prichard et al point out that "Treatments in watersheds that are distant from the WUI and protect municipal and agricultural water supplies are critical to minimizing high-severity fire impacts that can jeopardize clean water delivery (Bladon 2018, Hallema et al. 2018). For example, post-fire erosion and debris flows may cause more detrimental and longer-term impacts to watersheds than the wildfires themselves (Jones et al. 2018, Kolden and Henson 2019)."  However, even carefully managed thinning and prescribed fire can generate excess erosion from new roads, decreased large woody debris, and increased mobility of light charred wood.  Charcoal washing into local lakes can cause fish kills, even when not generated by catastrophic wildfire.  Creating erosion-control structures as part of forest thinning work could help to mitigate these risks.  

Further research is needed to ensure that large thinning projects adequately account for water cycle restoration in addition to natural stand density and fire interval restoration.  

Rain Walks

This is a story from Paul Krafel that I think should be more widely known and celebrated.  Thank you, Paul.

Rain Walks

A simple play I’ve made hundreds of times exemplifies “every play is two plays.” High in the drainage, as runoff increases, the rising runoff begins overflowing its shallow channels, spreading out into easily overlooked overflow routes. Sometimes a rock lies in the overflow channel, obstructing how much of the runoff can flow that way. I lift the rock out of the channel so that more of the runoff can flow in this new direction (Play One). I then place that rock in the main channel so that it shunts more of the runoff towards the overflow channel (Play Two). 

This simple moving of the rock is two plays. The broader, slower overflow route receives more runoff because of the removal of the rock, and the deeper main channel receives less because of the new placement of that rock. Though much of the water still flows down the main channel, more is now flowing along the broader, slower overflow route.

Rising water has a distinctive appearance. Surface tension holds the water’s surface against plant stems and rock edges so that this ring of contact lags behind the rising level of the surrounding water. This creates a dimpled surface around each stem and rock sticking up out of the water. These dimpled surfaces sparkle with focused light. I can watch this dance of light advance with the increased flow down the overflow route.

Read more here...

Another interesting article by Paul here.  

Is Forest Thinning Beneficial for Everyone?

 This Undark article says Pinyon jays are proposed for ESA listing because of forest restoration thinning:

“some bird biologists... are sounding the alarm that even today’s thinning methods degrade pinyon jay habitat. These woodlands are already under extreme drought stress, especially in New Mexico, with predictions for widespread loss due to climate change. And some studies suggest thinned piñon-juniper forests are less resilient to beetle infestation and drought.

 I participated in a 10-year monitoring study of thinned and unthinned Pinyon-Juniper woodlands in the Manzano mountains.  Our findings were different from those discussed in the study; we found increased soil moisture at thinned plots, which led to richer pinyon nut crops and an increase in pinyon jays.  

However, I'm not arguing that the cited studies are wrong; there may be important site-specific differences between different restoration treatments in different areas.    Some restoration can actually help pinyon jays, we just need to figure out which treatments, and how!

Hopefully, we can all agree that if a treatment isn't making things better for native plants and animals we need to rethink it; just because something is called "restoration" doesn't mean its automatically good.  That's why we need science like this.

Citation.

Mitigation Banking Could Transform the Endangered Species Act

 The Clean Water Act (CWA) --despite its ambiguities-- has the important provision of acre-for-acre wetland mitigation. In other words, the CWA ensures No Net Loss of protected wetlands.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) --despite controversies over Critical Habitat-- has no automatic provision of no net loss of protected species habitats. Instead, it relies on bespoke mitigations on a project-by-project basis. Most projects are approved with incompletely mitigated impacts to species and their habitats. The result is continual loss of habitat.

Current proposed changes to habitat mitigation could help make ESA more like CWA, moving the ESA toward No Net Loss of habitat. The result would be improved regulatory certainty for projects, mitigation banking opportunities for conservation investors, and better outcomes for listed species.

Environmental Policy Innovation Center's Becca Madsen has more excellent & detailed analysis.

Manufactured- versus Local-Material Restoration

 

This is not restoration.

"Erosion control" plastic mesh has been washed downstream and wrapped around a sapling.

This is restoration:

Carefully-laid rock armors the entrance to a dry pool.  Balanced stones mark the location of human intention.

Restoration in hyper-arid environments?

 Is is possible to plant trees and restore grassland savanna in a hyper-arid desert?  

In Al Baydha it sometimes doesn't rain for 26 months, and apparently there are trees that can survive and thrive in that environment.

