Opinion : Water wonderland: Why is the SPRNCA so biologically diverse? : Sierra Vista, AZ

Today's Weather


Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast


Water wonderland: Why is the SPRNCA so biologically diverse?


Published/Last Modified on Friday, Nov 09, 2007 - 06:12:38 am MST

Commentary by Alan Blixt
Special to the Herald/Review

The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area is one of the most biologically diverse places in North America. More than 350 species of birds have been seen on the SPRNCA, along with more than 80 species of mammals and nearly 60 species of reptiles and amphibians. More than 600 species of plants have been identified in the NCA.

Why is there so much diversity here? Overlapping eco-regions, open space, clean air, and large, intact blocks of land are the major reasons. The Rocky Mountains begin just north of here and extend all the way to Alaska. This is a temperate, high elevation mountain range. To the south we find the Sierra Madres, a warm, sub-tropical mountain range extending south into southern Mexico. Our local mountain ranges are the northern most extension of the Sierra Madre and the southern most extension of the Rockies. To the east we find the temperate mid-elevation Chihuahuan Desert and to the west, the sub-tropical low elevation Sonoran Desert. Together, these four large and very different eco-regions blend here in the San Pedro River Valley resulting in a wide variety of habitats.

Within the NCA, the river is characterized by a water-side cottonwood/willow gallery forest on the banks of the river. On the terraces above the river is a Mesquite woodland (or Bosque) adjacent to a floodplain grassland. In the northern portion of the SPRNCA we find desert scrubland above the Sacaton grassland floodplain. Further south in the SPRNCA we have semi-arid grassland instead of the desert scrub.


Riparian habitat showing beaver dam with rocky terrain and elevation change in the background. (Courtesy of Dutch Nagle)


The hills located in the vicinity of Charleston include another habitat, rocky outcrops, unique within the SPRNCA. This tremendous variety of habitats offers many unique environments where different species of plants and animals with different preferences not only survive but flourish.

A final major influence is the highly varied climate in Southeastern Arizona with five distinct seasons. We have the classic four seasons familiar in much of the rest of North America, plus our blazing hot dry “pre-summer” season that is the prelude to the summer rainy season. Our two distinct rainy seasons, summer and winter, also have a great influence on habitat and plant communities.

Winter moisture from mid-December through early March is essential for successful spring wildflowers. April, May and June are our driest months of the year and are windy resulting in tremendous wind pollination and seed dispersal. From early July through early September (the monsoon), we receive 50 and 60 percent of our yearly rainfall. These rains are critical for our summer wildflowers and warm-weather grasses. I have never seen an explosion of life anywhere to compare with the onset of our rainy season.

Incidentally, it is the failure of our winter rains that has resulted in our “drought” conditions, which may actually be a return to more historically normal rain patterns rather than a short-term drought that we can simply “wait out.”

Different habitats support different plants and the different plants support different animals. The floodplain/grasslands support bunch grasses, soaptree yucca, gourds, pepper-weed, golden crownbeard, wild sunflower and many other plants. These plants support a wealth of grassland birds as well as a wide variety of insects, grazers and browsers, and then indirectly the predators that consume those animals.

The riparian habitat has enough water for larger plants and trees such as cottonwood, willow, ash, walnut, and seep willow to grow. This wooded area supports yet another community of animals and insects. Here we find many of our larger animals such as bear and mountain lion. Beaver are only found in this habitat. It is also here that we find the greatest number of birds because this environment provides suitable nesting areas as well as abundant food to feed their chicks.

Although the SPRNCA does not offer much elevation change within its boundaries, it is only a few miles to the mountains and canyons of the Huachuca Mountains, where the elevation increases to more than 9,000 feet. The flora and fauna at these higher elevations are certainly different from those found along the river. However, because of the proximity of these mountains and the migratory nature of things, we often see plants and animals within the SPRNCA that do not normally reside here.

When you realize the variety of habitats in this area it is easy to understand the diversity that we enjoy.

