SAL TCEDAR AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS

Dr. c. j. DeLoach, USDA A~ricutural Research Service, Temole, Texas

Editor's Note: Our annual spring nleeting tJlis year willconcentrate on saltcedar management and habitat issues.One of tJ1e impo11ant manlJgement issues involving tllis plantis biological control. TJ1e following is an abstract from a"6rld Wide ~b page tJ1at is currently under construction(http: / /www. nevada. edu/JIOme/0/scJIOfier/webpal!,es/wbJ1p.l1fml). TJle entire paper will be available tJlere whentIle page is pub lis lIed online .

sedimentation and narrowing of channels,increases flooding, and interferes with

recreational usage.Saltcedar has only minor beneficial

values, mostly as ornamental shrubs andfor honeybee pollen and nectar. Somewildlife species utilize it for cover ornesting (especially the white-winged dove,Zenaida asiatica) in the absence of theirnative habitat that saltcedar has displaced,and feed elsewhere or on insects from

other nearby plants.The potential for successful biological

control is very high. The taxonomicisolation of Tamarix in the Old World haspromoted the evolution of many host-specific insects: 26 genera (with over 200species) are restricted to developing en-tirely or in major part on the genusTamarix. The taxonomic isolation ofsaltcedar in the Western Hemisphere (nospecies of Tamarix or of the familyTamaricaceae are native) implies a verysmall risk that introduced insects might

(Cont page 3. ..Control)

T he invasion since the 1920's by exotic saltcedar(Tamarix ramosis.'iinla) has caused enormousdamage to native plant and animal communities inriparian ecosystems of the western United States.

Conventional controls (manual, mechanical, herbicidal, andfire) are expensive, may damage the natural vegetation, andmust be applied repeatedly. An analysis of the damagecaused by and the beneficial values of saltcedar (both eco-nomic and ecological), and natural enemies potentiallyavailable for introduction, indicate that biological control hasa high potential tor success, and without the disadvantagesof the other control methods.

Damage by saltcedar includes the displacement of the

extremely valuable cottonwood/willow (Pc)pulus sp./Sali,"sp.), seepwillow baccharis (Baccllari.'i salicifolia), and othernative plant communities often by monotypic stands ofsaltcedar. Many wildlife species (especially birds) areunable to utilize saltcedar because its small fruits andseeds, lack of insects, and unpalatable foliage provide littleor no food, and its density and structure is unsuitable ascover or for nesting. Also, it uses great amounts of ground-water and lowers water tables, causing springs to dry upand plants to perish. It increases soil salinity and is highlysusceptible to fires, both of which kill intolerant cotton-woods and other plants. Several endangered species,especially birds and fishes, are severely impacted andcommon species are made more rare. Also, it causes

224

91013

1517

Inside This Issue

President's Message. LettertotheEdito[ Current Riparian Research. Saltcedar and Nesting Riparian Birds

Spring Council Meeting. SpeciesProfile Legal Issues. Noteworthy Publications.

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

I would like to wish everyone a happy, prosperous and productive New Year! It seems every yearbrings more new and exciting riparian projects to work on. But remember to "stop and smell thedesert willow" once in awhile. In fact, the perfect time to do that would be during the field tripsat our annual meeting. This year we will be convening along the San Pedro River, at Sierra Vista,

on April 11-12. Be sure to mark your calendars. Hope to see you there.This past October, the Arizona Riparian Council offered a two-day technical workshop in lieu of our

regular fall meeting. The workshop was held at Red Rock Center for Environmental Education in Sedonaand was well attended. In fact, because we had to limit the number of attendees, a waiting list of over 30people was compiled. This suggested to us that there is both interest in and need of more technical trainingin riparian inventory, survey and management methods.

Because this was our first attempt at organizing this type of training, we learned a great deal about whatworked and what didn't. I would like to thank the instructors for agreeing to try something new, and forvolunteering or discounting their time to us. My deepest appreciation is extended to all those whovolunteered their services including Matt Chew, Kelly Fuhrmann, Eric Glomski, Nita Halso, Jeff Inwood,Marty Jakle, Diane Laush, Kris Randall, Valerie Swick, Debra Yazzie, and Cindy Zisner. Your assistanceand professionalism was greatly appreciated and helped make the workshop run very smoothly. Andfinally, I would like to acknowledge the contributions and assistance of the Red Rock State Park staff,especially Barbie Hart and Jon Schreiber. They donated the classroom and rescheduled staff to accomodate

us.I would also like to thank everyone who attended for their patience, and for providing us with

evaluations and suggestions for improving future workshops. After reviewing the workshop evaluations,it was clear that we have much work to do before offering another workshop. In fact, I think workshoporganizers have been their own harshest critics. Before offering this workshop again, we would like torevamp the curriculum, reorganize the schedule to provide for field exercises, and find alternativelocations. Some instructors may not be available for future workshops, so we will also need to locate otherindividuals interested in teaching these subjects. If you would like to assist with planning and/or organizingthe next workshop, or if you know someone who would be a good instructor, please contact Cindy Zisner

(965-2490) or me (345-9558).

LETTER TO THE EDITORS

RE: 1996, Vol. 9, No.3, RoosevelT Dam and TIle SouThwesTern Willmv FlycaTcller [EdiTor's NoTe: A

similar version of this letter was published in the Arizona Republic.]

FALSE ROOSEVELT LAKE COMPROMISE WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION OF FLYCATCHER

J ust how thirsty is the Phoenix metropolitan area? This question begs a response as controversy rageson over operation of the newly raised Theodore Roosevelt Dam and the impending extinction ofthe southwestern willow flycatcher. In light of other reasonable alternatives which would trulyprotect the flycatcher and benefit the Phoenix area, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) must

reconsider immediate filling of Roosevelt's new reservoir space.The southwestern willow flycatcher is going extinct before our very eyes. Obligated to dense riparian

vegetation, the species' downward spiral is the result of tremendous habitat losses associated with damconstruction, groundwater pumping, and grazing.

Today, fewer than 430 flycatcher pairs remain in Arizona, southern California, and New Mexico.According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), these last pairs contain genetic informationwhich is approaching the absolute minimum needed to ensure species survival. Many flycatcher pairs arewidel y scattered and are not likel y to reproduce. (Cont page 8. ...Editor )

11Ie Arizona Riparian Council 3 1997 VoJ. 10~ No.1

(ConI fronl Page 1. ..Control)

are infested with saltcedar,especiallyon the southwesternsubspecies of the willowflycatcher (Empidonax trailliiextimus). If an opinion of NoJeopardy is reached, then anEnvironmental Assessment canbe prepared by APHIS, whichwill satisfy the requirements ofthe National EnvironmentalPolicy Act. If APHIS reaches aFinding of No SignificantImpact on the EnvironmentalAssessment, then permits forrelease can be issued.

Biological control isexpected to reduce theabundance of saltcedar by up to75-85% but will probablyrequire the introduction ofseveral agents over severalyears. Control at a given sitemay require 5 to 10 years andcontrol may not be satisfactoryin all areas. As saltcedar iscontrolled, the nativevegetation is expected togradually return, though someareas may already be too salinefor any but salt-tolerantspecies. Ultimately, saltcedarshould be reduced to anuncommon (or common), butnot an abundant, member ofthe plant community. Theinsects introduced to controlsaltcedar will also potentiallyprovide food for wildlife.

attack nontarget plants. Thesomewhat beneficial athel(Tamarix aphylla) is distinctfrom the weedy species and theinsects considered for intro-duction do not damage it.

Our cooperators in France,Israel, Turkmanistan, Kazakh-stan, and China have conductedpreliminary testing on 21 insectspecies, including 10 speciesbeing tested in quarantine atTemple, Texas. Two of thesehave been recommended by theAnimal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS)Technical Advisory Group forthe Introduction of BiologicalControl Agents of Weeds(TAG) of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture APHIS for fieldrelease, pending approval of anEnvironmental Assessment.These species are the mealybug(Trabu1ina mannipera) fromIsrael and the leaf beetle(Diorhabda elonga1a) thatoccurs from China to Turkey.Other promising species understudy are two other Trabu.rinaspecies; two weevils, Conia1ussp. and Com7alia sp. ; two gallmidges, Psec1rosema spp. ; twofoliage-feeding moths, Orna1i-valva sp. and Agdis1is sp. ; twopsyllids, Cras1ina sp. andColposenia sp. ; another leafbeetle ( C1)'pfocephalus sp. ) ;

and a scale insect, Adisco-

diaspis sp.The research protocol and

methodologies of biologicalcontrol of weeds are well un-derstood and strong safeguardsare in place to minimize risk tonontarget plants. The 130 yearsof experience worldwide (729projects in 51 countries against94 weed species), in NorthAmerica (control agentsreleased to control 33 weedssince 1945) , and Hawaii(control agents released tocontrol 21 weeds since 1902)have demonstrated a highdegree of safety and ca. 33 %rate of complete or substantialcontrol to date. The objectiveof biological control is toreduce the weed below thethresho1d of important damage;the method has nevereradicated a target weed.Attack on nontarget plants hasbeen rare, especially during thepast 30 years since strictsafeguards have been in place,and such attack has alwaysbeen of minor importance.

