tamarix beetles and lizards valuating the ......saltcedars (tamarix: tamaricaceae) in the western...

Figure 1. Adult tamarisk leaf beetle(photo by Heather Bateman).

Inside This IssuePresident’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Photo Contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Species Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7We Need You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13River Rally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Volume 23, No. 1-2 September 2010

TAMARIX, BEETLES, AND LIZARDS: EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF BIOCONTROL ON HERPETOFAUNAby Heather L. BatemanDepartment of Applied Sciences and Mathematics, Arizona State University-Polytechnic

INTRODUCTION

Riparian areas of floodplainstypically provide a mosaicof productive habitats

(Stanford et al. 2005, Latterell etal. 2006), which support manyspecies of wildlife, particularly insemi-arid regions. Within thesouthwestern United States, non-native saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) isthe third most frequently occurringwoody plant in riparian areas(Friedman et al. 2005). Resourcemanagers can control saltcedarinvasion using a suite of tech-niques, including chemical herbi-cides (Duncan and McDaniel1998), mechanical removal, andburning (DiTomaso 1998). Altera-tions to riparian areas throughactivities to control nonnativeplants have the potential to impacta variety of habitat types used bywildlife (Bateman et al. 2008a,Bateman et al. 2008b). In 2001,the tamarisk leaf beetle (Coleop-tera: Chrysomelidae Diorhabdaspp.; Fig. 1), a biological controlagent, was field tested and releasedin several states in the West tocontrol saltcedar throughdefoliation (DeLoach et al. 2003).Currently, the leaf beetle isbeginning to enter the lowerVirgin River system on theArizona/Nevada border. Beetleswere moved by managers to St.George, Utah in 2006 and havedispersed downstream. During thissummer, beetles are poised to

defoliate saltcedar across theVirgin River Valley.

Beetles are active from springto fall and adults and larvae can befound in the leaf litter below salt-cedar. Therefore, there is ampleopportunity for adult and larvaeleaf beetles to overlap with wild-life foraging in vegetation nearground level. Beetles scrape the

foliage of saltcedar, causing it todry out, but this defoliation cantake several years to kill theplant. Understanding theimpacts of leaf beetle biologicalcontrol has not been completelyaddressed in terms of effects onvertebrate fauna and other com-ponents of the ecosystem. Sev-eral research teams from Uni-versity of California SantaBarbara, University of Utah,and the U.S. Geological Survey

are investigating impacts ofbiocontrol on such elements aswildlife, arthropod, and nativeplant communities. My researchlab is investigating the potentialimpacts of biocontrol on herpeto-fauna in riparian areas, by deter-mining the degree to which speciesof lizards prey on leaf beetles andhow reptile abundances relate tomicrohabitat characteristics of siteswhere leaf beetles have been intro-duced. Our objectives are to 1)determine if species of lizards preyon leaf beetles and if they have apreference for adults or larvaecompared to other arthropods, and2) determine how herpetofaunacommunity structure (both in termsof species richness and speciesabundance) differs among sitesbefore and following beetleestablishment.

METHODS We established eight field sites

including four saltcedar-dominatedriparian areas and four mixed Cont. pg. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . Beetles

The Arizona Riparian Council 2 2010 Vol. 23 No. 1-2

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Did you know that Earth Daycelebrated its 40th anniver-sary this year? I did not

really celebrate on its official dayof April 22. Instead I went to workand did my usual routine. How-ever, that weekend I did helpconstruct an outdoor classroom.Did you do anything to celebratethis day?

I know that between workduties and the needs of our fam-ilies we are all busy. I suggest thatonce in a while you take a momentand look at the natural world welive in. Look at the waves of waterthat lap up on the shoreline. Orwatch a hawk that glides on athermal of air. Or sit under theshade of a big cottonwood tree andwatch how sunlight peeks throughthe branches.

On days when I am feelingoverwhelmed with budgets,reports, and every-day life, I findif I turn my thoughts to nature,things slow down – kind of like ascene from the Matrix. Recon-necting with nature helps meremember to why I chose to workin the field of biology.

It is interesting to think aboutwhat kinds of things were hap-pening when Earth Day wasstarted in 1970. Many of the fed-eral laws we work with todaycame on to the scene. The Nation-al Environmental Policy Act,created in 1969; the Clean Air Actwas signed in 1970; the FederalWater Pollution Control Amend-ments was signed in 1972 and latermajor amendments were enactedin 1977 as the Clean Water Act;and the Endangered Species Actwas signed in 1973. Do you thinkwe cared more about the environ-ment back in the 1970s than we donow? Or was it a different genera-tion and with different values?Sixteen years after Earth Day theArizona Riparian Council wasformed in 1986. It began out ofconcern for protecting andpreserving valuable riparian habi-

tats. That concern is still importanttoday.

The ARC Board of Directors isplanning the next annual meeting.Our 2010 meeting just did notcome together. I know I gotextremely busy with the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act,aka Economic Stimulus (anotherfederal program I would rather notgroup with the above-mentionedprograms). So the Board thoughthaving the 2011 meeting in Yumaas we planned would still be agood idea.

There are several issuesworthy of discussion for ourmeeting. There are wetland andriparian restoration projects thatare on-going in Yuma. Inter-national issues concerning the flowof the Colorado River into Mexico.Wildlife concerns in nearby areassuch as the Salton Sea, to name afew. Please send us an email andlet us know what you think abouthaving our 2011 meeting in Yuma.Knowing that ARC members areinterested in attending this annualmeeting will help us in ourplanning. Please know that youare always welcome to help withthe planning. We would love tohear from you.

The Fall Campout and Get-Together Meeting will be October16-17, 2010 at Three Links Farmnorth of Benson. We will haveAaron Citron and Liz Petterson from the Arizona Land and Trust,Diane Laush from the Bureau ofReclamation and Peter Warrenfrom The Nature Conservancy totalk about conservation easements.For more details and registrationgo to the website at <http://azriparian.org/2010/fallmtg2010.htm>.

I recommend that you taketime and reconnect with nature. Itbrings sanity to a crazy world.

Kris Randall, President

Courtesy of http://hubpages.com/hub/earth-day-clip-art


Beetles . . . . . . . . . . . . from pg. 1

native tree (Populus, Salix, andProsopis)-saltcedar areas in 2009.We used capture-mark-releasemethods to compare herpetofaunaabundance and species richnessfrom trapping arrays establishedalong the Virgin River in Arizonaand Nevada. Feeding trials wereconducted in a lab using fourcommon lizard species todetermine if leaf beetles (Fig. 2)were a potential food source and iflizards preferred to eat leaf beetleadults over similar-sized crickets(family Gryllidae).

PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

During the summer of 2009,we established study sites inreaches of the Virgin River whereleaf beetles had not yet colonized.Herpetofaunal traps were openJune-August and we had 605 cap-tures representing eight species ofamphibians and reptiles. Over 60%of captures were tiger whiptails(Aspidoscelis tigris). Preliminaryresults indicated that relativeabundances of lizards were similarin saltcedar and mixed sites, how-ever species-specific abundancesdiffered with desert spiny lizards(Sceloporus magister) being moreabundant in mixed sites.

Three out of four lizard speciesdid consume leaf beetles duringfeeding trials and lizards did notappear to show a preference forleaf beetles over crickets. Onespecies, the tiger whiptail, did notfeed on leaf beetles or cricketsduring trials because of its activeforaging life history which was notconducive to being housed in aterrarium. However, we did findleaf beetle elytra (hardenedforewing) in whiptail scat fromareas where beetle were abundant.The other three species(side-blotched lizard, Utastansburiana; long-tailed brushlizard, Urosaurus graciosus; anddesert spiny lizard) readily ate leafbeetles.

These results provide baselineinformation on herpetofauna abun-dances in riparian habitats prior tobiological control and identify leafbeetles as a potential food sourcefor native reptile species. Duringthis summer 2010, we will work toconfirm our findings on leafbeetles as potential prey and moni-tor sites expected to experiencedefoliation. This study will provideinsight into how biocontrol alongthe Virgin River could impactimportant consumers in theriparian ecosystem. Currently, thistopic is fraught with controversialdecisions and conflicts between(and at times among) biologists

and policy makers. The long-termgoal of my research includes abalanced understanding, based onscientific inquiry, of how human-altered systems and control ofnonnative plants may affect nativespecies. This work will becomemore crucial as riparian ecosys-tems face a future of growinghuman influence in whichrestoring the integrity of theseecosystems will become central tothe conservation of biodiversity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work is being supported

by the Department of AppliedSciences and Mathematics atArizona State University-Polytechnic and in collaborationwith Steven Ostoja of the U.S.Geological Survey and TomDudley and Michael Kuehn fromUniversity of California SantaBarbara. Field techniques havebeen approved by the ASU AnimalCare and Use Committee (protocol#09-1051R).

LITERATURE CITEDBateman, H. L., A. Chung-

MacCoubrey, D. M. Finch, H.L. Snell, and D. L. Hawks-worth. 2008a. Impacts ofnon-native plant removal onvertebrates along the MiddleRio Grande (New Mexico).Ecological Restoration26:193-195.

Bateman, H. L., A. Chung-MacCoubrey, and H. L. Snell.2008b. Impact of non-nativeplant removal on lizards inriparian habitats in the south-western United States. Restor-ation Ecology 16(1):180-190.

DeLoach, C. J., P. A. Lewis, J. C.Herr, R. I. Carruthers, J. L.,Tracy, and J. Johnson. 2003.Host specificity of the leafbeetle, Diorhabda elongatadeserticola (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae) from Asia, abiological control agent forsaltcedars (Tamarix:Tamaricaceae) in the westernUnited States. BiologicalControl 27:117-147.Figure 2. Graduate student Danny Nielsen collecting tamarisk leaf beetles

(Diorhabda sp.) for lizard-beetle feeding trials along the Virgin River in Arizona.


DiTomaso, J. M. 1998. Impact,biology, and ecology of salt-cedar (Tamarix spp.) in thesouthwestern United States.Weed Technology 12:326-336.

Duncan, K. W., and K. C.McDaniel. 1998. Saltcedar(Tamarix spp.) managementwith imazapyr. Weed Tech-nology 12:337-344.

Friedman, J. M., G. T. Auble, andP. B. Shafroth. 2005. Domi-nance of non-native ripariantrees in western USA. Biolog-ical Invasions 7:747-751.

Jamison, L. 2009. Distribution oftamarisk leaf beetle(Diorhabda carinulata), Colo-rado Plateau 2009.<http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/tamariskcoalition/PDF/Diorhabda_Distribution_2009.pdf> (April 26, 2010).

Latterell, J. J., J. S. Bechtold, T. C.O'Keefe, R. Van Pelt, and R. J.

Naiman. 2006. Dynamic patchmosaics and channel move-ment in an unconfined rivervalley of the Olympic Moun-tains. Freshwater Biology51:523-544.

Stanford, J. A., M. S. Lorang, andR. F. Hauer. 2005. The shiftinghabitat mosaic of river eco-systems. Verh. InternationalVerein Limnology 29:123-136.

Figure 3. Distribution of tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda carinulata), Colorado Plateau 2009 (Jamison 2009).


PHOTO CONTEST — EXPLORING ARIZONA'S EXTRAORDINARY RIPARIAN AREAS

Do you have a photo of anextraordinary riparian areain Arizona? Would you like

to share your photo talents withother members? This is youropportunity. The Arizona RiparianCouncil is having a photo contestto see who has the most extraordi-nary photos of riparian areas inArizona, and, your photo may beused in our first-ever calendar!

TERMS Entry into the Arizona

Riparian Council's ExploringArizona’s Extraordinary RiparianAreas Photo Contest (the “Con-test”) begins on August 15, 2010and ends on October 1, 2010.

Eligibility: Contest is openfree to active Arizona RiparianCouncil members or nonmemberswith a $20 membership fee. Toenter, go to our website at<http://azriparian.org/2010/photocontest.htm> and follow the instruc-tions to complete the registrationform and upload a photograph thatillustrates one of the followingfour themes:

! Landscapes ! Wildlife ! Plants ! People in nature

There will be a first, second, andthird place photo selected from

each theme. Each first placewinner will receive $50 and freeregistration to the 2011 AnnualARC meeting. Second place ayear's membership and t-shirt, andthird is a year's membership. Thephotos will be used in the ArizonaRiparian Council's 2011 calendar!It will be available for purchase bythe end of the year. The photoswill also be used in a new updatedwebsite!

PHOTOGRAPHREQUIREMENTS

Each entry must comply withthe following requirements:

! Photographs must be in digitalformat. No print or film sub-missions will be accepted forentry into this contest.

! The photograph need not betaken with a digital camera;scans of negatives, transpar-encies, or photographic printsare acceptable.

! All digital files must be 5megabytes or smaller, must bein JPEG or .jpg format, andmust be clean and clear whenenlarged to 8.5 X 11 inches (atleast 300 dpi), as they will beused in the calendar.

! Written personal releases frompeople who appear in thephoto submitted (or their

parents or legal guardians ifsuch persons are minors). Mailrelease forms to: ArizonaRiparian Council C/O CindyZisner, Global Institute ofSustainability, Arizona StateUniversity, PO Box 875402,Tempe, az 85287-5402 or faxto Cindy Zisner at (480)965-8087. Your submissionwill not be accepted without it.

! The photo must not containmaterial that violates orinfringes another’s rights,including but not limited toprivacy, publicly or intellect-ual property rights, or thatconstitutes copyrightinfringement.

! The photo must not containbrand names or trademarks.

! The photo must not containmaterial that is inappropriateor slanderous.

! The Arizona Riparian Councilis not responsible for lost, late,incomplete, invalid, damaged,misdirected, or blurred orotherwise indiscerniblephotos, which shall bedisqualified.


SPECIES PROFILE

WATERCRESS (NASTURTIUM OFFICINALE)by Carol Birks, Arizona Department of Water Resources

Watercress is native toEurope and Asia but isnaturalized all over the

United States, including Arizona.It is a perennial plant that grows inwet places and prefers slow-moving water. It has hollow,creeping or floating stems, 1 to 2feet long that root easily andproduce small, shiny green- orbronze-colored leaves. In thesummer and fall small whiteflowers appear.

Watercress belongs to theBrassicaceae (formerly Cruciferae)family of plants along with morefamiliar members like broccoli,brussel sprouts, cabbage, kale,turnips and cauliflower. Crucifer-ous food crops are widely culti-vated and considered very healthybecause they contain high concen-trations of vitamin C, soluble fiberand nutrients that have cancerfighting properties.

Commercially producedwatercress is grown in beds usingclean running water. Wild water-cress, however, can be found in avariety of environments which caninclude still, poor quality watercontaining parasites or bacteria.The liver fluke, which is trans-mitted by sheep and cattle, isoccasionally found on watercresswhen nearby livestock pollutewaterways. Before propersanitation procedures wereestablished watercress facilitatedthe spread of typhoid. Therefore,caution is advised when collectingplants in the wild and be aware ofthe environment they are growingin. Always wash thoroughly!

The benefits of watercress arefar greater than the risks and usingwatercress in a salad or as garnishis worldwide. England madewatercress sandwiches famous inthe 19th century as part of theworking class diet. They were

usually eaten for breakfast and ifpeople were too poor to buy thebread, they ate just the watercress,which became known as the “poorman's bread.” It was common tosee vendors’ selling bunches ofwatercress on the streets of merryold England. Watercress becamean early example of a modernconcept, convenience food. Othercountries also make soup out ofwatercress. The French combine itwith potatoes to make a thick soup.The Italians flavor their famousminestrone soup with it and theChinese add it to egg drop andwonton soup.

Watercress also has medicinaluses that can be traced back to theRomans, Greeks and Persians. Ithas been reported that Hippocrates,the father of medicine, located hisfirst hospital close to a stream.Fresh watercress grew there and hegave it to his patients. Greeksoldiers were given a watercresstonic before going into battle and

the 16th century herbalist Culpep-per claimed it could cleanse theblood. It is brimming with morethan 15 essential vitamins andminerals. It contains more ironthan spinach, more vitamin C thanoranges, three times as muchVitamin E as lettuce and morecalcium than milk.

Watercress juice is a goodintestinal cleanser, removes toxicimpurities from the body, healskidney and bladder inflamma-tions, regulates glands, dissolvesrheumatic poisons, eradicates skinaffections and stimulates thecirculation system. Eating water-cress daily can significantlyreduce DNA damage to bloodcells, a trigger to cancer develop-ment and reduces the levels oftoxic enzymes in the lungs ofsmokers.

Watercress, like so manythings in nature, is beautiful tolook at and beneficial too. As ourCont. pg. 11 . . . . . . . Watercress

Photo by Robert H. Mohlenbrock @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / USDANRCS. 1995. Northeast wetland flora: Field office guide to plant species. NortheastNational Technical Center, Chester.


LEGAL ISSUES OF CONCERNBy Richard Campbell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

WILL RENEWED OPERATION OF THE YUMA DESALTING FACILITY RESULT IN REDUCED FLOWSOF WATER TO THE CIENEGA DE SANTA CLARA WETLANDS?

*Editor’s Note: Richard teachesenvironmental law and policy atSan Francisco State University,and continues to work as anattorney with the U.S. EPA Region9 in San Francisco. The opinionsexpressed herein do not representthe views of the U.S. EPA.

Drought and increasingdemands on LowerColorado River (River)

water by Arizona, Nevada andCalifornia prompted the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) torenew operation of the YumaDesalting Plant (YDP) on May 3,2010, as part of a 12-18 monthpilot project. If the pilot projectproves successful, then operationof the YDP may result in a reduc-tion of water flow and an increasein salinity in water that currentlyreaches the Cienega de Santa Clarawetlands complex just south of theSouthern International Boundarywith Mexico. A reduction in theflow and quality of water to theCienega de Santa Clara (or “SantaClara wetland”) as the result ofoperation of the YDP raisessignificant environmental legalissues on both sides of theSouthern International Boundary.

THE YDP FACILITYWhy the YDP exists requires a

brief discussion of the “Law of theRiver.” In 1922, Congress ratifiedthe Colorado River Compact,which allotted 7.5 million acre-feet(maf) of Colorado River water tothe “Upper Basin” states ofWyoming, Colorado, Utah, andNew Mexico, and 7.5 maf to the“Lower Basin” states of Arizona,California, and Nevada.1 The 1922Compact also recognized that theU.S. would need to negotiate with

Mexico to determine how muchColorado River water would flowacross the Southern InternationalBoundary into Mexico.2 In 1928,Congress passed the BoulderCanyon Project Act (BCPA),which resulted in the apportion-ment of the Lower Basin 7.5 mafallotment of Colorado River wateras follows: 2.8 MAF to Arizona,4.4 MAF to California, and300,000 AF to Nevada.3

In 1938, the Bureau completedconstruction of Imperial Dam,which straddles the Arizona-California state lines 20 milesnortheast of Yuma, Arizona.Imperial Dam was built to divertColorado River water to irrigationprojects in California and Arizona,including the Gila Project, whichnow includes the irrigable lands ofthe Wellton-Mohawk IrrigationDistrict.4

In 1944, the U.S. entered intoa treaty with Mexico5 that obli-gated the U.S. to deliver 1.5 mafy

of Colorado River water.6 In 1947,the Gila Reauthorization Actauthorized the use of ColoradoRiver water from the Gila Projectfor irrigation of up to 117,000acres in the Wellton-Mohawkarea.7 In 1951, Arizona created theWellton-Mohawk Irrigation andDrainage District (WMIDD) toprovide a legal entity able tocontract with the United States torepay the cost of the Gila Project.8 In 1952, the Bureau completedconstruction of the Gila Projectand Colorado River water beganflowing through the Gila GravityMain Canal to the WMIDD.Wellton Mohawk land is naturallyvery saline, and agricultural returnflow from WMIDD to the Colo-rado River, in combination withincreasing salinity concentrationsin the Colorado River from up-stream diversions, impoundmentsand return flows, caused salt con-centrations in Colorado Riverwater to reach levels that resulted

Aerial photo of the Yuma Area Office and the Yuma Desalting Plant. Photo credit:Andrew Pernick; Bureau of Reclamation.


in crop destruction in Mexico’sMexicali Valley just south of theSouthern International Boundaryin the 1960s. In 1965, Mexico andthe United States entered into abi-national agreement for the con-struction of a 12-mi concrete-linedchannel known as the MODE(Main Outlet Drain Extension) thatwould divert Wellton-Mohawkreturn flows away from theColorado River to what is now theCienega de Santa Clara wetlands.9

The MODE canal was seen as atemporary solution to the salinityproblem at the time (but asdiscussed below, still operates todeliver saline water to Mexico). In1973, Mexico and the UnitedStates entered into a bi-nationalagreement that obligates the U.S.to limit salt content to acceptablelimits.10 In 1974, the ColoradoRiver Basin Salinity Control Actof 1974 (Salinity Control Act)authorized construction of theYDP to treat the supersalineirrigation return flows from theWMIDD prior to its discharge tothe Colorado River. The treatedwater is intended for inclusion inthe 1.5 maf allotment of ColoradoRiver to Mexico. The benefit ofthis inclusion is that the Bureaupreserves the like amount of waterin Lake Mead, and that water isthen made available to satisfy thewater demands of Lower Basinstate users.

Construction of the YDP wascompleted in 1992, and operatedbriefly until floods in 1993damaged the facility. The YDPuses filters and reverse osmosis(RO) to treat the WMIDD irriga-tion return flows. The resulting“product water” flows down aconcrete-lined canal and is dis-charged into the Colorado River.The concentrate flow is dischargedfrom the YDP into the MODE viaan underground pipe originating atthe YDP. These flows then pro-ceed down a Bypass Drain, aconcrete-lined canal, past theSouthern International Boundaryand to the Cienega de Santa Clara.Salinity in the Bypass Draingenerally is approximately 2664

ppm (expressed as TDS).11 Withthe exception of brief operations in2007, the YDP has not beenoperated since 1992, for reasons ofcost, and because of controversyassociated with the impact ofoperations on the Cienega.

THE CIENEGA DE SANTA CLARA

The Cienega, a 15,000-acrewetland, is home to several endan-gered species and is a major stop-over for birds migrating north andsouth along the Pacific Flyway. Itsecological importance has beenwell documented in the ArizonaRiparian Council newsletters.

WHY THE NEED TOOPERATE THE YDP?

On January 14, 2009, CentralArizona Water Conservation Dis-trict (CAWCD), the MetropolitanWater District of Southern Cali-fornia (Met), and the SouthernNevada Water Authority (SNWA)jointly wrote the Bureau to deter-mine whether additional watercould be obtained by operation ofthe YDP. All three agenciesoffered to fund the YDP pilotproject in return for a designationof the processed water as “surplus”water. Intentionally createdsurplus (ICS) credits made inaccordance with the Bureau's 2007Colorado Interim Guidelineswould provide water to these threeagencies above and beyond theircurrent allotments.

Why Need a RelativelyInsignificant Amount(Roughly 20,000-30,000 af)of Colorado River Water?

From SNWA’s perspective itis easy to see: 30,000 af cansupply roughly 120,000 peoplewith water for a year, and com-prises nearly 10% of Nevada’s300,000 acre Colorado Riverallotment. Pat Mulroy, SNWA’sDirector, is desperately searchingfor water because Nevada’sdemand for water has outstripped

its 300,000 afy allotment of Colo-rado River water, and because theNevada Supreme Court ruled thisyear that SNWA’s applications topump 190,000 afy from rural areasof Nevada to the greater Las Vegasarea were invalid.12

Arizona’s CAWCD could usethe water. The CAWCD wascreated in 1971 by the ArizonaLegislature for the purpose ofcontracting with the Secretary ofInterior for Lower Colorado Riverwater delivered via the CentralArizona Project. In 1972, theSecretary of Interior entered into a“master contract” with theCAWCD for delivery of ColoradoRiver water through the CentralArizona Project (CAP) to Arizonasubcontractors. However, the 1968Colorado River Basin ProjectAct,13 which authorized fundingand construction of the CAP, pro-vided that the CAWCD, and itssubcontractors (mainly Arizonaagriculture at the time, but increas-ingly municipal users), have juniorpriority to all pre-1968 (pre-Colorado River Basin Project Act)contractors, i.e., California and its4.4 maf allocation.14 Thus, in adrought situation, as may behappening now, CAWCD is firstin line to lose water to California. Although California's Metropol-itan Water District of SouthernCalifornia (Metropolitan) hassenior rights to a portion ofCalifornia’s 4.4 maf of ColoradoRiver water by virtue of an agree-ment reached with other Californiawater right holders in 1931,Metropolitan was created in 1928for the express purpose of findingas much water as possible forcities and communities in SouthernCalifornia. Since Metropolitan hasits own Colorado River Aqueductto bring in water from theColorado River, its naturalinclination would be to try andobtain as much proportional shareof any ICS credits.

Continued next page


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF OPERATION OF THE YDP

In August 2009, the Bureaureleased its Environmental Assess-ment (EA) of the Pilot Projectpursuant to the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA).15

According to the EA, approxi-mately 38,000 af of WMIDDirrigation return flow water will bedelivered via the MODE to theYDP. The YDP treatment processwill yield approximately 22,000 afof produced water that will bedelivered to the Colorado Riverand to Mexico. Approximately9,600 af of brine water left overfrom the treatment process will bedischarged back to the MODEfrom the YDP for delivery to theCienega wetlands. By virtue of acommitment from the U.S.,Mexico and a partnership of U.S.and Mexico non-governmentalorganizations, another 30,000 afwill be discharged to the Cienegavia the MODE during the life ofthe pilot project.

The EA also recounts that“both countries have committed,pursuant to [International Bound-ary and Water Commission] Min-ute 306 and through the ColoradoRiver Joint Cooperative Process,to continue bi-national cooperationregarding the Cienega and toaddress long-term approaches tomaintain the environmental valuesof the Cienega.” Minute 306 wasentered into December 12, 2000,and resulted in the creation of abinational task force to study andshare information regarding theCienega.16

The EA also recognizes thediplomatic process and consulta-tions undertaken through theIBWC resulted in the proposal andconsideration of cooperativeactions to address the Cienega.Cooperative actions were docu-mented in the Joint Report Of ThePrincipal Engineers ConcerningU.S.-Mexico Joint CooperativeActions Related To The YumaDesalting Plant (YDP) Pilot RunAnd The Santa Clara Wetland.

A binational team is going tomonitor the effects of running theYDP. The team includes threeuniversities (University of Ari-zona, Mexico’s National Instituteof Ecology, and the University ofBaja California, Mexicali); theCentral Arizona Water Conser-vation District, the SouthernNevada Water Authority, andMetropolitan Water District ofSouthern California; and two non-governmental organizations, Pro-Natura and the Sonoran Institute.The Biosphere Reserve of theUpper Gulf of California andColorado River Delta is also apartner.17

LEGAL ISSUESThe EA makes clear the

Bureau’s position that the Cienegashould be addressed throughcontinuing diplomatic dialoguethrough the U.S. and MexicanSections of the InternationalBoundary and Water Commission,rather than NEPA compliance.“Reclamation's decision to preparean EIS or a FONSI will be basedon the EA's analysis of environ-mental impacts occurring in theUnited States as a result of theproposed Pilot Run.”18

Should the 12-18 month pilotproject convince the Bureau thatthe YDP should be operated on along-term basis, another NEPAanalysis would need to be per-

formed. The question may arise atthat point whether the Bureaushould expand its scope of analysisto include the effect of the YDP onthe Cienega wetlands. Theextraterritorial application ofNEPA is an open question.19 Somecourts have held that where thereis special geographic or politicalrelationship between the U.S. andthe country where federal actionmay produce environmentalimpacts, NEPA may apply.20

An additional issue is whetherthe Bureau must take the federalEndangered Species Act intoaccount if long-term operation ofthe YDP were to reduce waterflows to the Cienega wetlands andreduce endangered species habitat. The extraterritorial application ofthe Act is an open legal question. In Defenders of Wildlife, Friendsof Animals & Their Environment v.Lujan, 911 F.2d 117 (1990), theEighth Circuit Court of Appealsfound that the Act’s broad, inclu-sive language; its legislative his-tory; and its policy implications,justified application of the Act tofederal actions with effects toendangered species in othercountries. However, this case wasoverruled by the Supreme Courton procedural grounds and thesubstantive issue of the Endan-gered Species Act’s extraterritorialapplication was never reached. In2000, Defenders of Wildlife and

Exterior photo of one of the three large solids contact reactors located on thegrounds of the Yuma Desalting Plant. Photo credit: Alex Stephens; Bureau ofReclamation.


other organizations sued theBureau, alleging violation of theconsultation requirements of theEndangered Species Act withregard to protected species in theColorado River Delta in Mexico.At issue was Bureau’s Multi-Species Conservation Plan(MSCP) for the Colorado River.The MSCP plan only took intoaccount the Bureau’s operation ofthe River to the Southern Inter-national Boundary. The courtfound that the Bureau did not needto conduct Endangered SpeciesAct consultation with US Fish andWildlife Service on impacts southof the border because it had nodiscretion to deliver water to theDelta, and without discretion toact, there is no need for consulta-tion. The court reasoned thatalthough

there is no serious questionthat Reclamation’s ongo-ing operations on thelower Colorado River havehad and will continue tohave a significant impacton the delta region and thespecies in question,

the Bureau had no discretion toprovide water to the Delta where:

a Supreme Court injunc-tion, an internationaltreaty, federal statutes,and contracts between thegovernment and waterusers … account for everyacre foot of lowerColorado River water.21

In doing so, however, the courtsuggested that “an actualcontroversy remains as to theapplication of the EndangeredSpecies Act to nondiscretionaryagency actions within the UnitedStates that have extraterritorialeffects.” Id. at 65. Thus, the issuefor the Bureau with regard to itsoperation of the YDP is whetherthe operation is a discretionary ornondiscretionary action.

REFERENCES1. The Colorado River Compact,

70 Cong. Rec. 324 (1928), atart. II; available from the U.S.BuRec website at:<http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf>

2. See id. art. III (c) (“If, as amatter of international comity,the United States of Americashall hereafter recognize in theUnited States of Mexico anyright to the use of any watersof the Colorado River System,such waters shall be suppliedfirst from the waters which aresurplus … and if such surplusshall prove insufficient for thispurpose, then, the burden ofsuch deficiency shall beequally borne by the UpperBasin and the Lower Basin…”).

3. Arizona did not agree to thisapportionment in 1928because its 2.8 maf allotmentwas offset by its rights to GilaRiver flow. In Arizona v.California, 373 U.S. 546(1963), the Supreme Courtmade clear that Arizona's 2.8MAF was for Colorado Riverwater only, and was not offsetby its diversion of Gila Riverwater.

4. As well as the All-AmericanCanal and the CoachellaCanal, in California.Information obtained from theImperial Irrigation Districtwebsite at:<http://www.iid.com/Water/ImperialDam>.

5. Treaty Between the UnitedStates of America and MexicoRespecting Utilization ofWaters of the Colorado andTijuana Rivers and of the RioGrande, Feb. 3, 1944,U.S.-Mex., art. 10, 59 Stat.1219, 1237 (1944), availablefrom the Colorado RiverCommission of Nevadawebsite at: <http://crc.nv.gov/1944mexicanwatertreaty.htm>.

6. Id. Article 10. 7. July 30, 1947 (61 Stat. 628).

8. Information obtained from theWellton-Mohawk IrrigationDistrict website at: <http://www.wellton-mohawk.org>.

9. Recommendations on theColorado River Salinityproblem. Approvals, Minute218 of the InternationalBoundary Water Commission(IBWC), March 22, 1965,available from the IBWCwebsite at: <http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/Minutes/Min218.pdf>.

10. United States-MexicoAgreement on Colorado RiverSalinity, Minute No. 242 ofthe International BoundaryWater Commission (IBWC):Permanent and DefinitiveSolution to the InternationalProblem of the Salinity of theColorado River, August 30,1973, available from theIBWC website at:<http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/Minutes/Min242.pdf>.

11. YDP EA at 32.12. Great Basin Water Network v.

Taylor, 222 P.3d 665, 2010Nev. LEXIS 2 (January 28,2010).

13. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1501-56.14. Section 1521(b) of the

Colorado River Basin ProjectAct.

15. 42 USC 43421 et seq.; The EAwas also performed inaccordance with the Councilon Environmental Quality(CEQ) regulations (Title 40 ofthe Code of FederalRegulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1509), and the Department ofthe Interior (DOI) andReclamation NEPAprocedures (516 DM 14).

16. YDP EA at 8.17. Water OnLine, "UA-Led Team

Studies Effect Of YumaDesalting Plant On Cienega deSanta Clara" (April 29, 2010)available at: <http://www.wateronline.com/article.mvc/UA-Led-Team-Studies-Effect-Of-Yuma-Desalting-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO>.


18. YDP EA at 8, fn. 3.19. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc. v. NuclearRegulatory Com., 647 F.2d1345 ("NEPA's legislativehistory illuminates nothing inregard to extraterritorialapplication")

20. See, e.g., Wilderness Soc'y v.Morton, 150 U.S.App.D.C.170, 463 F.2d 1261 (1972);People of Enewetak v. Laird,353 F. Supp. 811 (D.Hawaii1973); People of Saipan ex rel.Guerrero v. Department of theInterior, 356 F. Supp. 645(D.Hawaii 1973), Sierra Clubv. Adams, 188 U.S.App.D.C.147, 578 F.2d 389 (1978)(NEPA applies to federalconstruction in Panama).

21. Defenders of Wildlife v.Norton, 257 F. Supp. 2d 53(D.D.C. 2003)

Watercress . . . . . cont. from pg. 6

knowledge of the environment andits connections to our healthincreases it is imperative to protectthe natural environment and toencourage species diversitybecause the compounds found innature may save us from our past.

The Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge inAlabama is named after the feder-ally endangered watercress darterfish (Etheostoma nuchale). This isa small fish found only in Ala-bama and inhabits the watercressbeds of the Black Warrior Riverdrainage (US Fish and WildlifeService Fact Sheet no date). In theSacramento Mountains in NewMexico watercress was found tobe an important food for wildturkeys (Goerdnt et al. 1985).There are many studies about thechemical properties of watercressand effects on humans, but not asmany on wildlife even though it isan part of many aquatic habitats.

REFERENCESGoerndt, D. L., S. D. Schemnitz

and W. D. Zeedyk. 1985.Managing common watercressand spring/seeps for Merriam'sTurkey in New Mexico. Wild-life Society Bulletin 13(3):297-301.

Growing and Selling Fresh CutHerbs, 2009: accessedNov.2009 at <www.freshcutherbs.com/herbofthemonth_watercress.htm>

Watercress, 2009: accessed Nov2009 at www.watercress.com

Ulster University, 2007: accessedNov 2009 at www.ulst.ac.uk

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Nodate. Fact sheet accessed5/10/2010 <http://library.fws.gov/Refuges/watercress_darter_facts01.pdf>

Watercress Darter


PANEL MUST DECIDE WHO OWNS STATE'S RIVERBEDSby Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Editor’s note: Reprinted from theArizona Daily Star atwww.azstarnet.com; Posted:Thursday, May 20, 2010.

Sand and gravel companies areat risk of losing title to theland they now occupy in

Arizona riverbeds.In a unanimous decision, the

Arizona Court of Appeals hasruled that a special commissionused the wrong legal standards indetermining the Salt River was notnavigable at the time Arizonabecome a state.

That issue is more than a bit oftrivia. It will determine who ownsthousands of acres of land in theriver.

Hanging in the balance are therights of sand and gravel com-panies and others that have beenusing – and mining – the landfor years because they bought itand assume they own it.

If the river is ruled “navig-able,” it means the state actuallyowns the property.

The new ruling will haveimplications beyond the SaltRiver. The standards for deter-mining navigability will also haveto be used to make determinationsfor the Verde, San Pedro, SantaCruz and Gila rivers, said JoyHerr-Cardillo, attorney for the

Arizona Center for Law in thePublic Interest.

When Arizona became a statein 1912, the federal governmentgave it title to all navigablestreams within its borders. Thatfact was ignored until 1985, whenthe state made a claim to the land.

After that, the Legislatureapproved a measure to allow thosewho presumed they owned the landto pay a fee of $25 per acre andobtain title to any land in question.

The Arizona Center for Law inthe Public Interest filed suit andthe state Court of Appeals, in itsfirst ruling, concluded that lawwas an unconstitutional gift ofpublic lands.

In response, lawmakers set up acommission to determine whichstreams were navigable atstatehood.

In 2005, the Arizona Navig-able Stream Adjudication Com-mission issued a ruling that theSalt River between the GraniteReef Dam and where it flows intothe Gila River is “an erratic,unstable and undependablestream.” Even if Roosevelt Damwere not there – it was builtslightly before statehood – therewas no way that in 1912 the rivercould be considered navigable,the commission concluded.

But appellate Judge LawrenceWinthrop, writing for the court,said the commission must considerthe condition of the river in 1912in its “ordinary and natural condi-tion,” before dams, canals andother man-made diversions.

The river obviously “was in itsnatural condition before the Hoho-kam people arrived many centuriesago and developed canals andother diversions, Winthrop wrote.But he conceded there is little, ifany, historic data from that period.

The judge said the diversionsput in by the Hohokam largelydisappeared due to non-use overthe centuries and, by the 1800s,the river had pretty much returnedto its natural state before farmingbegan in what would become thePhoenix area. Evidence from thatperiod is the best test, he said,sending the issue back to thecommission.


ATTENTION ARC MEMBERS! WE NEED YOU!By Cindy D. Zisner, Secretary/Education Chair/Newsletter Editor

Dear members, the Board ofDirectors REALLY,REALLY needs your

help. We need it in several ways.First, of all many of you have notyet paid your 2010 dues. Pleasedo so at your earliest conven-ience. If “PLEASE RENEW” isafter your name on the mailingaddress of this newsletter if youare in arrears. Our $20 dues arefor the calendar year January-December. Many have registeredat the spring meeting in the past,but since we are not having ourspring meeting this year we needyou to send them in directly tome or through Paypal on ourwebsite (see address on inside oflast page). An email reminderwas sent but evidently a postcardwould have been a better choiceon my part, my apologies.

Second, we would reallyappreciate your help in planningour spring and fall meetings. Wehave monthly Board meetings onthe third Wednesday at 4:30 PM.We are always in need of leadsfor speakers and ideas for fieldtrips. You can always email anyof the board members. Theiraddresses are at the end of thisnewsletter.

Finally, this is a personalplea. We need more involvementand new Board members. Every-one’s lives are busy these days,but we need to step up and keepour organization continuing to beinvolved in riparian habitateducation, conservation, restora-tion and research. Some of us onthe Board have been there for avery long time and we feel thatnew input is needed if we are tosurvive. I personally feel that theArizona Riparian Council cantake credit for everyone nowknowing what riparian even is,but I digress. Kris Randall, ARCPresident was Vice President in

1993 and became President in1994, 1995, 1998-2002. Hercurrent term started in 2008 andwill end next year at our annualmeeting. Diane Laush was firstelected Treasurer in 1991 andserved until 1997. She recentlywas re-elected in 2009 and willserve until 2012. TomHildebrandt was Vice Presidentfrom 2002-2004 and becamePresident in 2005 and serveduntil 2009. He continues to beinvolved as Co-Chair of thePolicy Committee along withKris Randall. Tom also alongwith Tim Flood (another long-term member) initiated ourRSRA Team to evaluate streams.Diana Stuart, ARC VicePresident, was an At-LargeBoard Member in 2004-2006 andbecame Vice President in 2008and her term ends next year aswell. There were others whofilled in along the way and tothem we are grateful. Finally weget to me, Cindy Zisner. I havebeen Secretary of this organiza-tion since 1989 and I have seenmany changes over the years. Iattended the founding meetingsas did some of the others I’vementioned. I have also been theEducation Chair and since 1995the newsletter editor, being pre-ceded by Barbara Tellman, RonSmith, and Tanna Thornburgalong with coeditors of mine, JeffInwood and Paul Marsh. I alsodo the website which is sorely inneed of an updated look and Icould use some help for a newlook.

The point of all of this is I amfearful that the Council has beenprogressively losing steam andmay cease to exist in the comingyears unless we get newcommitted individuals to becomeboard members – not for just oneterm. Start as an at-large member

and progress up the ladder toPresident! I’d hate to see usdissolve since we have done somuch and there is always somuch more to do. Please contactus and volunteer!!! Thanks forreading my rants.

Cindy D. Zisner, Secretary

ANNOUNCEMENTS

i Alicyn Gitlin, has accepted aposition with the Sierra Clubas their ConservationCoordinator for the GrandCanyon Ecosystem. Alicyn isan At Large Board Member ofthe Arizona Riparian CouncilBoard of Directors.

i Evelyn Erlandsen, hasresigned her Project Managerposition with the ArizonaWater Protection Fund to takea post with the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation in Sacramento,California.

If you have any other announce-ments about changing jobs,promotions, births, deaths, etc. thatyou’d like the Arizona RiparianCouncil membership to knowplease send them to Cindy Zisnerat [email protected] or (480)965-2490 and she will put in thenewsletter.


Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Administrator for US EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s Office of Water, the Keynote Speaker, addressing Rallyattendees during Saturday's lunch.

RIVER NETWORK'S 11TH ANNUAL NATIONAL RIVER RALLY by Alicyn Giltin, Member at Large and Conservation Coordinator, Sierra Club

We decide to protect riversbecause we love nature,but we get the best work

done when we work effectivelywith people. River Network’s 11thannual National River Rally inSnowbird, UT, abounded withmessages about how to accomplishthe job: make contacts, ask whatwatershed residents want, engageyouth, seek out disenfranchisedcommunities, listen, communicate, and never forget to say thank youto supporters, volunteers, mem-bers, and donors. Inspiring andmotivated individuals fromall over the countryshared successes andstrategies for fixingpast mistakes andpreventing futureones, and revital-izing both humanand aquatic com-munities in theprocess.

Workshopstaught attendees aboutstrategic planning,improving water quantityand quality, the water/energynexus, ecological restoration, envi-ronmental justice,Superfund clean-ups, interactionswith governmentagencies andpolitical leaders, and, of course,obtaining funding. In the evening,an environmental film festivalexposed issues that still needwork. Special sessions throughoutthe weekend, including a ridicu-lously entertaining “River Idol”competition, a board membersocial, and an “Issues Lunch,”encouraged networking betweenattendees.

River Network proclaims on itswebsite (www.rivernetwork.org),“If a watershed leader missesRally, (s)he would need to take anhour-long seminar nearly everyother week for a year to get thesame level of training.” This

year’s rally focused on “bridgebuilding” strategies. Attendeesincluded city and tribal planners,local government officials, U.S.Geological Survey, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, National ParkService, watershed groups, com-munity organizers, river and baykeepers, funding organizations,coalition builders, land trusts,watchdog groups, nonprofit boardmembers, architecture and busi-nes

s specialists, educators, GIStechnicians, and restorationpractitioners.

An inspiring session wasentitled “Urban Transformation:The River as a Community Orga-nizing Tool.” Chris Pazos andMelinda Alvarado-Vega of theChelsea Creek Action Group inMA empower youth to take own-ership of their riverfront and forcechanges to happen. They assisted3,000 grade-school students withtransportation so that they couldconfront Jim Gordon during aspeech at Boston University, toask him why he was proposing adiesel power plant on the bank of

Chelsea Creek, blocks from theirschool, while he claimed to beenvironmentally concerned in hiscampaign to build the Cape WindFarm. Gordon withdrew plans forthe generator. Young people alsoraised over $1,000,000 to createwaterfront parks and river access. The group organizes “KnowWhat’s Up Youth Concerts” andcreated and environmental justicetour available to everyone onGoogle Earth. EkOngKar Khalsa,Mystic River Watershed

Association, showed photos ofthe work that still lies

ahead: all of the jet fuelfor Logan Airport and

most of the road saltfor MA is stored onthe banks of Chel-sea Creek. The saltis “protected” fromrain by a flimsytarp cover – but

improvements arebeing made because

local residents arelearning to have pride in

place.Other workshops focused

on technical skills. ShelliBishcoff-Turner, Con-servation Impact, laidout a clear, logicalplan for ensuring thatorganizations remain

strong and relevant by buildingconstituents and capacity throughproper marketing. Allen Pressel,CharityFinders, educated attendeesabout effective social media. BairdStraughan, LeadGreen, introducedthe databases that river and water-shed organizations identified asthe best for organizing member-ship information.

River Rally 2011 will be June3-6, 2011, in North Charleston,SC. Workshop proposals are dueOctober 8, 2010. River Network isdedicated to supporting river andwatershed groups in their efforts tosustain a healthy country.


The Arizona RiparianCouncil (ARC) was formed in1986 as a result of the increasingconcern over the alarming rate ofloss of Arizona’s riparian areas.

It is estimated that <10% of Arizona’s originalriparian acreage remains in its natural form. Thesehabitats are considered Arizona’s most rare naturalcommunities.

The purpose of the Council is to provide for theexchange of information on the status, protection,and management of riparian systems in Arizona. Theterm “riparian” is intended to include vegetation,habitats, or ecosystems that are associated withbodies of water (streams or lakes) or are dependenton the existence of perennial or ephemeral surface orsubsurface water drainage. Any person ororganization interested in the management,protection, or scientific study of riparian systems, orsome related phase of riparian conservation iseligible for membership. Annual dues (January-December) are $20. Additional contributions aregratefully accepted.

This newsletter is published three times a year tocommunicate current events, issues, problems, andprogress involving riparian systems, to informmembers about Council business, and to provide aforum for you to express your views or news aboutriparian topics. The next issue will be mailed inDecember, the deadline for submittal of articles isNovember15, 2010. Please call or write withsuggestions, publications for review, announcements,articles, and/or illustrations.

Cindy D. ZisnerArizona Riparian Council

Global Institute of SustainabilityArizona State University

PO Box 875402Tempe AZ 85287-5402

(480) 965-2490; FAX (480) [email protected]

web site: http://azriparian.org

The Arizona Riparian Council

OfficersKris Randall, President . . (602) 242-0210 X250

[email protected] Stuart, Vice President . . . (602) 506-4766

(602) 525.3151 (Cell)[email protected]

Cindy Zisner, Secretary . . . . . . . (480) [email protected]

Diane Laush, Treasurer . . . . . . . (623) [email protected]

At-Large Board MembersAlicyn Gitlin . . . . [email protected] Lovely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (928) 310-6665

[email protected] Tiller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]

Committee ChairsActivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant

ConservationTim Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] Werner . . . nos. not available at this writingEducationCindy Zisner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (480) 965-2490

PolicyKris Randall . . . . . . . . . . . (602) 242-0210 X250

[email protected] Hildebrandt . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]


CALENDAR

Arizona Riparian Council Board Meetings. The Board of Directors holds monthly meetingsthe third Wednesday of each month and all members are encouraged to participate. Pleasecontact Cindy Zisner at (480) 965-2490 or [email protected] for time and location.

Verde River Days, September 25, 2010. Dead Horse Ranch State Park. For more information goto http://verderiverdays.com. Interested in volunteering at the ARC Booth, [email protected].

Arizona Riparian Council Fall Meeting and Campout, October 16-17, 2010, 3 Links Farm,north of Benson. We will learn about conservation easements. For more information andregistration go to http://azriparian.org/2010/fallmtg2010.htm.

Arizona Riparian Council Spring Meeting, Wetlands on the Edge: Challenges of Wetlandand Riparian Restoration, Spring 2011, Yuma, AZ. Check http://azriparian.org for updates orcontact [email protected] for more information.

BT5 1005Arizona Riparian Council Global Institute of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityPO Box 875402Tempe, AZ 85287-5402

tamarix beetles and lizards valuating the ......saltcedars (tamarix: tamaricaceae) in the western...

Documents