Photo by Henry Aragoncillo (Henry aged the photo for effect)

Conservation Projects

(Index)
1. Surveys for Flora and Fauna
2. Healing Upland Erosion
3. Constructing a 35 Acre Wetland on the Floodplain of the Mora River
4. Restoration along the Mora River
5. Species Restoration
      5. a. Prairie dogs
      5. b. Bison
6. Broom Snakeweed Reduction

1. Surveys for Flora and Fauna

                                                                         

Brenda Fonju, a Master’s Degree Candidate at New Mexico Highlands University, places an automatic camera for her research on census techniques for mammals at the Wind River Ranch.

                                                                       

Members of the Audubon Society (Martin MacRoberts, Jo Osterhouse, and Eileen Everett) survey birds on the Wind River Ranch, which is now part of the Audubon Important Bird Area Program.  For a complete list of birds at the ranch, see the page titled “List of species.”

The New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy states; “The most significant factors affecting the persistence of SGCN [Species of Greatest Conservation Need] statewide are those that cause habitat conversion, loss, and degradation” (NM Game and Fish 2006, p. iv). The NM Conservation Strategy concludes that riparian habitats, ephemeral catchments, and perennial seeps, marshes, and springs are at highest risk from multiple factors throughout the state, and that these are “key areas upon which to focus conservation efforts” (NM Game and Fish 2006, p. 78). The information gaps are listed in the Conservation Strategy (NM Game and Fish 2006). Lief Ahlm, Chief of Northeast Operations for the New Mexico Game and Fish, told us that the least information exists for the shortgrass prairie.  We have those habitats on the Wind River Ranch.

As a basic step, we first need to know “what species are here.” Then, understanding abundance, distribution, habitat choice, and ecological interactions of vertebrates and invertebrates can promote management decisions that benefit overall ecosystem health (West et al. 1994).  Ecological health is defined as possessing all the parts of an ecosystem in densities and distribution that allow the system to function well. Monitoring looks for change over time, or a trend.

Monitoring programs that build an ecological model of the landscape, and assess the trends in relation to biotic and abiotic changes, are essential to adaptive management; yet such programs are not always a standard part of management activities (Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Lancia et al. 1996; Noss et al. 1996). Indeed, a conservation and management plan requires standardized ecological monitoring so that actions can be adjusted according to new information (Noss et al. 1996). The term monitoring implies data collection over multiple years. Taking long-term estimations of population composition before, during, and after biotic and abiotic changes provides needed information to assess the impacts of such changes and furnish useful options for management decisions (Sinclair 1991).

The initial surveys, and control plots, will provide a baseline against which we can measure the success of restoration treatments for (or reintroduction of) species on the state’s list of SGCN. Those organized surveys will record data layers on species and their habitat associations in GIS format (O’Neil et al. 2005). Brenda’s project is just beginning, but her cameras are yielding interesting information.  Brenda is from Cameroon, and plans to work on conservation of Great Apes after achioeving a Ph.D. The Audubon Society has recorded 130 species of birds on the ranch. 

2.  Healing Upland Erosion in Arroyos.

The 1880s saw a boom in cattle across the west. New Mexico was no exception. In 1880, there were 137,000 cattle in New Mexico but by 1889 that number had increased to 1,380,000. Heavy grazing in the 1880s, combined with drought, denuded the landscape, and caused a large die-off in cattle. When the rains returned, there was little vegetation to hold the water. The run-off created the present arroyos and the subsequent erosion. Erosion worsens as the slope increases in angle. Where a grade suddenly becomes steep, or soil hardness changes, run-off creates a head-cut (Zeedyk and Jansens 2004). Head-cuts, in turn, increase the speed of run-off. The erosion continues to the river, changing sediment levels, temperature, and oxygen content of the river.

Erosion and lower water tables reduce the soil particles’ ability to hold water (Zeedyk and Jansens 2004; Sponholtz 2005). As a result, plant diversity and percentage of groundcover decrease, and that reduces the resilience to catastrophic events (Zeedyk and Jansens 2004). Eventually, the soils drain enough to lower the water table, destroying wetlands, cienegas, and springs. The soils also harden, so run-off increases, and that dumps sediment into the river. All of these effects reduce habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife with subsequent declines in species diversity. Seeps and springs are particularly vulnerable.