The Story of Al Baydha: A Regenerative Agriculture in the Saudi Desert.

Tropical Reforestation

Tree Meditation
Trees are somehow a focus for my life.  Ayurveda teaches that I should be like a tree: no-harm, no killing, no lying, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no intoxicants.  Simple clean food offered freely, with fresh air and rain.  And a place to stand and grow - upward and downward.

Earth molds water.  Water nourishes trees.  Trees touch the earth and feel the air.  Trees stand apart from all philosophy, and yet are subject to our philosophy, our economy.  Strange that in my job I plan the cutting of hundreds of trees from computer documents and databases. Somehow I am both, I have my roots in the reality of trees and mud, but my arms in the ethereal computer worlds of planning and economy, laws.

Can I do something to balance the world, something electronic for the trees?

Forest Reforestation
There are problems with many reforestation efforts. Monocultures that don't help local people, protests around the world against REDD+.  In Japan, people are waking up to the problem.  (Link)  The problem of monoculture or few species planted in US cities has led to invasive insect pests wiping out large areas, for example in Worcester, MA.  The International Society of Arboriculture says the goal should be to follow the 20% rule (max 20% of any genus/species).

Example solutions: Health in Harmony listen to people. They give people healthcare, pay them to plant and monitor forest.  Other groups like Eden also pay people to plant.  Trees for the Future tries to create sustainable agroforestry.  Search engine ecosia donates money to these and other organizations.

But I have concerns about cost effectiveness and the ability to scale.  TFTF has only helped a few thousand farmers in the 30 years they've been around.  But CharityNavigator rates these groups highly; they have good governance, but they may not be as effective.

Policy action to improve REDD+ payments could make a huge difference, but the scale is too big for me to think about, and maybe for anyone. There will always be problems with a system that big.  The Effective Altruism community's assessment of Coalition of Rainforest Nations (CoRN) tries in vain to wrap their analysis around policy.  Policy is just too amorphous to apply straightforward risk and return.

WRI's Global Forest Tracker (10 year report on deforestation) will be important to measure and monitor leakage.  Mondabay also has good rainforest statistics page.

WRI supports restoration with venture capital as a way to scale, it is unclear how this makes money. they speak in corporate-ease, another example of how the real work is in board rooms or on the ground? Its hard to tell.

Ecosia has nice on-the-ground videos showing the work they support.

Conclusion
I need to research more, learn more.  Restoration is a passion project for me, but to be professional it may need to be something like WRI or EDF. But i'm not a corporate person, being in the field is what inspires me.  Maybe, like a tree, I can grow from the earth and reach into board rooms?

REDD+

[A note on REDD+]

During the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol the inclusion of tropical forest management was debated but eventually dropped due to anticipated methodological difficulties in establishing – in particular – additionality and leakage (detrimental effects outside of the project area attributable to project activities). Eventually, the national forest monitoring system was introduced, with elements of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV).

Reference levels are a key component for any national REDD+ program and critical in at least two aspects. First, they serve as a baseline for measuring the success of REDD+ programs in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from forests. Second, they are available for examination by the international community to assess the reported emission reductions or enhanced removals. In that sense it establishes the confidence of the international community in the national REDD+ program. The results measured against these baselines may be eligible for results-based payments.]

Wetland, Stream, and Species Mitigation Banks

With the November 3, 2015 Presidential Memorandum "Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment," mitigation banking has been getting more press.

Back in 2008 the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule governing compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by Corps permits.  Each division of USACE has published Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines.

Mitigation banks are restoration and conservation sites that preserve, enhance, or create important ecological functions that may be impacted elsewhere.  For example, since 2008 wetland banks can invest in the for-profit creation of new wetlands; developers can purchase credits in the bank to mitigate any impacted wetlands in the same watershed as the proposed development.

There are now over 2000 mitigation banks in the U.S.

USACE  runs the RIBITS website, which is their Regulatory in-lieu fee and bank information tracking system.

This map from RIBITS shows the distribution of mitigation banks in the continental U.S.  Some USAE districts already have dozens to hundreds of banks in operation, whereas some, such as the Albuquerque USACE district, have none.

This figure, courtesy of Kevin Janni, shows the distribution of mitigation banks and HUC watersheds in Texas for the Fort Worth and Galveston USACE districts.  Each bank may only be used to offset development within the same watershed.  Due to differing application processes and timelines for different USACE district, some districts have many more banks than others.

Mitigation banks are evaluated based on the quality of the wetlands created, using rapid assessments such as NMRAM.

