fall 11 / 24:3 - Grand Canyon River Guides

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Goodding’s Willow In Grand Canyon:Requiem Or Revival?Colorado River Mile 70L, Sept.2008-Goodding’s willow site.page 6The loss of ecologically important species isone of the most important human impacts onecosystems, not only in Grand Canyon, but alsothroughout the world (Stevens and others in prep). In2008, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (gcwc) wasgenerously funded by the outfitter-supported GrandCanyon Conservation Fund to examine riparianrestoration options in the Colorado River corridor,including segments of tributaries commonly visitedby river runners in Grand Canyon National Park. Theproject addressed a significant challenge in riparianstewardship in theColorado Rivercorridor: decline ofGoodding’s willow(Salicaceae: Salixgooddingii) and Fremontcottonwood(Salicaceae: Populusfremontii) along theriver. During tworiver trips in 2008and 2009, we examinedthe changingdistribution andhealth of Goodding’swillow alongthe Colorado River.Wildlands Councilvisited and photographedthe 23 locations at which Gooddings willowor Fremont cottonwood trees existed along the river atand before 1963, and assessed stand health in relationto dam-influenced changes in the riparian environment.We conducted the study to provide the nps withinformation relevant to riparian ecosystem rehabilitation,and also because we were concerned over theimpending demise of tamarisk habitat along the riverdue to the introduced tamarisk leaf beetle (Chrysomelidae:Diorhabda spp.).In light of this summer’s tamarisk beetle defoliationof much of the Colorado River corridor in GrandCanyon, we want to share the results of that study withthe river-running community. Grand Canyon WildlandsCouncil offered this information as a startingplace for collaborative riparian restoration, in particularthe recovery of Gooddings’ willow at these locationswith good historical evidence for the presenceof this characteristic, strongly ecologically interactivespecies (Soule and others 2005). Like many who are familiarwith the river ecosystem, we are concerned thatGrand Canyon songbirds and other wildlife speciesmay be facing a tough future with the rapid loss, atleast functionally, of so much habitat. We are pleasedto learn that the Grand Canyon Association recentlyreceived funding from the Nina Mason Pulliam CharitableTrust for Grand Canyon National Park (gcnp) tobegin a pilot restoration effort at Granite Rapid Camp,which is one of the sites identified in this study.Goodding’s WillowGoodding’s willow is a common, native, dioeceous tree(individuals are male or female) that formerly was distributedat scattered localities between Glen CanyonDam and Lake Mead, Arizona (Clover and Jotter 1944).It commonly grows up to about 15 meters in heightand occurs in areas of perennially moist, fine-grained,silt-rich soil. Individual trees can live for at least 86years, as shown by pre-dam to post-dam rematchedphotography of the tree at Granite Park (Turner andKarpiscak 1980); however, the high frequency of heartrot limits its utility in dendrochronological studies(Mast and Waring 1997). This willow species providesexcellent habitat cover for neotropical and otherriparian birds (e.g., Carothers and others 1974, Brownand others 1987), and its population in Grand Canyonhas been affected by reduced flood flows from GlenCanyon Dam and post-dam beaver (Castoridae: Castorcanadensis) foraging. Beaver may indirectly influencesite invasion by non-native tamarisk (Tamarix spp.,Mortenson and others 2008), which can colonize theopen riparian habitats.Fremont cottonwood was rare along the ColoradoRiver in pre-dam time; however, this species occurredoccasionally along wider reaches of the river (e.g.,Mile 195R, Turner and Karpiscak 1980). Gallery standsof cottonwoods are widely used by many neotropicalmigrant birds and other riparian wildlife (e.g., Carothersand others 1974). Seedling cottonwoods become establishedannually along the Colorado River; however,virtually all are lost to beaver attack and no matureplants persist along the post-dam river, except at LeesFerry, where gcwc and Glen Canyon nra collaboratedin planting and fencing the trees to protect them frombeaver attack.Information GatheringLarry Stevens inquired of old-time river runners asgrand canyon river guides
and costs required to revegetate each site with nativeplant species will vary in relation to the size of the siteand available support for the project.Colorado River Mile 75L Upper Nevill’s Rapid tamarisk stand,Sept. 2008. Goodding’s willow site. Inset shows beaverdamaged willow stump.to their recollections of Goodding’s willow alongthe Colorado River in Grand Canyon. He reviewedhistoric literature (i.e., Clover and Jotter 1944), and examinedavailable pre-dam and post-dam photographsand videos of the Colorado River corridor in GrandCanyon (Turner and Karpiscak 1980, Stevens and others1995). Those sources and data were combined withriparian biological research data from the 1974–1976Museum of Northern Arizona ecological survey ofthe river corridor (Carothers and Aitchison 1976), andvegetation surveys from 1980–1995 (Stevens and Waring1985, 1987. Stevens 1989, Stevens and others 1995),and from subsequent studies (Mast and Waring 1997,Ralston 2005). In all, these sources revealed a total of23 sites along the Colorado River in Grand Canyonthat had been or are occupied by Goodding’s willow orFremont cottonwood in Grand Canyon from pre-damtime to the present (Table 1).Field WorkWe visited each of the mainstream Goodding’s willowand pre-dam cottonwood sites upstream from PhantomRanch in September–October 2008, and the lowercanyon sites in April 2009 (see Table 1). Photographsand georeferencing data were taken at each site, andthe sites were described by counting the number ofliving and dead Goodding’s willow or Fremont cottonwoodstems, the extent of beaver damage or sourceof mortality (if detectable), and the estimated heightof living plants. Based on Grand Canyon Wildlands/nps tamarisk removal experiences in the tributariesand at Lees Ferry in the early 2000’s with Fred PhillipsConsulting, and recently at Mile -6.5R, we estimatedthe number of days of work by a crew of eight to cutand remove existing tamarisk at each site. The timePre-dam and Early Post-dam Goodding’s Willowand Fremont Cottonwood StatusLate pre-dam and early post-dam Goodding’s willowand Fremont cottonwood have been greatly reduced inabundance and vitality at all 23 previously known sitesin the Colorado River corridor. Goodding’s willow wasextirpated from at least seven (33.3%) sites along theriver where it previously existed; it has been reducedto non-reproductive status (i.e., only single plantsremain) at another seven (33.3%) sites; and populationsize has been reduced by 56.1 to 68.0% in the river corridor.No mature Fremont cottonwood remain alongthe Colorado River in Grand Canyon, except at theLees Ferry restoration site.Goodding’s willow health is low at all sites, usuallydue to extensive beaver attack, erosion or, for treeson upper riparian terraces, low soil moisture. TheGoodding’s willow stand at Granite Park (Mile 209L)has been reduced to a single tree, and that tree hasdeclined in health markedly over the past two decades(Turner and Karpiscak 1980). We detected successfulrecruitment of Goodding’s willow (one individual)only at the Granite Rapid camp along the Coloradoriver since 1988, and seedlings established after the 1983flood at Lees Ferry, Mile 55.5R, and elsewhere haveperished (Stevens and others 1995, Mast and Waring1997, Ralston 2008).The largest stand of Goodding’s willow remainingalong the river is at Cardenas Marsh (Mile 71L).There, only about 21 (39.6%) of 53 pre-dam treesremain alive, and all surviving trees have been severelyreduced in viability by beaver attack. We considerthe potential for extirpation of Goodding’s willow atCardenas Marsh to be high and likely within the nextColorado River Mile 195L – Fremont cottonwood site, 1923(Turner and Karpiscak 1980)boatman’s quarterly reviewpage 7
Page 3 and 4: of the aforementioned email from a
Page 5: Dear EddyIn response to the photo o
Page 9 and 10: Table 1: Distribution of late pre-d
Page 11: stands greening up again in the spr
Page 15 and 16: Hopihiniwtipu: Hopi HistoryEskwelí
Page 17 and 18: most similar hydrologic and geomorp
Page 19 and 20: Back of the Boat—The Whale Founda
Page 21 and 22: elieved that aluminum may compete w
Page 24 and 25: The Ancient Ones Of Grand CanyonFin
Page 26: a desert. Deserts flourish—its ju
Page 29 and 30: grabbed…they had a chain around t
Page 31 and 32: started studying it sort of on my o
Page 33 and 34: the whole thing, hit the rock at th
Page 35 and 36: I would go in front of him, and he
Page 37 and 38: * * *Steiger: Well, you got a maste
Page 40 and 41: Building houses in Nicaragua.babies
Page 42 and 43: Major ContributorsJuly 1, 2010 - Ju
Page 44 and 45: Jan TaylorJohn TonerRandy & Barb Tu
Page 47 and 48: Businesses Offering SupportThanks t

fall 11 / 24:3 - Grand Canyon River Guides

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?