 

An erosion gully on the Wind River Ranch

To return life to the land, soils must recover the ability to hold water (Zeedyk and Jansens 2004; Sponholtz 2005). Craig Sponholtz and Bill Zeedyk will consult and lead the efforts to reverse the effects of upland arroyos upon the landscape. They read the flow of the land and design one-rock dams, check dams, diversion dams, and terraces to reverse erosion. We will ask volunteers to carry rock, branches, mulch, etc. and place them. We will also plant native seeds, trees, and shrubs to provide food and cover for wildlife.

  

Enhancing a cienega at a workshop led by Bill Zeedyk with the Albuquerque Wildlife Federation and New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Such efforts slow the flow of water and allow water to soften the ground (Zeedyk and Jansens 2004; Sponholtz 2005). This increases the amount of infiltration into the soil. The dams also raise the bottom of the arroyo and change the steep, narrow cut into a wide, shallow swale. The water table then rises, extends the reach of moisture farther into the grasslands, and reduces sedimentation in the river. When plants sprout on a degraded area, it slows air movement, provides shade, reduces evaporation, further slows water flow, holds soil in place, and the ground litter from plants adds organic content (Zeedyk and Jansens 2004; Sponholtz 2005). This structural change increases the health of the grassland and provides habitat for a host of vertebrates and invertebrates.

Many of the upland arroyos feed into canyons that connect to the river. These canyons at one time had wetlands, cienegas, springs, and natural ponds. In some canyons, those areas have dried. In other areas, they are at-risk. The work on arroyos will thus extend into the canyons to restore, enhance, and protect these wet areas, which are a source of life in the Southwest. Wetlands and riparian areas represent 1% of the geographic area in the Southwest, yet are used at some level by 75 to 80% of the wildlife (Bogan et al. 1998). According to the New Mexico State Wildlife Plan, about 90% of the wetland and riparian systems have been degraded in New Mexico (NM DG&F 2006).

We have completed some of this arroyo and canyon work. Arroyo floors are rising and plants are sprouting. Bill Zeedyk headed a weekend workshop that finished all the structures in Petroglyph Canyon. Participants were interested citizens, members of the Albuquerque Wildlife Federation, and members of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. Craig Sponholtz and Steve Vrooman completed work in Silva Canyon, and Craig Sponholtz placed structures in Prairie Dog Arroyo. Rick Slater, of River Source, also used the structures to demonstrate watershed restoration techniques to teachers.

The work is sponsored by grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners in Fish and Wildlife Program, the Landowners Incentive Program by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the Wind River Ranch Foundation. One thing that the Wind River Ranch can offer is the opportunity to experiment with these techniques so that they can be improved. Many of the people who contract this kind of work just want known techniques applied to their land. We can give experts like Bill Zeedyk, Craig Sponholtz, Steve Vrooman, and Van Clothier the opportunity to try new ideas. Such research should also translate into a good graduate project for a student.

from left to right: Bill Zeedyk, Mary Zeedyk, and Craig Sponholtz in a cienega.

3. Constructing a 35 Acre Wetland on the Floodplain of the Mora River

Historically, the Mora River flowed across the center of a meadow in the canyon. At some point in history, the part of the river through that flowed through that meadow was moved over against the canyon wall and diked. The river was also sraightened. This produced a field for farming that was not bisected by the river. It also caused the channel to deepen, lowered the water table, increased erosion, removed the river from its natural floodplain, and increased the potential for flooding down-river.

The old river channel still carries water below-ground. The water table in the old channel is from 2 to 4 feet below the surface. Bill Zeedyk and Craig Sponholtz have designed a way to restore that former wetland by building four small connected ponds. The ponds would be surrounded by wet soils, covering about 35 acres in total. Because the water table is so close to the surface in the old river channel, we would only need to scrape away the top layer of soil. We would also plant wild grains, willows, and trees around the ponds. This should attract the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher to nest. We have recorded willow flycatchers on the ranch, but not nesting pairs.

The wetland, along with associated plants, will also benefit neotropical migrant birds, waterfowl, turkeys, ungulates, raptors, and carnivores. The cost of the ponds will be covered by the Landowners Incentive Program grant and a Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program grant (Natural Resources Conservation Service). The Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program will help us pay for the cost of trees and shrubs.