The 2016 Mitigation Banking Conference will be held in Texas, May 10-13.

A model of Ecosystem Monitoring to inform Adaptive Management

From:
Lininger, Jay.  2006. Effectiveness of Stand-Scale Forest Restoration in the Siskyou Mountains, Oregon.

NEPA Impacts Now Require Mitigation

President Obama has recently issued an important new Memorandum directing Federal agencies to employ mitigation banks to offset impacts to natural resources.

The directive re-emphasizes that agencies should seek to avoid any negative environmental impacts first, then minimize impacts, and finally, only seek compensatory offsets for harm that still occurs if necessary.  Within the limits of existing law, agencies should set ‘no net loss’ and ‘net benefit’ goals that apply to more natural resources.   (CEQ Blog Post)

The following analysis of the impacts of this memorandum are from the law office of Holland and Hart:

"We have entered a new regime in federal natural resource management, one that brings to mind Aldo Leopold’s observation that “Conservation . . . is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence or caution.” In time, we will have a better sense of what the new regime will mean in practical terms. For now, the natural resource community will want to focus on the various agencies’ efforts to implement the directives. Across the federal government, for months to come, new rules and policies will be under development with implications for an enormous range of decisions affecting natural resources “that are important, scarce, or sensitive, or wherever doing so is consistent with agency mission and established natural resource objectives.”

These directives deserve considerable attention from those active in the natural resource law and policy arenas. There are new rules of the road for resource agency decisions subject to NEPA review, and they may significantly influence implementation of ESA and other resource protection laws. Federal resource planning efforts will likely change to include substantial consideration of “net gain/no net loss” benchmarks. Most fundamentally, the new directives seem likely to change the transactional environment facing developers seeking federal approvals for: infrastructure projects; energy, water, and mineral development; or other activities potentially impacting federal natural resources.

Agencies’ permitting and compliance decisions involve significant elements of subjectivity and uncertainty. The permitting process is often defined by bargaining over the allocation of risk between an agency wary of potentially unforeseen resource impacts and a developer or resource user wary of potentially unforeseen costs or delays. The Presidential and DOI directives can be seen as ratifying and calling for even greater effort by resource agencies to minimize or eliminate the risk of unforeseen impacts on natural resources. In effect, the agencies are being told to bargain harder, demand greater assurances, and accept little or no risk of adverse impacts when rendering decisions potentially affecting natural resources.

The directives raise the bar, but are not entirely one-sided. They encourage agencies to promote conservation banking, stewardship contracts, and other financial-incentive-based tools that generate “credits” that developers can use to offset adverse impacts of proposed projects. The internal logic of the directives appears to be that the new, higher standards for resource mitigation—net gain, or at least no net loss—are realistically achievable because any project’s unavoidable adverse impacts can be offset with conservation credits.

The agencies’ mandate to bargain harder will create difficulties for almost all resource users. To begin with, baseline resource information often lacks the empirical certainty that would make it obvious how to get to a net gain or no net loss. And what is a “net gain”? How big must that be? More challenging, the directives call for “durability” in mitigation, meaning that the quantitative and qualitative relationship of impact to compensation should endure so long as the impact continues. But natural resources change over time. Even resources that once seemed static are now recognized to be mobile as temperature, precipitation, fire, and other variables change across the landscape. The new directives will particularly frustrate those resource users who are not inclined to anticipate nor internalize within their project planning and business judgments the agencies’ resource management goals. Whatever the agencies were bargaining for yesterday, they’ll soon be bargaining for more.

There is something encouraging here for those resource users who approach the regulatory environment with a transactional mindset. The directives’ embrace of compensatory mitigation means that, once the directives have had time to be incorporated into agency procedures, there should be a predictable regulatory “solution” for a project potentially posing the risk of adverse resource impacts. In theory, the ultimate decision about whether - and on what terms - to approve a permit or other authorization should be somewhat less vulnerable to an agency official’s reluctance to countenance unavoidable adverse resource impacts. This is particularly so if the agencies do, in fact, embrace the use of mitigation banks and other credit-generating tools.

The other potential winners from the directives will be private investors in mitigation banks and similar financial structures that produce resource “credits” to exchange for impacts. 

The Theory and the Reality of Shelterbelt Afforestation Projects

The Theory of Shelterbelts

The Reality

Introduction:  dust bowl, us efforts

Following the dust bowl years in the U.S. the government planted 220 million trees in a strip 100 miles wide, stretching 18,600 miles from Canada to the Brazos river.  1935-1942  Today, the growth and vigor of many trees has declined due to close spacing, age, and invasion of undesirable short-lived trees.  Wikipedia.