Join us on our walks and hikes, or just take a walk on your own and enjoy your public land. (Our next hike is scheduled for Nov. 17 starting at St. David Research Natural Area.)

ALAN BLIXT is a member of the Board of Directors and a docent for the Friends of the San Pedro River. He can be reached at fspr@sanpedroriver.org or FSPR, 1763 Paseo San Luis, Sierra Vista AZ 85635, or by phone at 459-2555. Water Wonderland is a column by the Friends of the San Pedro River that runs the second Friday of each month.



Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   





    to oh no wrote on Nov 17, 2007 3:36 PM:

    " Sorry, but there isn't any public land on Kachina. It is Mt. Shadows subdivision plat or other private property. There is city property in the wash from Cherokee, St Andrews, and BST. Why can't you enter the wash from there? Isn't that enough recreational access points for you? Maybe you should be wondering why the city hasn't done anything about the access from Roadrunner Park, and instead has it barricaded. "

    to good site wrote on Nov 17, 2007 7:47 AM:

    " If you liked www.anybodybutcall, why don't you host www.restrainstrain.com? "

    gangster wrote on Nov 17, 2007 7:44 AM:

    " The gangs and drug dealers were already in force in the wash. Why do you think there is graffiti on the St. Andrews and Cherokee bridges and on the block fence along Kachina? The gangs have been marking their territory for a while now. Why do you think the private property at the end of Kachina was fenced? Or should private property owners shoulder the responsibility for liability for "accidents" on their property and for cleaning up other peoples messes? "

    to question wrote on Nov 17, 2007 7:35 AM:

    " Voters ratified the City of Sierra Vista general plan, Vista 2020, in 2003. There is a link for it at www.gardencanyonwash.com, or look for it under documents under the city of sierra vista's web page (but sometimes they hide it). Roadrunner Park is included in Vista 2020, and is located on the south side of garden canyon wash, east of St. Andrews Drive. The city has it barricaded off now, so you can't get in there except by walking. There is also a development agreement to provide recreational access at the corner of 92/BST. "

    Advise to Parking wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:50 PM:

    " Learn the difference between a road and a parking lot. How is the city paying for the tons of dirt? Where is the dirt coming from? Moving all of this dirt is distructive to the wash ecology and the area it will be carved from. None of this follows rules for washes in the Vista 20-20 Plans . The county has rules about being able to move that much dirt around too Has Pat Call signed off on this? Do you get you half baked ideas from him? "

    To Parking wrote on Nov 16, 2007 9:41 PM:

    " There is a big difference between driving by something and having a parking lot right next to it. Vista 20-20 states that minimal grading should be done in a wash, that would include moving in tons of dirt. "

    Oh No wrote on Nov 16, 2007 9:34 PM:

    " GardenCanyonWash, Your are a person of one, and maybe a few friends that live in your area, that think you own the public land. "

    Recreational Public wrote on Nov 16, 2007 8:50 PM:

    " GCW.com, you are grasping at straws with your continual negative thinking and constant excuses, all in your own selfish interest. The good of an asset like a linear park with multiple access points far outweighs all the bogeymen you are trying to scare us with. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Nov 16, 2007 5:02 PM:

    " Thursday a van missed the turn at Kachina Trail and Calle Encina and ran off the bank. This wasn't the first time. If you add yet another road to this intersection, especially one coming up a blind incline, you will have an extremely dangerous public safety hazard. A parking lot at this remote location will also be a magnet for teen drinking and reckless driving of motorbikes and ATVs. The council says they will police it. Believe us, they won't. We warned them before. No one listened. What a pity. "

    Parking wrote on Nov 16, 2007 3:00 PM:

    " So why is parking next to Batts a problem. I already know he doesn't care. And the well isn't a problem. The well on Cherokee an Kachina has a road next to it. The well on BST and 92 has road by it. Tons of dirt was probably brought in for Batts house. Thsi would just extend that. Minimal ecological impact. "

    Question wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:30 PM:

    " I keep seeing "voters approved" something. Was this a special election? A referendum? Can someone please tell exactly what the "voters approved" and when they approved it? Thanks. "

    Good site wrote on Nov 16, 2007 12:29 PM:

    " I liked the site www.anybodybutcall.com. "

    To Sierra Vista City wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:27 AM:

    " It is not OK with your voters to change the rules as you go. Own up to your mistakes, leave the wash with dirt paths and put the parking at Roadrunner Park where we voted for it. I pay enough taxes without having to pay for a parking lot in the county. "

    build it wrote on Nov 16, 2007 5:55 AM:

    " Did you know that one of Pat Call's biggest supporters and his past and present campaign manager is associated with Bella Vista Ranches, one of the largest developers in the area? And did you know that a Bella Vista truck has been in the area at the Antelope Water Run Well at the end of Kachina? And did you know that the state trust land's purpose is sale for benefit to the trust beneficiaries? Have water? WILL BUILD. "

    funny wrote on Nov 16, 2007 5:37 AM:

    " It is funny that the city's resolution 2007-082 seems to forget all about the parking at Roadrunner Park, the large tract of undeveloped land south of the wash and east of St. Andrews. You could park there now if the barriers were removed. Then the fort gates would never have been closed. Roadrunner Park is in Vista 2020 that we voters ratified back in 2003. Maybe you didn't live here then. "

    Mediator, Hiker, Biker, Out DoorPerson. wrote on Nov 16, 2007 1:21 AM:

    " Forget the parking lot and just go for the natural dirt path to bike and hike, otherwise use the paved streets for your smooth, mile eating rides. Mary Jacobs told me the parking lot would be open 24/7 with no gates, It seem the city politician's do not give the same information to each caller. Maybe the gang/bangers has changed the city's mind set. Gee, couldn't those beings have fun out there in the parking lot and wash. "

    Just use.... wrote on Nov 15, 2007 9:51 PM:

    " Just use the large cemment drainage ways to access the wash. They are in place, are wide, and bikers or hikers could access them. There are several in the Shadow Mt. areas. They were provided by the city and Castle & Cooke. No cost. "

    Wondering wrote on Nov 15, 2007 9:41 PM:

    " A parking lot on Kachina would have to be in the 'for sale lot' or right in the Batt's yard to get it out of the flood plain. Wonder if that is what this family agreeded to? What ever happened to following what the voters approved and the Roadrunner Park? "

    Excuse Me wrote on Nov 15, 2007 9:31 PM:

    " The H.Audubon Society wrote their original letter based on false information. Insead of following the National Audubon's Stated Mission, they folded. The area is not "eco-friendly": it is near the Antelope Water Co. well and is part of the re-charge system. There is no hill on Kachina. The alluvial fan slopes down to the flood plain and into Garden Canyon Wash. This area is still too close to the fort foot gate and we will never get access back to the fort areas with a parking lot there. Follow Vista 20-20!!!!! "

    Idea wrote on Nov 15, 2007 8:12 PM:

    " Why not just move the wash, and the fort? "

    mediator wrote on Nov 15, 2007 6:55 PM:

    " It does seem to be a reasonable solution to put the parking lot next to Kachina. It would be out of the floodplain, would be less expensive, easier to maintain, and less destructive to the wash. This is the option favored by the Huachuca Audubon Society in their correspondence to the city council, and it is eco friendly. "

    to no sweat wrote on Nov 15, 2007 6:26 PM:

    " You may not be aware that Colorado River Water had been divided up between several states for many years and that they are still legally bickering over who gets what. There already is not enough to meet the demands that are already legally required. So where does the extra Colorado River Water come from and are you going to pay the legal expenses to fight with California and Mexico over what we should get in Sierra Vista? "

    to Biking Hiking Outdoor Person wrote on Nov 15, 2007 6:20 PM:

    " The citys resolution 2007-082 says that "there is no additional parking area available to residents and vistors to provide close access to both garden canyon wash and the pedestrian access gate to Fort Huachuca". So yes, indeed, the purpose of the parking lot in the same agenda item was to access the pedestrian access gate. Let's put the parking lot right next to Kachina Trail so we can get the access gates open again. "

    to outdoor guy wrote on Nov 15, 2007 6:15 PM:

    " I agree. Let's put the parking lot next to Kachina Trail so it won't impact the wash. Then taxpayers won't have to spend as much to construct a longer road. Then garden canyon wash.com will be happy and people wanting access will be happy. Easy solution. "

    latecomer wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:56 PM:

    " If you are interested in some history of how county government has treated residents, see www.anybodybutcall.com Call was on the city planning commission from 1990-2000. Why didn't he do anything about the promised access from Roadrunner Park? That would have kept the fort gate open, you would have somewhere to park (you could park there now if they removed the barriers), and all the residents would be happy. Instead the county forced private property owners to foot all the responsibility for providing public recreational access instead of doing their job. "

    Good idea wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:55 PM:

    " Good idea Outdoor guy. Anybody else agree? How does anyone propose to get fort access back? "

    Outdoor guy wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:29 PM:

    " OK. How about we ask City to move the parking lot back to just at the bottom of the hill off Kachina. That way we still have parking and access and some people can quit complaining about ruining the whole wash and it would still be far from the Fort Gate so everyone who wants to can get the Fort reopened. Parking would be close to Batts but he probly wont care because he is access friendly and the CIty would build a wall. Will you stop complaining then? "

    Read the Memo wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:57 PM:

    " The Memo to the mayor and City Council attached to resolution 2007-082 states the specific purpose of the parking lot in these words, "after reviewing maps of the area and identifying the location of the pedestrian/bike access point to Fort Hucahcua..." The only reason I ever wanted access to the area was en route to Fort Huachuca. The small area the City owns gets pretty boring in 20 minutes on a mountain bike. If everyone would quit bickering, we could find a suitable access point AND get the good access (to the Fort) back. "

    Interesting wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:53 PM:

    " Interesting that Sierra Vista has signs stating NO PARKING on both sides of Kachina before the jog that becomes county. Pat Call has not helped the county residence that he represents: he actually encouraged parking on the sides of the county roads which are narrower without paved shoulders or areas for parking. Supervisor Call should advocate parking at Roadrunner Park INSTEAD of letting the city dictate what the county does. Supervisor Call should be supporting conservation in the county and not encouraging the city by his silence!!!! "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:22 PM:

    " To Biker/Hiker: It is only 1.2 miles from St.Andrews to the Fort line. Are you sure you can't bike that far? "

    Biking Hiking Outdoor Person wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:03 AM:

    " The people deserve foot and bicycle access to that wash on your end and from other points. You don't want them parking on your streets, so they need a lot. Thanks to Batts and the city for providing that. Can you cite when the city ever "stated the parking lot was to access this open 24/7 gate"? This sounds like another exaggeration from selfish GCW 'owners'. One more thing, turn off the caps lock, unless you're the type who thinks shouting wins debates. "

    12:46 AM to BHO Pereson wrote on Nov 14, 2007 5:44 PM:

    " Hi, I never mentioned paving. I wrote a "REAL OUTDOOR PERSON WOULD WANT DIRT TRAILS AND NO PARKING IN THE WASH". You keep projecting words, attitudes and actions on to others. The city caused the fort to close the foot gate when they stated the parking lot was to access this open 24/7 gate. If the city only wanted foot access to GCW why didn't they make that part of their orginal proposal and save all of us this grief? I politely suggest you take you own advice. Go Friends-of-San-Pedro-River AND FRIENDS-OF-GARDEN-CANYON-WASH. "

    Biking Hiking Outdoor Person wrote on Nov 14, 2007 10:54 AM:

    " The 12:46 AM poster continues the bickering exaggeration as if anyone ever said the whole wash will become paved (no ever did nor would). Also I said multiple access points and that means your end, the middle and the beginning of the linear park. You guys do seem to favor concrete in one aspect--ie rigid strategic planning that cannot adapt to changing circumstances such as when your neighbor graciously permitted access to everybody's wash. Get over your anger and illogical assumptions. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Nov 14, 2007 6:35 AM:

    " The idea of using the Road Runner Park as the parking and central access point is not what we are dictating. It was proposed by the City in the Vista 2020 Strategic Plan and approved by the voters in 2003. It is the only plan ever approved by the voters and therefore represents the will of the community. It also makes common sense. The parking area is on high ground, already exists and has a paved road to the Wash. The last thing taxpayers want is too waste more of their money on unnecessary and undesirable "improvements." "

    To Biking Hiking Outdoor Person wrote on Nov 14, 2007 12:46 AM:

    " A REAL Out Door person would want dirt trails and no parking in the wash. Why don't you attack the city for allowing Castle and Cooke to build a fence around their property shuting off wash access? Access could still be had on Cherokee, St. Andrews, and BST. A private land owner is not responsible to provide public access to land that the city landlocked in the first place. It's ironic that the city is trading it's floodplain area for Castle& Cooks Tract A for a park in Green-Brier-Estates just off of Cherry Hills Drive "

    Biking Hiking Outdoor Person wrote on Nov 13, 2007 10:11 AM:

    " It's not about the pavement (a 'problem' that you selfish wash 'owners' are overstating). It's about the access. Maybe you would prefer that we park on the street outside your home? I want multiple access to a linear park, not a remote entry point that you dictate. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Nov 11, 2007 1:50 PM:

    " To Second the Wash: No one has come anywhere close to suggesting that the City intends to pave the entire Wash. We have simply stated that there is already way too much development in the Wash and that the last thing we need is more. The small remaining area that has not already been covered with sub-divisions needs to be preserved as a nature park. That is what is best for the Wash and also best for those who truly wish to enjoy nature. It is those who say they need more pavement to enjoy nature whose motives are suspect. "

    To Second the Motion wrote on Nov 11, 2007 1:18 PM:

    " Just like Share it, you are projecting your "hysteria" on to people who want dirt trails in the south-west end of the proposed linear park in Garden Canyon Wash, not a paved path, paved entryway, and a 15-20 car paved parking lot. No one has mentioned "paving ALL of Garden Canyon Wash" EXCEPT for you as you midirect and exaggerate. I AGREE that the public has the right to access and use the wash: however, I DO NOT AGREE TO THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR ENTRY POINTS. PARKING LOTS AREN'T TRAIL HEADS!!!!!!! "

    County resident wrote on Nov 10, 2007 4:46 PM:

    " To "Share It"....if all the city wanted to do was to provide hiking or biking access, why do they need a driveway, a 15-20 car parking lot, and spend 25-30 thousand dollars for something that has not even been designed yet? (I know of a bridge in Brooklyn that you might like to buy too.) More power to SPRNCA and the GardenCanyonWash.com to protect what others would destroy in the name of progress. You are welcome to hike or bike on public propery, but you are not welcome to abuse private property to do so. "

    Check it out wrote on Nov 10, 2007 2:26 PM:

    " Check out the City of Sierra Vista's web site. "Best kept Secret, our multi-use paths, Blazing a trail to everywhere". Right, their best kept secrets and parking lot plans got the fort's foot gates closed. The city continues with their sneaky, underhanded deceptions and misdirections. I'm glad the SPRNCA was formed, but other smaller areas need protection too. Individuals must be willing to stand-up for nature and private property rights: if individuals don't, the city will run smack-dab over the top of all of us. Good luck when they invade your neighborhood. "

    Second the motion of Share It wrote on Nov 10, 2007 1:01 PM:

    " To the hysterical ones (the ones who responded to Share It): You act like the city is going to pave ALL of Garden Canyon Wash. How ridiculous. Your constant exaggerations have undercut your credibility. The public has a right to access the wash not just from where you dictate but ideally from multiple points on the trail. Your selfish position and disingenuous arguments will not hold up under public scrutiny. "

    GardenCanyonWash wrote on Nov 10, 2007 11:11 AM:

    " To Share it: We have no problem with real nature hikers who aren't out to destroy the Wash with paved roads and parking lots. Real nature lovers don't have an issue with dirt trails. If you are so fond of pavement, just stay on the street. "

    A property owner in Sierra Vista wrote on Nov 10, 2007 10:43 AM:

    " To "Share It"...if the city has its way, the beautiful nature of Garden Canyon Wash will be leaving as the city chip-seals pathways, a steep entryway, and a parking lot. Add a few porta-potties and a gate for the heck of it. Is this REALLY what you want for the beautiful canyon wash? Sharing is not the problem, turning the wash into just another asphalt jungle is!!!!!! Why do you think the SPRNCA was formed if not to preserve the natural in nature. Sounds like you're projecting your own behavior/mentality on to other people. "

    Get real, Share it wrote on Nov 10, 2007 10:15 AM:

    " Get Real, Share it! You can hike or bike in Garden Canyon Wash all you want. I object to paved paths and a parking lot in the wash. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO!!!! ALSO I RESPECT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA. Many people seem to think it is OK to cut fences, dump trash, and go whereever you want. Leave you name and address so others can cut holes in your fences and make a path by hiking and biking across your private backyard. "

    Share It wrote on Nov 10, 2007 3:17 AM:

    " I know where you are, 'gardencanyonwash.com'. You're a selfish small group who pretends to be interested in everyone's ecology, but your only agenda is that you cannot stand the thought of other people hiking through 'Your Backyard' (not really yours) enjoying the beautiful nature of GCW. That is all the city is trying to do. "

    Do you know wrote on Nov 9, 2007 8:00 PM:

    " Do you know that Garden Canyon Wash lies between parts of the San Pedro and the Huachuca Mountains? Sierra Vista's plan to pave a trail and/or put a parking lot in the wash directly affects those migrating animals and birds going from the low lands to the mountains. City politicians should care about keeping natural habit, but their actions speak louder than the words that they mouth. "

    Wake-up wrote on Nov 9, 2007 5:33 PM:

    " Wake-up Sierra Vista. Every time the city votes to pave part of a wash and build more sub divisions, you are losing precious resourses. Money will not buy more water forever. Destroyed natural habitat will not be restored. How do you like the new sewer hikes (remember there will be 2). You can continue to ignore the big picture and vote for GROWTH-IS-GOOD Mayor Strain, the City Council and their hired hands, and County Supervisor Pat Call. Oh, yes, then they can create more taxes as water board members and support their BUILDING-BUDDIES. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Nov 9, 2007 4:39 PM:

    " To No Sweat: The Colorado cannot sustain even its present users' insatiable requirements. And even if it could, officials estimate the cost to connect us at $200 million. Of course it would really be $400 to $500 before they were finished. How about a desalinization plant? What would that REALLY cost? Bottom line is that there will be an extraordinary tax burden on the present residents just so that developers can make huge profits building tens of thousands of new homes. Of course all to be built by illegals, adding an even greater tax burden. Such a deal. "

    No Sweat wrote on Nov 9, 2007 10:31 AM:

    " Not to worry, the Water District will solve all problems. Import water from the Colorado River, the Tombstome mines, and any where else they can find it. All for just a few dollars more in taxes. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Nov 9, 2007 6:37 AM:

    " Very interesting information piece about a critical and very threatened eco-system. Unfortunately Mr. Blixt did not offer any opinion in his opinion editorial. Does his organization understand that this vital water resource is threatened and do they have policies and strategies to address the threat? If so, what are they? If we fail to act soon, there wont be much to see on those walks. "

Community Videos



Additional recent videos can be viewed here


Use the arrows on each side of the player to for the next/previous video

Lastest U.S. Videos


In Tomorrow's Herald


At home: Get your house ready for Thanksgiving

Subscribe Today!

Photo Galleries

Contact Us


Staff Directory

Advertisement




Reader Poll



Calendar

Upcoming Events:

Faith and Spirituality