Mora River in Spring 

4. Restoration along the Mora River

As mentioned in section two, the Mora River has been straightened and diked around the pastures of the Headquarters area. The Quivira Coalition and Bill Zeedyk have generously written a grant to restore the Mora River on the Wind River Ranch. They propose that the Mora River restoration will include constructing seven deflectors (boulder baffles) to recreate five meanders in about 2,700 feet of channel. That will increase sinuosity, increase channel length, encourage riparian vegetation, improve wildlife habitat, and reconnect the channel with its floodplain (Zeedyk 2004). It will also reduce erosion and the potential for downstream flooding. Detailed planning for this project has not been completed, but it started in February of 2008 when Tamara Gadzia (Quivira Coalition), Bill Zeedyk (Zeedyk Ecological Consulting), and Van Clothier (Stream Dynamics) spent a week at the ranch.  Planning will require the usual clearances.  These will be completed in 2008. Work will be completed by 2010. Monitoring will continue until 2014.

The Quivira Coalition will organize and implement an educational tour of this project.  Participants will study induced meandering techniques with the tour lead by Bill Zeedyk who will present the “whys” and “hows” of induced meandering and other riparian restoration techniques and their effect on stream channel morphology, vegetation and ecosystem function.  Bill Zeedyk will be assisted by Craig Sponholtz, Brian Miller, and Quivira Coalition staff.

5. Species Restoration

     5. a. Prairie Dogs

Charles Ewell from People for Native Ecosystems preparing a burrow and nest box for the prairie dog translocation 

The Wind River Ranch now has a colony of Gunnison’s prairie dogs, thanks to fund-raising and labor by People for Native Ecosystems. Paula Martin headed the project. People for Native Ecosystems brought 300 prairie dogs to the ranch in 2006 and 2007. Those animals had been scheduled for poisoning in Santa Fe. The Gunnison’s prairie dog has just been classified as a Candidate Species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

A grassland inhabited by prairie dogs provides a greater mosaic of vegetation structure, an abundance of prey for predators, burrow systems, and altered ecological processes (increased nitrogen content, succulence, productivity of plants, and macroporosity/chemistry of soils) than uninhabited grasslands. Such changes enrich patterns of species diversity for prairie plants and animals (Coppock et al. 1983; Ingham and Detling 1984; Krueger 1986; Whicker and Detling 1988; Detling 1998; 2006). For example, species like black-footed ferrets, mountain plovers, ferruginous hawks, and forbs profit from prairie dog activities. On the other hand, shrubby species like mesquite and vertebrates associated with tall vegetation are limited by prairie dogs.

The matrix of ecological boundaries created by prairie dog colonies improves overall diversity of life across a landscape (Miller et al. 2000; Kotlier et al. 2006). In the jargon, that is called Beta diversity. Alpha diversity is basically species richness, or the number of species within a given patch of habitat. If there is only one habitat type across a landscape, then alpha diversity is all you will have. But, species like prairie dogs, bison, elephants, or beavers are ecosystem engineers, and they create differing patches of habitat across the landscape. Habitat A will have a set of species for its alpha diversity, whereas habitat B will have a different set of species for its alpha diversity. Both habitats may have the same number of species, but the species are different. Beta diversity is the number of species contained across those different habitat types. It is thus a better measure of ecosystem health because it measures diversity across habitat types, not just in a monoculture.

In a recent review of 206 vertebrate species seen on prairie dog colonies, 9 had quantitative data indicating dependence on prairie dogs (Kotlier et al. 1999). An additional 20 species had abundance data indicating opportunistic use of prairie dog colonies, and another 117 species had no abundance data on or off colonies, but their life history indicated that they could potentially benefit from prairie dog activities (Kotlier et al. 1999). The prairie dog thus fits the general classification of a keystone species (Miller et al. 1994; 2000; 2007; Kotlier et al. 1999; 2006; Soulé et al. 2005). They affect ecosystem structure, function, and composition in a way that is not wholly duplicated by any other species.

The keystone concept means prairie dogs must be protected for more than their own intrinsic value. While intrinsic value is important, so is the impact on other species and processes. Species that are highly interactive should be maintained in distribution and density that is sufficient for them to exercise their ecological role—not just remain taxonomically represented (Soulé et al. 2005). As one example, a colony of prairie dogs covering 1,000 hectares may hold 5,000 prairie dogs. That number likely would be enough to maintain a taxonomic representation of prairie dogs. But a prairie dog colony of 1,000 hectares would only hold about 20 black-footed ferrets, a number so small that the ferrets would not be able to survive genetic, demographic, or chance events. It is possible to protect a small number of prairie dogs without conserving sufficient prairie dog area to maintain a viable population of black-footed ferrets (Miller et al. 2000). That is the importance of considering ecosystem effects in conservation plans.