There are currently two major afforestation programs, one in China, and one in the Sahel.

Great Green Wall in China. 

This project aims to afforest 90 million hectares and eventually contain 100 billion trees in a 4500km belt.

A recent paper by Tan (2014) found decreased dust transport due to the plantings so far.  But independent Chinese media reported in 2013 that dust storms were increasing:  For centuries in northern China, annual sandstorms, called the Yellow Dragon, have been ripping through the city.  Wind erosion is obvious and most pronounced in spring, when sandstorms are common and the vegetation is still absent or dormant after severe winter temperatures. Sandstorms have increased in the last few years, calling into question whether the Great Green Wall is working.

Liu Tuo, head of the desertification control office in the state forestry administration, is of the opinion that there are huge gaps in the country's efforts to reclaim the land that has become desert. At present there are around 1.73 million sq kilometers that have become desert in China, of which 530,000 km2 are treatable. But at the present rate of treating 1,717 km2 per year, it would take 300 years to reclaim the land that has become desert.  

Background
In early times, Korqin was not a semi-desert, but savannah-type woodland, in transition between dense forest and the steppe zone. The rolling sand-sheet was deposited during the last glacial period (12000 years BP). During 10,000 years of vegetation growth, thick dark topsoil developed. Since historical times, the region has gone through several cycles of man-induced desertification and subsequent recovery, when human pressure lessened. Fertile dark topsoil vanished and extensive dune fields gradually build up.  Overgrazing (by cattle, goats, sheep, camels, horses), clearing of land for agriculture and over-cutting of trees and shrubs in this vulnerable ecosystem have resulted in an increasingly severe land degradation and desertification.

Other Approaches?

There are many who do not believe the Green Wall is an appropriate solution to China’s desertification problems. Gao Yuchuan, the Forest Bureau head of Jingbian County, Shanxi, stated that “planting for 10 years is not as good as enclosure for one year,” referring to the alternative non-invasive restoration technique that fences off (encloses) a degraded area for two years to allow the land to restore itself.  Soil fertility, already critically low, has shown a sharp decline as all organic residues from crops are removed for fuel and fodder during wintertime. Willow and poplar stands are pollarded in autumn, before leaf fall, for the same purpose. The continuous removal of potential nutrients to the soil is not balanced by the relatively small amounts of manure and inorganic fertiliser applied to crops.

Problems

 Jiang Gaoming, an ecologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and proponent of enclosure, says that “planting trees in arid and semi-arid land violates [ecological] principles”.The worry is that the fragile land cannot support such massive, forced growth. Tree growth in Korqin is largely dependent on the presence of a high groundwater table, fed by percolation and inflow from the western and southern mountainous areas. The long-term trend of a decreasing depth of the groundwater table is due to an increasing demand for water to irrigate crops and for human and industrial needs. If the trees succeed in taking root, they could soak up large amounts of groundwater, which would be extremely problematic for arid regions like northern China.  For example, in Minqin, an area in north-western China, studies showed that groundwater levels have dropped by 12–19 metres since the advent of the project.

Progress So Far

As of 2009 China’s planted forest covered more than 500,000 square kilometers (increasing tree cover from 12% to 18%) – the largest artificial forest in the world.However, of the 53,000 hectares planted that year, a quarter died. In 2008 winter storms destroyed 10% of the new forest stock, causing the World Bank to advise China to focus more on quality rather than quantity in its stock species.  FAO report

But the program’s widespread tree planting campaigns typically allot only one or two species of tree to an area. Professor Jiang wrote in a 2009 Epoch Times article, “In Ningxia, for example, 70 percent of the trees planted were poplar and willow. In 2000, one billion poplar trees were lost to a disease (Anoplophora), wiping out 20 years of planting efforts.”  FAO report followup

More criticisms:  Wikipedia.

Great Green Wall in Africa - the Sahel

The Great Green Wall initiative is much more nuanced than simply planting a belt of trees across the continent: “Behind the name or the brand ‘Great Green Wall,’ different people see different things. Some people saw just a stripe of trees from east to west, but that has never been our vision,” he says. “In Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso . . . natural regeneration managed by farmers has yielded great results. We want to replicate and scale up these achievements across the region. It’s very possible to restore trees to a landscape and to restore agroforestry practices without planting any trees. This is also a sustainable way of regenerating agroforestry and parkland.”