At present, we are preparinga Biological Assessment forconsideration by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service thatevaluates possible impacts onendangered species insouthwestern riparian areas that

CURRENT RIPARIAN RESEARCH

COMPARING HERBACEOUS STREAMSIDE

SPECIES FOR EROSION-PREVENTION POTENTIAL

by Caillin Cornwall~ DeIJartmenl of Bolanv, Arizona Slate Universirv

T rees and shrubs are

the most obvious

elements in most

riparian landscapes,and most riparian research hasfocused on the woody com-ponent of riparian plantcommunities. On many streamsthe original understory layerhas been altered, possiblyirrevocably, by land-usepractices, lowered water tables,reductions in surface watersupply, or reductions in finesediments. These changes havedecreased herbaceous plantcover and increased popu-lations of non-native specieswhich are more adapted tocurrent conditions. No wonderthe observer's eye passes overthe sparse weedy under-layerthat is present on manystreams, and rests instead onthe trees. But it appears thatthe current dominance of treesand shrubs is an artifact ofhistory, at least on somewestern streams. Before largenumbers of Europeans settledhere, many riparian areas weremeadow-like or marshy, withexpanses of herbaceous vege-tation (Hendrickson andMinckley 1984). Herbariumcollections in Arizona show

that native riparian graminoidswere more widespread asrecently as the 1920's thancurrently, especially at lowerelevations (Al Medina, USFSRocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station,Flagstaff, pers. comm.). Evennow, on most high-elevation,low-gradient streams and somelow-elevation watercourses,herbaceous plants outnumberwoody ones. As streamsrecover from past land uses,herbaceous species may onceagain increase.

What plants are in thisherbaceous category? Thenative species are primarilygraminoids, a group thatincludes grasses (Poaceae),rushes (Juncaceae), and sedges(Cyperaceae). Many are per-ennial and have adaptations forgrowing in water-logged soils.What ecological services dothese kinds of plants provide?Considering the nationalspotlight being shone onriparian areas as cornucopias ofbiodiversity and workhorses ofwatershed maintenance, thecontributions of herbaceousplants, especially richassemblages of native riparianspecies, are under-researched.Although many functions canbe identified, few have beenquantified or comparedbetween sites. These speciessupply habitat for insects

(Kathy Williams, San DiegoState University, pers. comm.)which feed terrestrial andaquatic (Cadwallader et al.

1980) vertebrates; providenesting areas for waterfowl andforage for grazers; andencourage development ofoverhanging banks whichprovide shade and cover foraquatic animals. They may alsohelp maintain a mesic micro-climate that improves plantgermination and survival (pers.obs.). For my master's thesis, Iam focussing on yet anotherfunction of herbaceous plants:the prevention of excessivebank erosion.

All alluvial streams featureerosion, a constant process asintrinsic as breathing. How-ever, erosion of streambedsand banks accelerated in theAmerican Southwest starting inthe late 1800 I s (Hendrickson

and Minckley 1984) , causingdecimation of riparian plantcommunities and dramaticdowncutting. Human activitiessuch as livestock grazing,agriculture, tree cutting, roadbuilding, and brush controlcontinue to devegetate land anddestabilize the soil surface,although at a slower rate.Water erosion of sedimentfrom streambanks, contrastedwith erosion of upland sed-iments, constitutes a largeproportion of total watershedsediment loss; rough estimatesrange from 26% for the U.S.(Van der Leeden et al. 1990) to

(Ambasht et al. 1984). Itfollows that traits that increaseplants' effectiveness at stabi-lizing banks include denseshoots < 1 m tall, a thickthatch of live or dead vege-tation to protect the groundsurface, and a deep'densenetwork of strong roots to bindthe soil.

Despite the negativeeconomic and biotic effects ofbank instability and the generalagreement on qualities thatenable plants to hold stream-banks, quantitative researchthat documents plants' stream-bank-stabilizing traits islacking. The sediment retentioncapabilities of plants have beenstudied mostly in wetlands,sometimes artificial onesconstructed to improve waste-water quality. Abt et al. (1992)and Temple (1982) havemeasured sediment retention inartificial grass-lined channels.Field observations of stream-bank erosion prevention byplants have generally focusedon trees and shrubs. Root depthand strength, and thereforecapacity to hold streambanksoil, are often assumed todecline from trees to shrubs toperennial grasses to herbaceousannuals. However, Ziemer( 1981) found that some shrubsstabilized slopes as well astrees, Fisher and Minckley( 1978) observed that Bermudagrass held stream banks duringa flood at least as effectively astrees and large shrubs, andO'Loughlin (1984) concludedthat roots > 2cm had nosignificant effect on hill-slopestability. The relative contribu-tions to streambank stability ofherbaceous versus woodyplants remains an important

50% for large western water-sheds (Rosgen 1993). Con-sequences of excessive stream-bank erosion include instreamturbidity; instability and lateralmovement of stream channels;destruction of channel morph-ologies necessary for aquaticspecies; loss of property,infrastructure, and land-basedincome; loss of the riparianbuffer against future floodingand against inflows of uplandsediments and pollutants; lossof trees, wildlife habitat, andrecreational areas; and resus-pension of pollutants. Down-stream, sediment settles inreservoirs and estuaries,reduces channel capacity, andburies property and naturalareas.

There are several mech-anisms by which plants lessenstreambank erosion. Plants andlitter roughen the groundsurface, creating frictionagainst flowing water anddecreasing its velocity (Botoand Patrick 1979, Brown 1984,Knight and Bottorff 1984) aslong as water height is lessthan shoot height (Temple1982). Slower flows erode andcarry less sediment. Denseplant shoots and litter filterparticles from flowing water(Hayes et al. 1984). The plantcanopy softens the impact ofraindrops and trampling so thatsoil particles remain attached tothe surface, but only .whenvegetation is less than 0.75-1.0m tall (Morgan 1985). Plantroots increase soil cohesion(Tengbeh 1989, Waldron andDakessian 1981), form aphysical barrier between waterand soil, and cause water toinfiltrate the soil instead ofrunning over the surface

and unaddressed question. Mystudy includes only grami-noids. In this group, perennialbunch grasses may be moreeffective than annual grasses,and sod-forming species maybe more effective than bunchgrasses {Medina 1995, Hansenet al. 1989, Young blood 1985).

Vegetation is clearly not theonly factor controlling bankstability. Soil texture, grazing

intensity, hydrologic events,and anthropogenic disturbancesare also important. Thesevariables are often difficult tocontrol or quantify. Therefore,direct comparison of erosionrates between areas withdifferent herbaceous species isproblematic. As a proxy,however, it is fairly straight-forward to compare acceptedstreambank-stabilizing traitsbetween species. The traits Iam measuring are shoot densityand height, above-groundbiomass, and root depth,volume, and biomass by depth.

The study is funded by theArizona Water ProtectionFund. My data is from twolocations~ Drawing data frommore than one site allowsexamination of whether thestudy's conclusions may beapplicable across climates,elevations, and plantcommunities.

The perennial reach ofCienega Creek is located insoutheastern Arizona, northeastof the town of Sonoita at 4500ft elevation. The reach liesinside a Bureau of Land Man-agement Resource Conserva-tion Area. Vegetation coveralternates between cottonwood-willow riparian forest andherbaceous marsh. The riparianzone has been grazed inten-

managers and ecologists, aswill any measurements ofactual bank erosion rates in thefield or artificial channelsunder varying vegetation types.The results of this study,especially the comparisons ofbank-holding potential betweennative and non-native species,may alert managers of riparianareas to the importance ofnative streamside perennialgraminoids in channelmaintenance and watershed-level erosion prevention. Theresults may also suggest thatfar-sighted riparian restorationin some locations requiresestablishment of nativegraminoid species on stream-banks.

If any readers want to talkabout the contributions,history, or natural history ofriparian graminoids, native ornot, I would welcome yourfeedback or ideas. Contact meat the Center for Environ-mental Studies at Arizona StateUniversity, 965-2975 or

xenia@asu.edu.

correlations between themeasured traits within andacross species, comparing traitsbetween species and life-forms

(e.g. , comparing sod-formingspecies with bunchgrass), andasking whether thes~ results areconsistent for the differentsites. I don't have statisticalresults yet, but the data so farare consistent with common-sense predictions. Forexample, at Cienega Creek,

deergrass (Muhlenbergiarigens), a large bunchgrass, hasthe deepest roots. The rush(Juncus mexicanus and J.balticus) and Bermuda grass( Cynodon dactylon) have moreextensive root systems than

knotgrass (Paspa./umdi.\'tichum), which in turn has amore extensive root systemthan rabbit's-foot grass(Polypo,-~on nlon.\'pelien.sis) .Above ground, Eleocllari.\"monteviden.\"is has very highstem densities but the stems arethin and short, and there isalmost no litter. It is stillunclear how deergrass com-pares with the rush and Ber-muda grass: do the very highstem densities of deergrasscompensate for the bare groundbetween bunches? These arethe sorts of comparisons thedata will allow.

These are some of Arizona'smost common riparian plantspecies. Data comparing thesoil-holding traits of importantstreambank plants is a contri-bution to better riparian land

management decision-making.The data will be available forfuture studies on the bank -

stabilizing capacity of trees,shrubs, and herbaceous species.Comparisons with other specieswill be instructive for riparian

sively historically, but for thelast 1 to 3 years has hadminimal to no grazing. Sub-strates grade from very fine tocoarse to bedrock from southto north. I am sampling 10species at Cienega Creek,including a rush, a spikerush,and native and non-nativegrasses of various shapes andsizes.

Another set of data comesfrom two montane meadows.Cattle and elk exclosures havebeen installed in both meadowsby the Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Stationin Flagstaff. Houston Draw isat 7320 ft elevation on theDane Canyon USGS 7.5-inchtopo in Coconino NationalForest. The Boggy Creekexclosure is at 7750 ft on theBig Lake South USGS 7.5-inchtopo in Apache NationalForest. Species from themeadows include a bulrush, asedge, a grass, and a spike-rush.

The measurements ofstreambank-stabilizing traitscome from a 15 cm-diameterrandom location inside a 1 m2plot established in a pure standof one of the target species. Icounted stem number andmeasured stem lengths in thefield, and collected above-ground plant material and soilsamples to analyze in the lab.Soil samples for root analysiswere collected in four sections,down to 1 m depth wheneverpossible. Now I am deter-mining dry weights of above-ground biomass and preparingroot samples for root lengthand biomass determinations.Soil texture analysis has also

begun.For each site, I will look for

LITERATURE CITEDAbt, S. R., W. P. Clary, and

C. I. Thornton. 1992.Ability of streambed vege-tation to entrap finesediments. Pp. 249-259 in

Interdisciplinary approacllesin 11ydrology andhydrogeology. AmericanInstitute of Hydrology.

Ambasht, R. S. , M. P. Singh,and E. Sharma. 1984. Soil,water and nutrient conserva-tion by certain riparianherbs. Journ-al ofEnvironnlenTal ManagenlenT18:99-104.

Boto, K. C. and W. H.Patrick, Jr. 1979. Role of

77Je Arizona Riparian Council 7 '1' 1.9.97 VoJ. 10, No

interests. A western regionalconference on river manage-ment strategies. 4-6 Feb-

ruary 1993, Albuquerque,NM. US Forest ServiceGen. Tech. Rept. RM-226.Fort Collins, CO.

Temple, D. M. 1982. Flowretardance of submergedgrass channel linings. Trans-actions of the American

Society of AgriculturalEngineers 25:1300-1303.

Tengbeh, G. T. 1989. Theeffect of grass cover on bankerosion. Ph.D. thesis. SilsoeCollege, Cranfield Instituteof Technology, UK.

Van der Leeden, F. , F. 0.Troise, and D. K. Todd.1990. The water encyclo-pedia. 2nd ed. Lewis Pub-lishers, Chelsea, MI.

Waldron, L. J. , and S. Dak-essian. 1981. Soilreinforcement by roots:calculation of increased soilshear resistance from rootproperties. Soil Science132:427-435.

Young blood, A. P. , W. G.Padgett, and A. H. Win-ward. 1985. Ripariancommunity type classi-fication of eastern ldaho-western ~omil1g. USForest Service Reg. 4Ecology 85-0 I. Intermoun-tain Res. Sta., Ogden, UT.

Ziemer, R. R. 1981. Roots andthe stability of forestedslopes. Pp. 343-357 in T.R. H. Davies and A. J.Pearce, eds. Symposium onerosion and sedimenttranspo11 in Pacific Rim

steeplands. Christchurch,New Zealand. Jan 1981.Publ. 132, Inteml. Assoc.of Hydro. Scientists, Paris.

L. Minck1ey. 1984.

Cienegas -vanishingclimax communities of theAmerican Southwest. DesertPlants 6: 131-175.

Knight, A. W., and R. L.Bottorff. 1984. T.he impor-tance of riparian vegetationto stream ecosystems. pp.160-167 in R. F. Warnerand K. M. Hendrix, eds.

California riparian systems:ecology, conservation, and

productive management.University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA .

Medina, A. L., and D. G.Neary. 1995. Geomorph-ological response of amontane riparian habitat tointeractions of ungulates,vegetation, and hydrology.Arizona Riparian CouncilNinth Annual Mtg. 12 May1995. Payson, AZ.

Morgan, R. P. C. 1985. Effectof corn and soybean canopyon soil detachment byrainfall. Transactions qftheAnlerican Socief)7 of

Agricultural En.S!.ineers28: 1135-1140.

O'Loughlin, C. L. 1984.Effectiveness of introducedtorest vegetation for pro-tecting against landslidesand erosion in New Zea-land I s steeplands. Paper at

Symposium on Effects ofForest Land Use on Erosionand Slope Stab;lif)7.Honolulu, HI.

Rosgen, D. L. 1993. Overviewof the rivers in the West.Pp. 8-15 in B. Tellman, H.J. Cortner, M. G. Wallace,L. F. DeBano, and R. H.Hamre, tech. coords.

Riparian management:common threads and shared

wetlands in the removal ofsuspended sediments. Pp.479-489 in P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J. E. Clark,eds. ~tland function.\" andvalues: the state of ourunde rstanding .Proceedingsof the National Symposiumon ~tlands. AmericanWater Resources Assoc-iation, Minneapolis, MN.

Brown, R. G. 1984. Effects ofan urban wetland on sedi-ment and nutrient loads inrunoff. ~tlands 4: 147-158.

Cadwallader, P. L., A. K.Eden, and R. A. Hook.1980. Role of stream sidevegetation as a food sourcefor Galaxias olidus Gunther

(Pisces: Galaxiidae).Australian Journal ofMarine and FreshwaterResources 31 :257-262.

Fisher, S. G., and W. L.Minckley. 1978. Chemicalcharacteristics of a desertstream in flash flood.Journal of AridEn,,'ironments 1:25-33.

Hansen, P. , R. Pfister, J. Joy,D. Svoboda, K. Boggs, L.Myers, S. Chadde, and J.Pierce. 1989. Class(fcatinnand malla..l;'ement l?f ripariansites in soutllwesterllMontalla. Draft version 2.Montana RiparianAssociation, School ofForestry, University ofMontana, Missoula.

Hayes, J. C. , B. J. Barfield,and E. W. Tollner. 1984.Performance of grass filtersunder laboratory and fieldconditions. Tra.n.\"action.\" ofrIle Anlerican Society of

Agricultural Engineers27:1321-1331.

Hendrickson, D. A. , and W.

(Con! from page 2. ..Editor)

Despite Endangered Species Act recognition, flycatcher habitat and individuals continue to be lost. InArizona alone, the USFWS has approved the loss of flycatchers at eight locations since the specieswas listed in early 1995. Fire has also destroyed miles of occupied habitat.

As of 1995, on] y two relati vel y large populations remained in Arizona. Disaster struck in J une thisyear [1996] when wildfire completely burned riparian habitat at the larger of the two along the SanPedro River. Through a wrenching process of elimination, Roosevelt Lake now supports the mostimportant flycatcher population in Arizona.

It came as no surprise when the USFWS, in consultation with the BOR and Phoenix area cities,determined that reservoir filling behind the new Roosevelt Dam would jeopardize the flycatcher. Yetbiologists and conservationists were shocked when the USFWS allowed the filling to proceed alongwith a spendy but deficient mitigation plan, all the while ignoring the most obvious reasonablealternatives.

Mitigation recommended by the USFWS is way off the mark. It involves purchase of an 800-acrehabitat preserve on the San Pedro River, creation of a trust fund to manage this area for the benefit ofthe flycatcher; hiring of a biologist to plan for flycatcher recovery and conservation; continuation offlycatcher research; and cowbird trapping. The inadequacy of these plans is obvious even after themost cursory analysis. First, groundwater pumping is killing the San Pedro River. Even if this trendis miraculously reversed, the 2 flycatcher pairs which occupy the newly purchased area hardly makeup for the 28 pairs, Arizona's largest population, that will be lost with the filling of Roosevelt Lake.Cowbird trapping in the preserve won't help flycatchers that aren't there. Elsewhere, wide-scaleaccess to private lands is not likely to be granted for cowbird trapping. Near future loss of RooseveltLake population, along with the recent loss of the San Pedro River population, will virtually ensureflycatcher extinction, so the idea of hiring a biologist to plan for conservation and recovery is dubiousat best. Most significantly, Congress may ax these mitigation funds at any time in years to come.Such was the case last month [September 1996] when Central Arizona Project (CAP) mitigation fundsfor endangered fish were eliminated during Senate budget negotiations.

Yet this doesn't mean filling of the new reservoir space can never proceed. It must instead bedelayed. It is important to note that water to be stored behind the newly raised dam is not currentlyneeded. Just the opposite, Phoenix area cities chipped in for the dam to insure a lOO-year watersupply for growth as required by State law. Other water is readily available should a short-term needarise. For example, Phoenix area cities could put the CAP to full use and take back Arizona'sColorado River water from California.

This and other reasonable alternatives, such as retiring water intensive farmland and usingRoosevelt's new reservoir space for short-term flood control, clearly exists which will actually benefitthe growth fueled economy of the Phoenix region and the flycatcher. Yet these have been tossed asidein favor of some perceived maximum economic gain. Reclamation must therefore suspend filling ofthe new reservoir until flycatcher population numbers have been stabilized or show signs ofincreasing. If other USFWS and BOR plans are carried out, this will be possible in the very nearfuture.Dave Hogan. Dese11 Rivers Program. Sourh\vest Center for Biologica[ Diversif)'

THE V ALUE OF SAL TCEDAR

TO NESTING SOUTHWESTERN RIPARIAN BIRDS

bv William H. Howe" US. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuaueraue, New Mexico

is dirt or open brushy fields.Ideally, saItcedar should bereplaced by superior habitatslike cottonwood or willowwoodlands, or extensivemesquite bosques. But if that isunlikely, then you may want toreconsider the perceived valueof a clearing operation and beaware that more harm thangood may be done to riparianbird populations, despite one'sgood intentions.

I provide here severalexamples of the extent of usesaltcedar receives by riparianbirds during the nesting seasonas a reminder that saltcedar isnot an avi faunal wasteland .

LOWER COLORADO RIVER

VALLEY

Saltcedar habitats along thisriver receive the lowest birduse of any known southwesternriver, probably due in part to alack of thermal protection fromthe excessively high summertemperatures that would other-wise be ameliorated bycottonwood gallery forests(Hunter 1988). But even there,pure saltcedar stands supportdecent numbers of verdins(Auriparus flaviceps) , Lucy I s

warblers (\Crmivora luciae),yellow-breasted chats (lcteriavirens), blue grosbeaks(Guiraca caerulea), andAbert's towhees (Pipilo

aberti). Honey mesquite(Prosopis glandulosa) with adense saltcedar understoryranked second in use (after

(Cont page 11. ..Birds)

habitats (e.g. , yellow-billedcuckoo [Coccyzus americanus],Bell's vireo [Vireo bellill,summer tanager [Pirangarubra], and six other species onthe lower Colorado River;Rosenberg et al. 1991), effortsto revegetate areas with nativecottonwoods and willows areincreasing as is the desire bymany to find ways to get rid ofthe existing saltcedar.

Although saltcedar is aninferior habitat for riparianbirds relative to native riparianhabitats in most areas (e.g. ,Anderson et al. 1977; Hunteret al. 1988), these habitats areby no means devoid of nestingriparian birds. Avian use ofsaltcedar varies by geographiclocation, elevation, habitatstructure, and whether or notthe stands are pure or aremixed with native trees orshrubs. There is a gradient inthe level of use, ranging fromrelatively very low on thelower Colorado River to fairlyhigh use on the Pecos River ineastern New Mexico (Hunter etal. 1988; Rosenberg et al.

1991).This note is a plea for land

managers to consider thepotential value of the saltcedarhabitats themselves beforelaunching into saltcedarremoval activities. The relativeimportance of saltcedar toriparian birds depends largelyon whether or not it can bereplaced with anything better.Saltcedar is an infinitelypreferable habitat for mostriparian birds if the alternative

T he importance of

southwestern native

lowland cottonwood

(Populus fremontii)and willow (primarily Salixgooddingil) woodlands insupporting the highest breedingdiversity of birds of any habitatin the United States has beenwell documented over the past25 years (e.g., Hubbard 1971;Carothers et al. 1974). As anexample of this incrediblediversity, over 100 species ofbirds (nearly half of NewMexico's breeding avifauna)have been documented nestingin the gallery cottonwoodwoodland along the Rio Grandewithin 50 miles ofAlbuquerque, New Mexico(Hink and Ohmart 1984; pers.observ.). Unfortunately, theconstruction of dams alongnearly all southwestern rivershas resulted in severedegradation or elimination ofmost native riparian woodland,both through the loss offlooding events vital to themaintenance of cottonwood andwillow habitats, and throughthe resulting invasions ofwoody exotic plants such assaltcedar (Tamarix c/linensi.\') atlower elevations and Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)at slightly higher elevations orfarther north (see discussions inKnopf et al. 1988, Rosenberget al. 1991, and Ohmart 1994).Because many species ofcottonwood- or willow-dependent species havedeclined severely, especiallyfrom conversion to saltcedar

The Eleventh Annual Meeting will be held April 11-12, 1997 at the Windemere Resort andConference Center, 2047 S. Highway 92, Sierra Vista, Arizona. The theme of this year's meeting isSaltcedar: Friend or Foe? The meeting will begin with registration at 8-8:30 AM on Friday, April11. The President's Welcome will be at 8:30 AM and be followed by invited speakers in a morningsession with a roundtable discussion. At lunch there will' be an update on environmental issues at theArizona Legislature. The afternoon session will be technical papers. Abstracts are still being acceptedso don't forget to send yours in. Our Friday evening dinner will be at the Windemere. Saturday'sfield trips will include the San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area and one of the nearbyNature Conservancy preserves to see their current. projects.

insect species?

~ What a~ the issues? ~~, ...~ What should be done about them? ~.<;[ What more. do we need to know? ~

~~"\.;:;~:..,N:{ USD~ SALT<;EDAR BIO~O~q~PROGR~.~ :::Wpy y.'as the

J Wh~a~~~,e\,t:,.. .':;:.;.""..::i:::::::',:::~~~.§QN'!ROL

How I

.~, {::lts habitat and dlstnbutloq::::::.:.:: ~

~it? I' ~.::".When is saltce~r bc;!:tefici~.!to wi.IdUf~7...De~flmental tp wildlife?

:'-.,',.:..,... Summary..bfcurreriistateofkriowledge :.

.".'.'.:v..;,-.,-",- Implici1tio~.of.newbi~prittol programs ~:EFFECT OF THE END~GERED.SPECIES'ACT (ESA) ON SALTtEDAR CONTROL

US Fish and Wildlife" Seryice's view of saltcedar with res~ct to the ESAEvidenceofiist~d species using saltcedar :.

Sou th we s te iri.-:wiUo.w..flycatcheL""",,..v,",

Mitigation implications

The Windemere will hold a block of rooms for us until March 11, 1997. Their rates are: Governmentrate, single $53, double $61; Nongovernment rate, single $58, double $66. These rates include taxand full privileges (full breakfast, health club, etc. ; check with hotel for details). Governmentemployees must show their ID for the government rate. Their toll-free number is 800-825-4656.

Please fill out the enclosed form (one per person, please copy). If there is no form, please callCindy at (602) 965-2490, fax (602) 965-8087, or e-mail Cindy.Zisner@asu.edu to obtain one.

Common yellowthroats

(Geothlypis trichas), yellow-breasted chats, and bluegrosbeaks are fairly commonbreeders in the dense stands ofsaltcedar at Bosque del ApacheNational Wildlife Refuge. Atone site, saltcedar in the under-story of Goodding willowstands provides adequate stemdensities for nesting by speciesthat normally place nests inwillow thickets, such as yellowwarbler (Dendroica petechia),willow flycatcher (Empidonaxtraillil) , and possibly Bell'svireo. The above informationis from Hink and Ohmart( 1984) and personal observa-tions.

mockingbirds, Bell's vireos,Lucy's warblers, commonyellowthroats, yellow-breastedchats, summer tanagers, blue

grosbeaks, painted buntings(Passerina ciris), and orchardorioles (Icterus spurius). Theabove information is fromEngel- Wilson and Ohmart

(1979).

(Contfrom 9...Birds)Goodding willow) by Bell'svireos, and contained thehighest densities of yellow- ,

breasted chats in the valley.Screwbean mesquite (Prosopispubescens) with a dense under-story of saltcedar containsabsolutely massive numbers of

nesting white-winged (Zenaidaasiatica) and mourning doves(Z. macroura) plus some of theother species mentioned above.This information is fromRosenberg et al. (1991).

LOWER PECOS RIVER,

NEW MEXiCO

MIDDLE RiO GRANDEVALLEY, NEW MEXiCO

RiO GRANDE VALLEY

NEAR PRESIDIO, TEXAS

In this area, saltcedarsavannah is used during thebreeding season by goodnumbers of mourning doves,

blue-gray gnatcatchers(Polioptila caerulea, the onlynesting birds in the valley),northern mockingbirds (Mimuspolyglottos), crissal thrashers(To.t"ostoma dorsale), black-headed grosbeaks (Pheucticusmelanocephalus), blue gros-beaks, and lark sparrows

(Chondestes grammacus).

Large numbers of white-winged and mourning dovesnest in these pure stands ofsaltcedar, as do moderatenumbers of black-chinned

hummingbirds (Archilochusale.\"andri), ash-throated

flycatchers (Myiarchuscinerascens), verdins, northern

.c=:::i

-ob..~I.

~

4~ ~hO. #

HAVDEN.-.~1J

~

~..l.FORT

Irl!'l OM A

T

"1~

Saltcedar along this riverreceives the highest use bybirds yet documented. In somecases the avian densities anddiversities are close to thatfound in the ( decadent)cottonwood bosques in thisstretch. Censuses during thebreeding season have foundhigh-to-moderate numbers of

ring-necked pheasant(Phasianus colchicus),mourning dove, yellow-billedcuckoo, greater roadrunner( GeococC}.x californianus) ,northern mockingbird, crissalthrasher, yellow-breasted chat,blue grosbeak, painted bunting,spotted towhee (Pipiloerythrophthalmus), and(predictably) brown-headedcowbird (Molothrus ater).

Additionally, observationsin the above studies havedetected fair to moderate use ofsaltcedar during migration bymany species of insectivores,especially in areas where thereis little or no other woodyriparian vegetation. However ,those studies have revealed thatsaltcedar is little used duringwinter by birds in any of theriver systems relative to otherhabitats.

Many of the above speciesare those we normally associatewith native cottonwood,Study areas along major southv.Jestern rivers. Map is from Hunter

(1988). -

will result. The aboveinformation is fromHildebrandt and Ohmart(1982), Hunter et al. (1988),and personal observation.

LITERATURE CITED

willow, or mesquite wood-lands, and several of them arewithout doubt doing poorly asa result of the widespread lossof those habitats (e.g.,yellow-billed cuckoo, willow

flycatcher, yellow warbler}.However, the number ofspecies of birds that use salt-cedar is an impressive subset ofthose using native riparian

habitats, though nearly alwaysin smaller numbers. Importantquestions as yet unansweredare how breeding success ofbirds nesting in saltcedarcompares with those nesting incottonwood/willow habitats,whether or not saltcedar is asource or sink habitat, and howeither of those may varygeographically or by the size ofthe vegetation patch.

Given the lack of floodingand high soil salinity levelsalong most southwesternrivers, our ability to reestablishnative cottonwoods andwillows either naturally orartificially has been seriouslyimpaired. At many locationssaltcedar may be the mostproductive riparian habitat thatcan be hoped for under current

hydrologic regimes. Althoughit will never be as valuable forbirds as are cottonwood orwillow habitats, saltcedarhabitats are potentially valuablefor a good number of riparianbirds, and stands should not beautomatically cleared or killedexcept in those instances wherewe know that better habitats

biological survey finalreport. U .S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Albuquerque,New Mexico.

Hubbard, J.P. 1971. Thesummer birds of the GilaValley, New Mexico.Nemouria No.2.

Hunter, W. C. 1988.Dynamics of bird speciesassemblages along a climaticgradient: a Grinnellian nicheapproach. Master's Thesis,unpubl., Department ofZoology, Arizona State

University, Tempe,Arizona.

Hunter, W. C., R. D. Ohmart,and B. W. Anderson. 1988.Use of exotic saltcedar(Tamarix cJiinensis) in aridriparian systems. Condor 90(1): 113-123.

Knopf, F. L., R. R. Johnson,T. Rich, F. B. Samson, andR. C. Szaro. 1988.Conservation of riparianecosystems in the UnitedStates. Wilson Bulletin

100(2):272-284.Ohmart, R. D. 1994. The

effects of human-inducedchanges on the avifauna ofwestern riparian habitats.Studies in A vian BiologyNo.15:273-285.

Rosenberg, K. V., R. D.Ohmart, W .C. Hunter, andB. W. Anderson. 1991.Birds of the Lower ColoradoRiver Valley. UniversityofArizona Press, Tucson,Arizona.

Anderson, B. W., A. E.Higgins, and R. D. Ohmart.1977. Avian use of saltcedarcommunities in the lowerColorado River valley.U.S. Dep. Agric. For .Serv .Gen. Tech. Rep.RM-43:146-155.

Carothers, S. W., R. R.Johnson, and S. W.Aitchison. 1974. Populationstructure and socialorganization of southwesternriparian birds. AmericanZoologist 14:97-108.

Engel- Wilson, R. W. , and R.D. Ohmart. 1979. Floraland attendant faunal changeson the lower Rio Grandebetween Fort Quitman andPresidio, Texas. U.S. Dep.Agric. For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep.WO-12:139-147.

Hildebrandt, T. D. and R. D.Ohmart. 1982. Biologicalresource inventory(vegetation and wildlife) -

Pecos River Basin, NewMexico and Texas. Finalreport to U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, Amarillo,Texas.

Rink, V. and R. D. Ohmart.1984. Middle Rio Grande

SPECIES PROFILE

SAL TCEDAR AND A THEL TAMARISK

bv Donald J. Pinkava Arizona Srare Universirv

T here are 54 species

(Baum 1967) of

Tamarix L. (Tamari-caceae) native to

desert, semi-desert and steppeareas of Europe, Asia, theMiddle East, northern Africa(coastal landscapes) but even inmountains to 1 ,200-2, 100(-2800) m altitude; disjunct inCanary Islands and SouthAfrica (Gorschkova 1949,Baum 1967) .Representativesare utilized as fine ornamentalplants; for afforestation,particularlyon sands andsaline/alkaline soils; as honeyplants; as a dense hard woodsuitable for the lathe; astanning material; and medi-cinally for rheumatism,hemorrhage and ailing spleen

(Gorschkova 1949).Tamarix L. are much

branched trees or shrubs. Thebranches are fine, lace-like orcedar-like with alternate, scale-like leaves that are 1- 7 mmlong, crowded, sessile andclasping part way around stemor the base ensheathing thestem. These branches also bearsalt-secreting glands. Inflores-cence of simple or compoundracemes or panicles. Flowersperfect, 1.5-3 (-5) mm indiameter, bracteate; calyx 0.5-2.5 mm long, coriaceous orfleshy, usually deeply four-five-parted, the lobes ovate tolanceolate to suborbicular,acute to obtuse; petals 1.3-5mm long, usually four-five,

Loureiro or a cluster ofspecies) growing to 6+m tallhas overtaken wetlands to theextent that it reseeds itself andforms its own habitat whichvirtually excludes all otherspecies over extensive areas.

The taxonomy of thisspecies group is complex andneeds much study. A cursoryreview indicates that 7: chinen-si.\. probably includes 7: ramo-sissima Ledebour as describedfor North American material(see also Wilken 1993), withintermediates known (Baum1967). They differ (Baum1967) by the latter having den-ticulate sepals (vs :t entire)petals obovate (vs elliptic toovate), all flowers with all fivefilaments inserted beneath diskand between its lobes (vs only3-4 and only on just flowersborne on green branches).Also, Ta.111arix parviflora DC.has been reported for Arizonabut it has 4-merous flowers,occasionally with more thanfour filaments, all of them asextensions of the lobes of thedisk.

Salt is secreted fromspecialized glands on thesurfaces of leaves and branch-lets of Saltcedar, a name firstapplied for Tamarisk by J. J.Thomber in the early 1900's(Horton 1964 ) .Campbell andStrong (1964) describes the saltglands as distinct eight-celledstructures derived from a singleprotoderm cell that divides

persistent or deciduous, ovateto oblong to elliptic, dull whiteor rose to lavender, rarelyscarlet or red, commonlyinequilateral, the apices obtuseto emarginate, erect orspreading; stamens usuallyfour-five, distinct, thefilaments slender to basallyenlarged , attached to sub-ovarian disk; pistil one,apically oblong-elliptic, conicor bottle-shaped; styles three-four, much shorter than theovary, capitate. Fruit a cap-

sule, 3-5-seeded, pyramidalwith three valves dehiscing tobase. Seeds 0.5-0.7 mm long,

narrowly obovoid, ::tcompress-ed, comose with white hairs.

About six to eight speciesare introduced to NorthAmerica as cultivars. Somehave become aggressive weedyshrubs in wetlands. Earliestintroductions, apparently forhorticulture and documented bygarden catalogs and/or herbar-ium specimens are detailed byHorton (1964). There are twospecies of note in Arizona,though others have beenreported. A thel , Tal1la ri.\"apllylla (L.) Karsten, forms atree up to 12 m tall and hasrounded sepals and leaves thatare basally ensheathing thestem, abruptly pointed and notoverlapping. It is planted forwindbreaks, shade, and orna-ment; it rarely reseeds itself.The other, a deciduous shrubspecies (Tanlarix chinensis

Campbell, C. J., and J. E. Strong.1964. Salt gland anatomy inTamarix pentandra (Tamarica-ceae). Sl;Iuthwestern Naturalist9:232-238.

Gosrschkova, S. G. 1957. SaltCedars (Tamarix, Tamarica-ceae) of the Soviet Union.Translation and commentary byL. H. Shinners. SouthwesternNaturalist 2:48-73.

Horton, J. S. 1964. Notes on theintroduction of deciduousTamarisk. USDA, ForestService Research Note RM-16:1-7.

Horton, J. S., and J. H. Flood.1962. Taxonomic notes onTamarix pentandra in Arizona.Southwe.\.'ern Naturali.\., 7:23-28.

Horton, J. S. , F. C. Mount.<;, andJ. M. Kraft. 1960. Seedgermin-ation and .\.eedling establishment

of phreatophyte species. RockyMountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station P.aper No.48: 1-26.

Thomson, W. W. , W. L. &rryand L. L. Liu. 1969. Local-ization and s~cretion of salt bysalt glands of Tamarb: aph.vlla.Proceeding.\. £ifthe NationalAcaden1)' Science.\. 63: 310-317.

Wilken, D. H. 1993. Tamarica-c~ae, Tamarisk family. Pag~1080 in J. C. Hickman (~d.),771e Jepson Manual. HigherPlant.\. (!fCalijornia. Universityof Calitl)rnia Pr~ss, &rkel~y.

GLOSSARY

vertically into two, eachdividing horizontally into twoadjacent of four cells. Usuallythe glands occur in pits butsometimes rise above thesurface and are bounded bycuticle and thick-walledepidermal cells, thus differingfrom only the two guard cellsof the stomate with thinsurrounding walls.

Thomson et al. ( 1969)conclude that the major path-way of salt movement into andwithin the gland is probably

through plasmodesmata, tinyconnections of cytoplaststhrough the cell walls ofadjacent cells. The saltsaccumulate in the micro-vacuoles which move salts topores at apex of gland and aresecreted externally. There is noconnection between the glandand the vascular system .

Tamarisks are phreatophyteswith roots connecting to sub-surface water. Seeds are pro-duced over the long floweringseason. The seeds are smalland are dispersed by wind andwater. Horton et al. ( 1960)report that the seeds are viablefor only a few weeks. Freshseeds germinate in less than 24hours on water or saturatedsoils. Seedlings grow slowly,depend on saturated soils,especially during the first 2-4weeks of growth. One way ofcontrolling the spread oftamarisk may depend uponreducing or preventing survivalof seedlings.

LITERATURE CITED

Baum, B. R. 1967. Introduced andnaturalized Tamarisks in theUnited States and Canada[Tamaricaceae] .Bail£')'a 15 :19-25.

Apicmly -At thc pointed end: at the

tip.Bracteate -Ha\'ing bracts \\.hich are

reduced or modified leaves.Cal~'X -The outer envelope of a

flower, usuall~1 green and offinner texture than the corolla.

Capitate -Headlike.Comose -Having a tuft of hairs.Coriaceous -Leathel")', thick, and

tough.Corolla -The inner floral envelope,

\\.hen different from the cal)'X intexture and color.

Cor)mb -a flat-toppcd or convexopen inflorescence, with flowersopening successivcly toward thecentcr.

Denticulate -Very small teeth.Emarginate -Notched, usually at the

tip.Filaments -The stalk of an anther,

which is the enlarged pollen-containing part of a stamen ormale part of the flower.

G)11ecium -The pistil or pistils

collectively.Inflorescence -The flowers

collectively when not solitary.Lanceolate -Narrow and tapering to

the tip, broadest below themiddle.

Meristem -the gro\ving point orarea of rapidly dividing cells atthc tip of a stem, root, or branch.

Obovoid -Inverscly egg-shappcd.Ovate -Flat but having the outline

of an egg. bcing broadest bclowthe middle.

Paniclc -A compound inOorcsencccompascd or sc\'cral raccmcs,cor)mbs, ctc.

Pcdiccl -Thc stalk or a singlcOo\\.cr.

Petiolc -Thc foot stalk or a Icaf.Pistil- Fcmalc part ofthc Oo\vcr,

comprising thc ovar)'. stylc \\.hcnprcscnt. and stigma,

Protodcrm ccll -Thc outer laycr orthc mcristcm, from \\"hich thcepidcmlis is fomlcd.

Raceme -An unbranched.indctcrminate, more or lesselongate intloresccnce \vithpcdicclled Oo\\'crs.

Scpal -One of the segments of thecal~ 'X or outer envelope of aflo\ver.

Sessile -Not stalked. \vithout apetiole, pedicel, or stipe.

Stignla- The apical part of the pistilon \vhich the pollen is depositedand germinates.

Stipe- In ferns, the stalk of a frond~the stalk of a pistil or g)rnecium:the stalk of an anther cell.

St)1e -The portion of the pistil,above the ovary, that supportsthe stigma.

Suborbicular -Somewhat Oat and ofcircular outline.

LEGAL ISSUES OF CONCERN

Chris \bmo.s" and David Nel.s"on, Law Offices of Kane Jorden \'on Oppenfeld Bischoff &

Biskind, P:L. C.

ARIZONA'S SOIL REMEDIATION AND GROUND WATER CLEANUP TASK FORCES

~he Arizona Legislatureenacted major revisionsto the Arizona WaterQuality Assurance

Revolving Fund (WQARF) pro-gram during the 1996 session. TheFund is Arizona's Superfundprogram and authorizes theArizona Department of Environ-mental Quality (ADEQ) to forceresponsible parties to clean upwaste sites that threaten waters ofthe State, or alternatively, allowsADEQ to conduct the remedialactions and recover costs from theresp<)n...ible parties. With thecreation of the soil remediationactions and recover costs from therespon...ible parties. With thecreation of the Soil Remediationand Ground Water Cleanup TaskForces, the Legislature hopes toret{)rm the current WQARF pro-gram into a more streamlined,~ftiL"ient. and L"ost-eft"ectiv~program that will result in moreexpedient and proteL"tive cleanups.

SOIL REMEDIATION

TASK FORCE

Unlike the HBGLs, the Region IXstandards take into consideration an"inhalation pathWdy," which ~uldcome from the volatilization of soilcontaminan~. Additionally, thestandards are based on an excesscancer risk factor for knowncarcinogens of 10-6, which is moreprotective than the HBGL's level of10-5 for certain carcinogens.

The practical effect of DirectorRhoades' proposal is that some soilcleanup levels recommended by theTask Force will increase and somelevels will fall. For example, theinterim resid~ntial HBGLrecommended by the Task Forcefor henzene is 47.00 mg/L. Usingthe EPA Region IX levels, ~nzenemust be remediated to a level of0.62 mg/L. This ~uld ~ ~xpcctedfrom the inclusion of the airpathWdy for the highly volatilecharact~ristics of benzene. How-ever, using th~ EPA Region IXm~th(1dology, the volatile organicPCE will not have to be re mediatedas extensiv~ly as th~ Task Forcerecomm~nded. The interimresidential HBGL tl)r PCE is 27.00mg/L. R~gion IX proposes acl~anup l~v~1 of only 53.00 mg/Ldue to th~ likeliho(1d that PCE willadsorb to soil particles and notenter th~ air pathWdy.

Curr~ntly, the Task Forcerecommended HBGLs are still ineftect and Director Rhoades'proposal should not be relied on forremediation levels. The ArizonaLegislature mandated a final rulefrom ADEQ by August 1,1997.

Th~ Soil R~mediation TaskForc~ was created to establish theminimum concentration levels ofharmful substances that mayr~main in soil following environ-m~ntal cl~anups. In r~cent years,various soil remediation programsadminister~d by ADEQ utilizeddifterent re mediation standardsand, according to ADEQ, theresulting array of standards caused

delayed remediations, unpredic-table outcomes, inconsistentresults, and a general lack ofvoluntary remediations. TheArizona Legislature responded toADEQ's concerns by enacting arequirement that uniform standardsbe adopted that will be applicable

GROUND WATER

CLEANUP TASK FORCE

As enacted in 1986, WQARFheld responsible parties "jointly andseverally liable" for remedial actioncosts. This meant that ADEQ could

to all soil remediations'overseen byADEQ, including those conductedunder Arizona's WQARF program.

The soil re mediation standardsare to be developed based onrecommendations from the SoilRemediation Task Force. The finalstandards must establishpredetermined risk-basedremediation levels for variouspollutants, as well as guidance onmethods for calculating levels thatare custom-tailored to particularsites based on the risk to humanhealth. Separate predeterminedlevels tor each pollutant must heestahlished t{)r resid~ntial anJnonresid~ntial property. Th~requirem~nt-; applicahl~ to resiJen-tial prop~rty ar~ to he morestring~nt to account t{)r theincrea~~J human contact with soilthat may he ~xpect~J where pel)pleliv~, especially chilJren. If ~l)il isr~m~Jiat~J to m~~t th~ I~s~~tring~nt rn)nresid~ntial stanJarJs,th~ property own~r must fil~ withth~ Cl)Unty r~cord~r a u~e r~stril:-tion limiting the property to non-resid~ntial use. If th~ prl)p~rty islat~r meant t()r resiJ~ntial us~, th~own~r must first remediat~ to th~stril:t~r resiJ~ntial standards betl)rechanging th~ property's use.

At a meeting of the SoilR~m~diation Task Forc~ h~ld on

September 30, 1996, ADEQDirector Russell Rhoad~sannounced that after review of theinterim H~alth Based GuidanceLevels (HBGLs) recommended bythe Task Force, he was proposingto replace the Task Force'srecommendations with difterentstandards based on the narrowlyaccepted Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Region IX cleanupstandards. (Region IX of the EPAhas jurisdiction over Arizona,California, Nevada, and Hawaii.)

The findings and recommendationsof the Task Force should bepresented to the State Legislature.

The mandated deadlines forboth the final soil re mediationstandards and the suspension ofjoint liability are just around thecorner. The State Legislature andADEQ still have much ~rk aheadof them to achieve the goal of amore ~rkable cleanup program.For more information, contact Rolfvon Oppenfeld or the authors at(602) 955-9200.

program this year was therescinding of joint liability untilJuly 31, 1997. The Ground WaterCleanup Task Force was created inpart to investigate how torestructure WQARF without theneed for joint liability.Additionally, the Task Farce willbe examining issues such asmechanisms to increase publicparticipation in remediationactivities, obtaining dedicatedfunding for the WQARF program,and prioritizing sites for cleanup.

hold one or a few partiesresponsible tor the entire cost ofcleanup. The burden would shift tothose named parties, rather thanADEQ, to seek contribution forcleanup costs from other potentiallyresponsible parties. Oftentimesjoint liability would cause thenamed parties to be responsible for"orphan share liability," which isthat liability attributable toinsolvent parties or responsibleparties that cannot be located.

A major change to the WQARF

AWPF COMMISSION SHELLS OUT $5.4 MILLION

of Phoenix, received the largestindividual grant of $1 ,000,()()()from the AWPF. The projectedtotal funding amount for the TresRio Project is $5,()()(),000.

projects funding totaled $254,255or approximately 4.7% of theoverall grant funding. Theremaining 25 projects that werefunded were selected from theWater Acquisition, CapitalProjects, and Other category. Atotal of $5, 174,167 was committedto projects within this category. Noproject~ were selected from theWat~r Cons~rvation cat~gory.

Four projects from the Researchcategory were selected for fundingfrom the 16 research grantapplications received by the AWPFCommis!\ion. The selected research

T he Arizona Water

Protection Fund

(AWPF) recentlyselected 29 of 70

projects for funding for the 1996funding cycle. The 70 AWPF

application funding requ~stsexceeded $14.2 million. Fundingrequests for the 29 selected projectstotaled $5,428,422. The Tres Rio-River Management andConstruct~d W~tlands Project. City

THIRD ANNUAL EDUCATOR'S INSTITUTE

TO BE HELD AT HASSAYAMPA RIVER PRESERVE

T he Arizona Nature

Con.<;ervancy's

Hassayampa RivcrPreserve, through the.

ge.nerosity of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, is offering atwo-day REEP Educator's Instituteon Riparian Ecology. (REEP is the.acronym for Riparian EcologyEducation Program.) This thirdannual Institute is designed to helpteachers of all levels and subjectareas gain a greater understandingof one of Arizona's most unique

(8:30A-5:30P) and March 2(8:30A-2:30P). All attendees \\illrec~iv~ a copy of the Preserv~'sREEP curriculum tor use in theirclassrooms. Spac~ is limit~d to 20participants. The registration fe~ of$25 includes lunch tor both days.

For information or to register,call Carol Weeks, InterpretiveServices Coordinator at (520) 684-2772 or write to her at HassayampaRiver Pr~s~rve, PO Box 3290,Wickenburg, AZ 85228.

and beautiful ecosystems. Hands-onand "feet-in" activities will beconducted at the Preserve to traineducators in techniques to teachriparian ecology to their students.

Participants will explore thesignificance of biodiversity and therelationships between the manyspecies found in riparian areas.They will also participate in aproblem-solving exercise based onreal-Iife management issues. TheInstitute is scheduled for March 1

NOTEWORTHY PUBLICATIONS

by Ron Tiller

Anderson, B. W. 1996. Salt cedar,revegetation and riparian ecosystems inthe Southwest. Pages 32-42 in J.E.Lovich, J. Randall, and M.D. Kelly(eds.). Proceedings of the CaliforniaExotic Pest Plant Control Council,Symposium '95.

calculated for herbaceous and woody plantspecies, cover of plants within wetlandindicator groups, and frequency of indicatorplant species. The authors propose that theserelationships can be used in a space-for-timesubstitution to predict consequences ofgroundwater decline.

Collier, M., R.H. Webb, and J.C. Schmidt.1996. Dams and Rivers: Primer on theDownstream Effects of Dams. U.S.Geological Survey. Circular 1126.Thcson, Arizona. 89 p.

This paper provides soil data indicating thatsaltcedar is widespread in arid land riversystems because it is better adapted than nativespecies to the suite of abiotic factors currentlyfound in many river systems. It providesevidence that saltcedar removal followed byrevegetation with native tree species is oftennot and cannot be expected to be successfulbecause the balance of autecological variablesnow favor saltcedar over native species.Accordingly, revegetation efforts can beexpected to have lower wildlife use values thanthe stands of saltcedar they replace, unlesscareful consideration is given to thispossibility. The author states that whererevegetation sites are prudently selected on thebasis of autecological factors present, nativespecies can be successfully reintroduced andthat habitats resulting from these efforts can bebetter than saltcedar as wildlife habitat.[Proceedings from This nleetin..~ can be obTainedby .rending $10 to CalEPPC '95 Proceedings,P. 0. Box 15575, Sacramel1to, CA 95852-

0575.]

This circular explores the emergingscientific arena of change in rivers belowdams. This science tries to understand and thenanticipate changes to river beds and banks, andto riparian habitats and animal communities.The authors illustrate that these downstreamchanges can be influenced by specific changesof dam management. This circular first looks ata free-flowing river, the upper Salt River ofArizona, and its natural cycles of flow andsedimentation. It then examines six regulatedrivers: the Snake, Rio Grande, Chattahoochee,Platte, Green and Colorado. Each of theserivers highlights a particular downstreameffect. This document closes with a discussionon the role of science in managing dams.[Copies of this report can be obtainedfree ofcharge from the U.S. Geological Sun'ey,Branclllnformation Sen'ices, Box 25286,Denver, CO 80225.}Stromberg, l.C., R. Tiller, and B. Richter.

1996. Effects of groundwater decline onriparian vegetation of semiarid regions:The San Pedro, Arizona. EcologicalApplications 6(1):113-131.

Ellis, L. M., M. C. MoUes, Jr., and C. S.Crawford. 1996. Seasonal flooding andriparian forest restoration in the middleRio Grande Valley. Final Report to U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, New MexicoEcological Services Field Office,Albuquerque, New Mexico. 53 p.

This paper demonstrates the important roleof shallow groundwater in structuring the SanPedro River plant community, portions ofwhich function as reference areas for a globallyrare forest type (Sonoran riparian Popu./us-Salix forests). Several ecological indicatorsvaried with depth to groundwater, including aweighted average wetland indicator score

Water management and flow regulationalong the middle Rio Grande during thiscentury has decoupled the linkage between thefloodplain and the river and has resulted in

extensive changes in the riparian forestecosystem. The elimination of flooding hasdisrupted the functional integrity of thesedisconnected forests and has contributed to thedecline of the Rio Grande Valley cottonwood.This study suggests that reestablishing a regimeof seasonal flooding in the cottonwood forest,known locally as the bosque, lining the middleRio Grande will initiate a reorganization phaseof restoration characterized by distinct changesin biological populations and ecologicalprocesses. Three years of experimental,seasonal flooding at the Bosque del ApacheNational Wildlife Refuge in central NewMexico increased leaf and wood decom-position, growth of mature cottonwood trees,and populations of soil bacteria and fungi, andalso initiated a restructuring of surface-active

arthropod populations. Groundwater chemistrychanges suggested that overland flooding beganto decrease the accumulation of carbon on theforest floor by saturating organic litter;concurrently, ammonium-rich water was madeavailable for soil microflora and sorptiveprocesses in this previously nitrogen-limitedsystem. Comparisons with a naturally-floodedbosque provided estimates of steady-stateconditions within the riparian forest. Data fromthis site suggest that long-term annual floodingsignificantly decreases the accumulation ofwood and leaf litter on the forest floor. Basedon the results of these studies, the authorsconclude by making several recommendationsfor restoring the middle Rio Grande riparian

ecosystem.

VOLUNTEER CORNER

If this newsletter reaches you in time, a group of individuals is very interested in cleaning up VelkolWash near Maricopa, Arizona. The cleanup day is scheduled for Saturday, February 15, 1997.Assemble at 9 AM in the RV parking lot of the Ak Chin Casino about 3 miles south of the town ofMaricopa. Training of pickup crews and materials will be provided.

We can always use volunteers to help at the meetings and workshops. Volunteers are also needed tohelp exhibit our booth at educational fairs. Please contact Cindy and she'll put you in touch with the

proper committee chair.

A possible cleanup and restoration project is being worked on with the Arizona Department ofTransportation in the Tempe/Phoenix area. If you'd like to know more or volunteer to help pleasecontact Kris Randall or Cindy Zisner or talk to us at the spring meeting.

The Arizona Riparian Council (ARC) wasformed in 1986 as a result of the increasingconcern over the alarming rate of loss ofArizona's riparian areas. It is estimatedthat < 10% of Arizona's original riparianacreage remains in its natural form. Thesehabitats are considered Arizona's most rarenatural communities.

The Arizona Riparian Council

: Officers

Ruth Valencia, President. (602) 345-95581

cemntshu@aol.comMarie Sullivd.n, Vice President. ..(916) 976-2760

Marie. Sullivan@fws. gov I

Cindy Zisner, Secretary (602) 965-2490

Cindy.Zisner@asu.eduDiane Laush, Treasurer. (602) 395-5694

The purpose of the Council is to providefor the exchange of information on thestatus protection, and management ofriparian systems in Arizona. The term"riparian" is intended to includevegetation, habitats, or ecosystems that areassociated with bodies of water (streams orlakes) or are dependent on the existence ofperennial or ephemeral surface orsubsurface water drainage. Any person ororganization interested in the management,protection, or scientific study of ripariansystems, or some related phase of riparianconservation is eligible for membership.Annual dues (January-December) are $15.Additional contributions are gratefully

accepted.

! At-Large Board Members

Matt Chew (602) 542-2148

mchew@pr. state. az. us

(602) 981-9400X222

(602) 965-0868 !

shafroth@asu.edu

Russ Haughey

Pat Shafroth

This newsletter is published three times ayear to communicate current events,issues, problems, and progress involvingriparian systems, to inform members aboutCouncil business, and to provide a forumfor you to express your views or newsabout riparian topics. The next issue willbe mailed in May with the deadline forsubmittal of articles April 15, 1997. Pleasecall or write with suggestions, publicationsfor review, announcements, articles, and/or illustrations.

Committee Chairs

Classification/InventoryIRoy Jemison (505) 776-2384

/S=R.JEMISON/OUl =S28L01A@rnhs-ifswa.attmail.com ;

Education

Cindy Zisner (602) 965-2490

Land Use

MaryJakle (.. .

1I Protect~on/Enhancement ,..- ~ ~ '-KrlS Randall. BillWemer :

(602) 870-67641

(602) 207-451°1(602) 789-3607

bwerner@gf.state.az.usWater Resources

Jeff Inwood @2) 263-95221

Jeff lnwoodC/O ASL

1130 E Missouri #110Phoenix AZ 85014

(602) 263-9522or

Cindy D. ZisnerCenter for Environmental Studies

Arizona State UniversityPO Box 873211

Tempe AZ 85287-3211(602) 965-2490; FAX (602) 965-8087

E-Mail: Cindy.Zisner@asu.edu

The Arizona Riparian Council 20 ,;\ ' 1997 Vol. 10, No.1

CALENDAR

Educator's Institute on Riparian Ecology, March 1-2, 1997, HassayampaRiver Preserve, Wickenburg, Arizona. See information inside page 16. Contact

Carol Weeks for more information (520) 684-2772.

Eleventh Annual Arizona Riparian Council Meeting, April 11-12, 1997,Windemere Resort and Conference Center, Sierra Vista, Arizona. Seeinformation inside page 11. Contact Cindy Zisner for registration information

(602) 965-2490.

The Soil and Waster Conservation Society Conference: Cover Crops, SoilQuality, and Ecosystems, March 12-14, 1997, Sacramento. California. ContactNacny Herselius, SWCS, 7515 NE Ankeny Rd, Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764;(515) 289-2331 X18 or (800) 843- 7645 X18.

Fifth National Watershed Conference. May 18-20, 1997, Nugget Hotel,Reno, Nevada. Contact John Peterson, National Watershed Coalition, 9304Lundy Court, Burke, Virginia 22015-3431, (703) 455-4387.

BT5 1005Center for Environmental StudiesArizona Riparian CouncilArizona State UniversityPO Box 873211Tempe. AZ 85287-3211

~

"t., Printed on recycled paper