Our small prairie dog colony will provide research into the role of prairie dogs on grasslands, into grazing interactions among species (including levels of competition among grazers), and disease transmission (e.g. plague, and exotic disease from Asia) among and within species.

     5. b. Bison

 

Jicarilla Apache Elders (Carol Collins, Suki Vincenti, and LaVerne Notsinneh) and Cultural Offairs Office (Bryan Vigil and Lorene Willis) viewing their bison

At present we have a herd of about 35 bison from the Jicarilla Apache Cultural Affairs Office plus a few of our own (the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative has donated four bison to the Wind River Ranch). We began grazing bison in June 2007 as a result of talks with several tribes about sharing a herd. With enough partners, that herd could be moved from place to place to more closely mimic the historic movements of bison. The Cultural Affairs Office of the Jicarilla Apache wants to start a herd of bison on their tribal lands, and we are trying to give them a head start by grazing the bison on the Wind River Ranch. We view bison as a significant commitment to restoring grassland health and native species diversity. Indeed, of all the wild ungulates that were nearly pushed to extinction in the late 1800s, only bison have not recovered in the wild.

Bison are an integral part of the prairie grassland (Knapp et al. 1999; Truitt et al. 2001). The present grassland was formed largely due to the activities of prairie dogs and bison, two highly interactive species (Lott 2002; Kotliar et al. 2006). In their absence, grassland health declined, despite the introduction of another large grazer, domestic cattle.

While much of the difference between cattle and bison is due to management practices by humans (see this website under the head of Conservation Projects), some differences are also due to evolution, morphology, and behavior. We propose that these differences give the bison an advantage over domestic cattle in the West. While there is a high overlap of diet between bison and cattle, the two species produce very different ecological effects (Freese et al. 2007).

Cattle are exotic to the U.S. and native to wetter areas, whereas bison evolved in the drought-driven conditions of the Great Plains. Indeed, bison are the only member of the Bovini line that are not represented at some level in the tropics (McDonald 1981). Perhaps because of this evolutionary history, cattle tend to stay closer to water than bison (Van Vuren 1983). Experiments have shown that grazing intensity of cattle is inversely related to the distance from water (Soltero et al. 1989; Holochek et al. 2004). Unless fencing, water development, or herding has prevented cows from staying near water, cattle have denuded the nearby grasses, trampled stream banks, harmed water quality, and degraded riparian areas (US GAO 1988; US EPA 1998).

Bison are more efficient with water than cattle. Bison typically come to get a drink once a day (Peden et al. 1974; Norland 1984). They leave after the drink, spending about an hour near water (Norden 1984; Wilkerson 2007). This may be due to predator avoidance strategies or the tight social structure of family groups within a larger herd (Wilkerson 2007). Having bison thus avoids the management costs of preventing riparian damage, and it also reduces demand on the declining aquifer.

Bison digest roughage better than cattle can, and bison thus can better utilize low-protein forage (Plumb and Dodd 1993; Truitt et al. 2001). This gives bison a competitive advantage over cattle on native grasslands. Being able to use lower quality forage allows bison to graze farther from the moist areas. Bison hides have better insulation than cattle, which makes their energy intake more efficient during winter. Bison can thus graze in deep snow (Meagher 1973), whereas cattle need to be subsidized under such conditions.

When confronted with a large predator, bison will be better equipped to protect themselves than cattle.  During calving, female bison stay close to the calves.  If there is a threat, females will circle a calf, forming an inpenetrable fence between the threat and calf.  Bison evolved a cantering gait which gives them the ability to run long distances; this may be a way to escape predators on the prairie (Geist 1996).

Both sexes of bison break trees and uproot yucca that are growing on the grassland (pers. obs.).  It took 35 bison three months to kill 91% of the yucca in a 1,500 acre area of the Wind River Ranch.  We continue to monitor the yuccas and trees.  This horning of trees that enter the grassland has also been noticed in Yellowstone National Park (Reynolds et al. 1982). Meager (1973) speculated that such behavior by bison may inhibit the spread of trees onto the prairie and thus help maintain grasslands.   Although fire has often been credited for keeping shrubs out of grasslands, bison also play an important role in keeping the grasslands in grasses.  When bison filled the prairie, yucca were restricted to rocky slopes.

Piñon pine horned by bison. 

We also monitor the effects of bison on headcuts.  Early results show that bison horn and paw headcuts, breaking down the bank.  This may allow reseeding and slowing of erosion in arroyos. 

The wallowing of bison creates depressions in the prairie. These depressions can hold water, at least seasonally, and that benefits amphibians, mesic vegetation, and wildlife in general (Knapp et al. 1999; Truett et al. 2001). The localized wallows contribute to different patches of habitat across a landscape, thus promoting species diversity (Truett et al. 2001).

We have not had problems with bison breaking fences, and we use standard four or five wire fences that are 42 inches high. We try to create the conditions they want. But, bison do handle much differently than cattle. You need patience to move them. On the positive side, you do not need a system of fenced paddocks for bison, nor do you have to rotate them through different pastures. Bison move themselves. Instead of rotational grazing, you can simply remove internal fences and let bison move themselves. Indeed, bison grazing and moving patterns contribute to habitat heterogeneity, and they produce a diversity of grass heights and species (Truett et al. 2001).

Finally, bison meat is healthier than domestic meats, particularly for people with diabetes or high cholesterol. Bison meat is low in cholesterol because there is no marbling of fat (Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, pers. com.). Bison, meat and otherwise, are important to restoring cultures for many tribes in North America (Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, pers. com.).

With a herd of bison at the Wind River Ranch, we will investigate grazing interactions, interactions of bison and grassland health, and bison conservation strategies in cooperation with the Jicarilla Apache and the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative. We hope to build a conservation herd that can be a reservoir of genetically pure bison—uncontaminated by cattle genes. Freese et al (2007) have listed this action as a conservation priority.

Bison may improve grassland health over use by cattle, but for people to switch from raising cattle to bison there must be a market for the meat. Balancing a market for bison with objectives of improving grassland health will require a great deal of thought and investigation (if it is possible at all). Given the market economy and low profit margins, there will be pressure to further domesticate bison (Freese et al. 2007). At present about 96% of the 500,000 bison in North America are bred and managed for commodity production (Freese et al. 2007). This means the bison is functionally extinct in the wild (Freese et al. 2007). While still present taxonomically, the bison does not exist in density or distribution that is sufficient for the species to reclaim its role as a highly interactive species of the prairie (Soulé et al. 2005). Restoring such species to population levels where they can again assert their role in ecological and evolutionary function is a prime goal of conservation; such population levels are typically much higher than numbers needed to retain viable populations, particularly minimum viable numbers (Soulé et al. 2005). Tribal initiatives, facilitated by the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, may present one of the best opportunities to restore free-ranging bison to their former function.

6. Broom Snakeweed Reduction

 

Broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) is a native plant of the New Mexico blue grama (Bouteloua gracialis) grasslands. Broom snakeweed is poisonous to cattle and sheep, and it can suppress other plants in the immediate area (McDaniel et al. 1993). It has become overabundant locally, perhaps as a result of fire suppression and historic overgrazing during drought years.

In an experiment, McDaniel et al. (1997) compared burning broom snakeweed/blue grama grassland in spring and summer. During spring, fires were cooler and moved faster; In addition, broom snakeweed was in the bud stage. Summer fires had higher temperatures. As a result, they found that spring fires killed 8% of the crown and 65% of the shrubs whereas summer fires killed 66% of the crown and 92% of the shrubs.

McDaniel et al. (1997) tried to burn on consecutive years, but conditions made that difficult. They concluded that ideal conditions needed to converge for fire to be effective on snakeweed. Given that snakeweed declines can increase grasses, Edward Martinez (New Mexico Highlands University) and the Wind River Ranch are comparing different methods of mowing to see if that can reduce snakeweed and increase grasses. We are mowing in the summer when the energy is in the plant and not still stored in the root, and we are mowing in various numbers of consecutive years. We will correlate results with rainfall per season.

Bogan, M.A., et al. 1998. Southwest. Pp. 543-592 in Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. Eds. M.J. Mac, P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and P.D. Doran. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington DC.

Coppock, D.L. et al. 1983. Plant-herbivore interactions in a North American mixed-grass prairie. I. Effects of black-tailed prairie dogs on intraseasonal aboveground plant biomass and nutrient dynamics and plant species diversity. Oecologia 56:1-9.

Detling, J.K. 1998. Mammalian herbivores: Ecosystem-level effects in two grassland national parks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 438-448.

Detling, J.K. 2006. Do prairie dogs compete with livestock? Pp. 65-88 in Conservation of the black-tailed prairie dog. Ed. J.L. Hoogland. Island Press, Washington DC.