But it should be noted that the Great Green Wall is not designed to prevent the Sahara Desert from expanding. “We are not fighting the desert,” he says. “In the majority of the areas we are working in these 11 countries, the desert is not advancing. The [Sahara] Desert is a very stable ecosystem. Of course, there are some areas on the margins—for instance in Senegal, Mauritania, and Nigeria—where there are some sand movements. But from a geographic perspective, over time the desert has been relatively stable in this area.” (Source)

But some authors advocate  "a shift from planting trees in the GGW to utilizing shrubs (e.g., Leptospermum scoparium, Boscia senegalensis, Grewia flava, Euclea undulata or Diospyros lycioides), which would have multiple benefits, including having a faster growth rate and proving the basis for silvo-pastoral livelihoods based on bee-keeping and honey production.” (Connors and Ford, 2014 Sustainability)

Four Forests Restoration Project

The draft EIS for the first 500,000 acres has been released.

Thinning work is already ongoing, but is behind schedule:

"The company said it is now thinning about 30 acres a day, which works out to about 625 acres a month. That’s a significant increase in the pace of operations since January, but still far behind the schedule established for the project nearly four years ago.  Ultimately, the company’s 10-year contract with the Forest Service requires it to clear 40,000 acres annually. In the nearly two years the company has had the contract, it has cleared about 3,700 acres. That puts the company about 70,000 acres behind the original schedule."

In my experience, in the Jemez, the major time lags are for completing NEPA and EIS and waiting for good prescribed fire weather.  Cutting the trees is fast and easy, and if they skip the fire (unnecessary and possibly environmentally detrimental) nothing should slow them down.  One of my other main criticisms from the Jemez is that they're not thinning enough trees to reduce the basal area to the most beneficial levels.  I know the ideal density and pattern of trees has been argued about ad infinitum... it seems they are trying to avoid conflict by cutting less trees, which totally defeats the purpose of preventing catastrophic crown fire.

To Burn or Decay? What is the best management practice to deal with excess biomass?

 Conventional forest restoration in Western pine ecosystems involves reduction of biomass through thinning, which is sometimes followed by prescribed burning to further reduce fuels.  Burning slash piles sterilizes soil patches and doesn't decrease overall site litter, so broad-scale prescribed burns have traditionally been the best management practice to reduce fuel loads.

Passing over the discussion of what was historically "natural," is fire the best tool for increasing site productivity?

Apparently not.  Duff burning kills fungi, small roots, and (obviously) removes duff. “EMF mortality and complete duff reduction after fire have been implicated with poor tree survival and slow stand recovery in forest ecosystems world-wide.”  (Smith, McKay, Brenner, mcIver, Spatafora.  2005: Early impacts of forest restoration treatments on the ectomycorrhizal fungal community and fine root biomass in a mixed conifer forest.  (PDF)

As Stametz and others have pointed out, burning is not the best use of available resources: fire volatilizes stored nutrients such as nitrogen and organic carbon (N and SOC).  Fire can also form hydrophobic soil crusts, kill flora and fauna, decrease soil microbiota (important for decomposition), destroy tree roots, mycelial networks, and sometimes mature trees.  In contrast, decomposing organic material could increase site productivity.


Permaculture forest restoration?
Restoration projects proceed with multiple goals, either explicit or implicit.  One such goal has been the return of historical fire to degraded forests.  According to a large body of research, at least some pine forests historically experienced short return-interval, low-intensity fire.  However, using this to justify current prescribed fire approaches assumes that we can --and should-- attempt to replicate historical ecosystems.  I believe it is a fallacy to assume that ecosystems, like species, must be maintained in the face of changing environmental conditions; paleoecology clearly shows that species migrated independently throughout prehistory, indicating that the ecosystems we see today are only contingent associations of species; there may be better arrangements of species and better ways of managing ecosystems than relying on historical norms.

That being said, there are even better reasons to question prescribed fire in forest restoration.  If we abandon the idea of mimicking natural disturbances we are free to innovate more productive restoration methods.  For example, Permaculture-inspired ideas of maximizing species diversity and ecosystem services could inspire a new type of forest restoration.  I envisage a restoration program designed to optimize current site conditions rather than recreate history...

What Controls Decomposition Rate in Conifer Forests?

Source: Litter decomposition, climate, and litter quality. Link.

