2.1 Previous Studies
Three previous investigations provided a basis for our interviews.
The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) 1998 eco-regional workshop materials
identified sensitive plants, animals and plant communities for
the Sonoran desert, as did The Wildlands Project's "State
of the Biome" report (Nabhan and Holdsworth 1998). Both these
efforts treat a broad area which includes part of Pima County,
excluding the Sky Islands eco-region. The Coalition for the Sonoran
Desert Protection Plan compiled a preliminary list in July 1998
specifically for Pima County. Their list was based on an evaluation
of sensitive species lists from Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGFD) and the Coronado National Forest (Andy Holdsworth, personal
communication).
A fourth source of information was used only for our final interview concerning plants. Ms. Sabra Schwartz generated a list of plant species in the AGFD Heritage Data Management System for Pima County. Ms. Sue Rutman reviewed this list during her interview.
Biological experts were interviewed to obtain information on various species of concern within Pima County. Personal interviews were conducted in lieu of holding a workshop for several reasons. First, an experts workshop had been recently conducted by The Nature Conservancy to identify conservation priorities for the Sonoran Desert eco-region, which includes a large portion of Pima County (see Previous Studies). This workshop included developing an extensive list of species and habitats considered to be threatened within the study area. Holding another workshop to go over these same issues would be considered redundant by most experts, and they may not be interested in participating. Second, holding personal interviews streamlined the process of gathering information by allowing each individual to set a time and place to meet that was convenient to their own schedules. Finally, interviews with individual experts allowed the interview team to hold discussions in greater detail and depth than a workshop would allow.
Many of the species listed in The Nature Conservancy and The Wildlands Project reports are not found in Pima County or the United States. Those that do range into Pima County were generally discussed during our interviews. On a number of occasions, we asked the experts about certain species mentioned in previous investigations. This was particularly true of species in the Coalition list because this was the only previous list which focused on this county's biodiversity.
Thirteen people were interviewed based on their knowledge and expertise regarding six different taxa of animals including mammals, birds, herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians), fish, invertebrates and plants/plant communities. A list of those interviewed is displayed in Table 2. A series of forms were mailed to each individual for them to fill out prior to the interview (see Attachment A in Appendix A -- PDF document). The forms were designed to obtain basic information on species such as common and scientific names, current State or Federal status, habitat and management needs, and the general location and distribution of the species within Pima County.
These forms helped staff organize and prioritize each individual species described during the interviews. Because of the potential for separating the SDCP into phases, staff decided to define the county into two regions, Eastern and Western Pima County 1. This made it necessary to identify the location or locations where the plants and animals can be found, so that each species will be planned for within the proper phase of the SDCP. The distribution of each species within its general range is useful information for determining the status of each individual species and directing conservation planning activities. Species which are narrowly distributed will have different protection and recovery needs than those that are more widely distributed.
Interviews were held on an individual basis. Dr. William Shaw from the University of Arizona and Julia Fonseca and David Scalero from the Pima County Flood Control District were responsible for conducting the interviews of each biological expert. Interviews were performed in person, when possible, or over the phone. Information gathered was placed on the form shown in Attachment B, located in Appendix A (PDF document).
A species database was created to facilitate work performed by Pima County staff regarding information on species defined for the SDCP. Information stored on each species includes the name (both scientific and common), type (mammal, bird, etc.), status (global, federal and state), location in Pima County, distribution, habitat needs, general comments, and categories (vulnerable, keystone, etc.). The database allows staff to quickly respond to information requests for species information. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and can easily be expanded to incorporate other types of information not listed above.
During formal meetings held from May through October 1999, the Science and Technical Advisory Team (STAT) reviewed the preliminary lists of plants and animals presented within the first draft of this report. After review of these lists, the STAT proposed reorganizing the species into lists based on the following criteria: (1) sensitive species/biodiversity vulnerability (with priority given to the most vulnerable); (2) spatial scale species (e.g. large animals with large home ranges such as mountain lions) and/or animals of special social significance; (3) species which adversely affect vulnerable species (e.g. exotics); and (4) surrogate species. The new criteria are described in more detail in Sections 4.0 and 8.1 through 8.3 of this report. In Section 7.0, the STAT recommended that the title "Exotic Species" be changed to "Pest Species" because they thought it would be a more appropriate representation. A subcommittee was created by STAT to place all of the proposed plants and animals, including those on the threatened and endangered list, in the appropriate new categories. In addition to reorganizing the tables, STAT also recommended additional species to be considered for the conservation plan, which are included in the new tables.
Supplementary information was gathered by staff to help fill
in some of the data gaps. Scientific and common names of plants
and animals were generally determined using the following references:
Plant communities were identified using "Biotic Communities
of the American Southwest" (Brown, 1982) and information
provided during the interviews. Draft tables were reviewed for
accuracy by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and members of
the Science Technical Advisory Team.