Freese, C.H. et al. 2007. Second chance for the plains bison. Biological Conservation 136: 175-184.

Geist, V. 1996. Buffalo nation: History and legend of the North America bison. Voyageur Press. Stillwater, Minnesota.

Ingham, R.E. and J.K. Detling. 1984. Plant-herbivore interactions in a North American mixed-grass prairie III. Soil nematode populations and root biomass on Cynomys ludovicianus colonies and adjacent uncolonized areas. Oecologia 63: 307-313.

Knapp et al. 1999. The keystone role of bison on the North American tallgrass prairie. BioScience 49: 39-50.

Kotliar, N.B. et al. 1999. A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dogs as a keystone species. Environmental Management 24:177-192.

Kotliar, N.B. et al. 2006. The prairie dog as a keystone species. Pp. 53-64 In Conservation of the black-tailed prairie dog: Saving North America’s Western Grasslands. Ed. J.L. Hoogland. Island Press, Washington DC.

Krueger, K. 1986. Feeding relationships among bison, pronghorn, and prairie dogs: An experimental analysis. Ecology 67: 760-770.

Lancia, R.A., J.D. Nichols, and K.H. Pollock. 1996. Estimating the Number of Animals in Wildlife Populations. Pp. 215-253 in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats. (Ed.) T.A. Bookhout, The Wildlife Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.

Lott, D.F. 2002. American bison. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.McDonald, J.N. 1981. North American bison: Their classification and evolution. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

McDaniel, K.C. et al. 1993. Overstory-understory relationships for broom snakeweed-blue grama grasslands. J. Range Management 46: 506-511.

McDaniel et al. 1997. Broom snakeweed control with fire on blue grama rangeland. J. Range Management 50: 652-69.

Meager, M.M. 1973. The bison of Yellowstone National Park. National Park Service Scientific Monograph. Series 1.

Miller, B. et al. 1994. Prairie Dogs, Poison, and Biotic Diversity. Conservation Biology 8: 677-681.

Miller, B. et al. 2007. Prairie dogs: an ecological review and current biopolitics. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2801-2810.

Miller, B. et al. 2000. The role of prairie dogs as keystone species: A response to Stapp. Conservation Biology 14: 318-321.

New Mexico Game and Fish. 2006. Comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Norland, J.E. 1984. Habitat use and distribution of bison in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. MS Thesis, Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana.

Noss, R.F. and A. Copperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press,
Washington D.C.

Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D.D. Murphy. 1996. The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Peden, D.G. 1974. The trophic ecology of Bison bison on shortgrass plains. J. Applied Ecology 11:489-498.Plumb, G. E. and J.L. Dodd. 1993. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a mixed grass prairie:Implications for natural area management. Ecological Applications 3: 631-643.

Reynolds, H.W. et al. Bison. Pp.972-1007 in Wild Mammals of North America. Eds. J.A. Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer. John
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.

Sinclair, A.R.E. 1991. Science and the Practice of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 767-773.

Soltero, S. et al. 1989. Standing crop patterns under short duration grazing in northern Mexico. J. Range Manage. 42:20-21.

Soulé, M.E. et al. 2005. Strongly interacting vertebrate species: Conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience. 55: 168-176.

Sponholtz, C. 2005. Agro-ecological Restoration. M.A. Thesis, Prescott College. Prescott, Arizona.

Truett, J.C. et al. 2001. Managing bison to restore biodiversity. Great Plains Research 11: 123-144.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. The quality of our nation’s water: 1996. EPA841-S-97-001. Washington D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Rangeland management: More emphasis needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments. GAO/RCED-88-80. Washington D.C.

Van Vuren, D. 1983. Group dynamics and summer home range of bison in southern Utah. J. Mammalogy 64: 329-332.

West, N.E., K. McDaniel, E.L. Smith, P.T. Tueller, and S. Leonard. 1994. Monitoring and interpreting ecological integrity on arid and semi-arid lands of the western United States.College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Whicker, A. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog disturbances. Bioscience 38: 778-785.Wilkerson, T. 2007. Interview with Bob Jackson. New West Online, September 2007

Zeedyk, B. 2004. An introduction to induced meandering: A method for restoring stability to incised stream channels. The Quivira Coalition, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Zeedyk, B. and J. Jansens. 2004. An introduction to erosion control. The Quivira Coalition, Santa Fe, New Mexico.