Nutrients:  Mn and N

Manganese and Nitrogen control forest decomposition, but in an unexpected way. Mn is an essential component of ligninolytic enzymes important for degrading litter in the later stages of decomposition.  But high available N can limit decomposition. The most efficient degraders of lignin and humic acids are wood-rotting or litter-decomposing white-rot fungi (Hintikka 1970; Hatakka 2001).  For several of the lignin-degrading white-rot fungi, high concentrations of low-molecular weight N compounds suppress the synthesis of the lignin-degrading enzymes (Keyser et al. 1978; Eriksson et al. 1990; Carreiro et al. 2000). 

Further, N has repeatedly been reported to react with remains of degrading lignin to form recalcitrant condensation products. Such products form chemically (Vahtras 1982; Stevenson 1982) rather than biologically.  Spaccini (1999) suggested that such bonds create a hydrophobic surface thereby resisting decomposition. The higher the concentrations of lignin and N in a litter material the more likely it seems that such covalent bonds will be formed. Using 106 sets of foliar litter comprising 21 tree species (both coniferous and deciduous) representing a wide range in chemical composition, Berg (2000) found a highly significant negative relationship between limit values and initial N concentrations in litter.

Many examples exist in which addition of N to a N-deficient system slows down decomposition, especially where organic matter with high lignin content is present (Verhoef and Brussaard, 1990; Carreiro et al., 2000). Nitrogen and other fertilizers may negatively influence specific groups of organisms, particularly microbes.  Any shift in microbial composition can have a negative effect on other soil fauna.  As a result, decomposition and mineralization may decrease. Additionally, plants can compete successfully with decomposers for nutrients.  (Neher 2003.)

What about pH?

In a review of 58 studies, Wardle (1998) found that temporal variability in soil carbon (C) was related most closely to soil N content in forests and soil pH in arable and grassland ecosystems. (Neher 2003.)

But a study by Parn et al adding ash to a pine forest to increase soil pH did not observe increased decomposition.  A large meta-review noted that 22-85% of treatment trials have failed to affect decomposition: “This analysis shows that Ca additions are not universally beneficial and provides insight into when Ca additions to forest soils are likely to be most effective." (Evaluating the effects of liming and wood-ash treatment on forest ecosystems through systematic meta-analysis. Carolyn Reid, Shaun A. Watmough)

Decomposition Rate and Ecosystem Integrity

Neher 2003 "Effects of disturbance and ecosystem on decomposition." is a great review of this topic.  (PDF)  They conclude that "decomposition of organic matter is a useful indicator of soil condition because it is measured easily and serves as integrator of the collective activities of organisms within the soil food web."  For example, slowing rates of decomposition serve as an early warning sign of pathology in forest ecosystems (Bormann and Likens 1979),  A difference in decomposition rate between similar sites implies either a change in the decomposer community or quality of the biotic and abiotic resources at a site. 

This WSU website has a great review of pine forest decomposition.

What stand density is optimal in Ponderosa pine forest restoration?

 In my humble opinion, there is really only one chart needed to answer the question of what density is best for Ponderosa pine trees:

Source: The role of stand density on growth efficiency, leaf area index, and resin flow in southwestern ponderosa pine forests.  McDowell, Adams, Bailey, and Kolb.  (link)

 The lower the basal area, the more trees grow.  Growth is especially important in drought-stressed trees because lower growth can weaken tree defenses.  The lowest treatment in this study reduced trees to 7 m2 ha-1, and trees in this treatment had the highest leaf area per tree, indicating that they were healthiest at the time of the study.

Leaf area of understory plants was also highest at the lowest stand densities:

Source: ibid.

However, in the interest of full disclosure, this chart also shows (in panel B) that total forest resource utilization, measured by total leaf area, is highest at medium tree densities.

25 Years Without Cows: Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge

From an article about a recent publication documenting changes on the Refuge:

"By comparing the new photos with the historical ones, the researchers determined that following 23 years of passive recovery after cattle were excluded from the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, stream channels narrowed, woody vegetarian increased, and there was a noticeable reduction in eroding stream banks. Nearly all sites displayed a decrease in bare soil, resulting in an overall 90% increase in plant cover, mainly thanks to grasses, sedges, forbs, and willow. Willow and rush cover increased fourfold. "

The conclusion is clear: “Simply removing cattle from areas may be all that is required to restore many degraded riparian areas in the American West.”

Seed Zones for Western Wheatgrass

The USDA Pacific Northwest Field Station has published research examining the population geographic structure of Western Wheatgrass.  They measured three major phenotypic factors from grass seed collected throughout the interior northwest: height, flowering date, and leaf width.

Riparian Restoration in a Time of Changing Hydrographs: La Jencia 2008-2014

A talk presented at the 2015 Tamarisk Coalition Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico.